Google appeals EU DMA rulings: ordered to share search data from January 2027
Alphabet's Google has appealed the EU's two DMA decisions from July to the General Court in Luxembourg. The company claims the orders force it to share private search histories without adequate anonymisation and weaken Android's security.
Alphabet's Google has appealed the EU's two DMA decisions from July to the General Court in Luxembourg. The company claims the orders force it to share private search histories without adequate anonymisation and weaken Android's security. The Commission and DuckDuckGo respond that the safeguards are robust – and that the appeal primarily buys time. The outcome will collide with two concrete deadlines: January and July 2027.
Google has appealed the EU's two implementation decisions under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to the General Court in Luxembourg, Europe's second-highest court, Reuters reports. The challenge was filed on Monday and publicly confirmed on Tuesday, 29 September (Reuters via MSN).
In July, the Commission ordered Google to take two measures under the DMA, the EU rulebook designed to curb the market power of the largest technology companies. One requires Google to share search data with qualified search rivals with effect from January 2027. The other is meant to open Android to third-party AI assistants, with effect from July 2027 (Reuters via Economic Times, Bloomberg via The Hindu BusinessLine). According to Reuters, the orders also cover AI developers such as OpenAI, who are to receive help accessing services to which Google's own Gemini model already has access (Reuters via MSN).
What the decisions actually require
In its ruling of 16 July, the Commission determined that Google must provide anonymised information about search traffic to qualified search competitors – that is, data on queries, rankings, clicks and impressions (Live Mint via MSN). The background is that only Google Search can today gather this type of data at scale – particularly data from AI chatbots – giving the company a competitive advantage, Bloomberg writes (The Hindu BusinessLine).
The purpose, according to the Commission, is to "rebalance the competitive playing field", as it was phrased in the July decision (Economic Times).
The second decision concerns Android. In July, the Commission said Google must, within 12 months, allow users to activate their preferred AI assistant via voice command. The changes are to take effect in July next year, and Brussels expressed hope that they would lead to alternatives to Google's own AI services, such as Gemini (Economic Times, The Hindu BusinessLine).
Google's rationale: private search histories and Android security
Google frames the appeal as a privacy matter. Oliver Bethell, the company's senior director for competition, said in a statement:
"We are appealing decisions that would force us to share people's private search histories without adequate anonymisation, and that weaken important security protections on Android."
The statement is quoted by Reuters (MSN).
The company additionally argues that Android is already open and interoperable, and that the EU decision nonetheless forces it to give other companies access to private search data without adequate anonymisation, without the user's awareness and without consent (Economic Times). In its statement to Reuters, Google also claimed the decisions could irreparably harm European users (MSN).
This is the company's position. Whether the anonymisation is in practice adequate is something none of the sources conclude – that is precisely the question the appeal turns on.
The Commission and DuckDuckGo: the safeguards are robust
The Commission, which enforces the DMA, has said that both measures contain robust safeguards protecting users' privacy and the integrity and security of their devices (Reuters via MSN).
A spokesperson for search engine DuckDuckGo, which has positioned itself as a critic of Google's search dominance, dismisses the privacy argument as tactics:
"The anonymisation framework is robust, and no amount of manufactured doubt changes that. All an appeal buys Google is time."
Quoted via Reuters (MSN).
It is worth noting that both sides appeal to the same values – privacy and security – while drawing opposite conclusions from the same rulebook. This is an account of conflicting claims, not of a settled truth.
Why the timing matters
The appeal comes at a critical phase of implementation. The deadlines in the decisions – January 2027 for search data sharing and July 2027 for Android interoperability – are fixed points, and a court process before the General Court may prove to last longer than the gap between the ruling and the deadlines. If the appeal does not result in a provisional suspension of the orders, Google must begin implementation while the case is ongoing. The sources say nothing concrete about whether Google will seek a suspensive effect, or whether such requests have been processed.
The case also fits into a larger pattern. According to Bloomberg, a majority of the EU's DMA decisions so far have been appealed to the courts, as technology companies seek clarity on how the rulebook should be interpreted. The same source points out that the DMA has led to a separate $1 billion fine against Google in another case, and that the rulebook has irritated the Trump administration, which considers it discriminatory against American companies (The Hindu BusinessLine). The political tension surrounding the DMA is thus part of the backdrop, even though the appeal itself is a legal rather than a diplomatic instrument.
What is confirmed – and what is claim
What is documented in the source material can be summarised as follows:
- Google has appealed the two July decisions to the General Court in Luxembourg; the appeal was filed on Monday and publicly confirmed on Tuesday, 29 September (Reuters via MSN).
- Search data sharing is to take effect in January 2027, the Android changes in July 2027 (Economic Times).
- The Commission's decision of 16 July requires anonymised information on queries, rankings, clicks and impressions to be provided to qualified search competitors (Live Mint via MSN).
- The Android order concerns voice-command activation of the user's preferred AI assistant (The Hindu BusinessLine).
Everything else of substance – that the anonymisation is not good enough, that Android is already open enough, that the safeguards are robust, that the appeal only buys time – consists of the parties' own statements. Most of the coverage traces back to a handful of statements: Bethell for Google, the Commission and a DuckDuckGo spokesperson. The sources largely build on the same Reuters dispatch, so they do not corroborate one another; they represent each side of the dispute.
Open questions
Two questions remain as the case now moves through the court system. First: how will the General Court assess the core of the appeal itself – whether the EU's anonymisation requirements are sufficient to protect private search histories, and whether the Android order actually weakens security. Second: will the deadlines hold. With a sharing obligation from January 2027 and the Android requirement from July 2027, implementation is timed in a way that makes the duration of the court process itself part of the case's outcome. The sources give no answer as to whether the orders will apply in the interim, and that will likely be among the first questions the parties must resolve.