Google DMA Appeal Targets EU Search Data-Sharing Orders

What happened

Alphabet's Google has taken the European Commission to court over two Digital Markets Act (DMA) decisions. The decisions would force it to share search data with competitors and to open Android to rival AI assistants. Google filed the challenges at the General Court in Luxembourg, the EU's second-highest court. It argues that the orders would weaken privacy safeguards and cause irreversible harm to European users 14. Accounts differ on the filing date. One report places it on Monday 1, while others say Tuesday 24. The substance is the same in every account.

The orders date from July. Regulators told Google to help online search rivals and AI developers, including OpenAI, use services that are available to its own Gemini model 1. A Google spokesperson framed the appeal as resisting decisions that would require it to hand over people's private search history without sufficient anonymisation and would weaken security protections on Android 1.

What the Commission actually ordered

The two decisions are narrower and more technical than the headline fight suggests. They are specification decisions under Article 8(2) of the DMA. In these decisions the Commission spells out exactly how a gatekeeper must comply with obligations it already has 3.

The first concerns Article 6(7), which covers interoperability. Google must give third-party AI assistants access to eleven defined Android features on equal terms with Gemini 3. These features include voice invocation, on-device app data and proactive suggestions, in-app and system actions, and on-device models 3. Five of the features are limited to providers certified through Google's own Qualified AI Assistant Programme 3. This detail shows the Commission left Google some gatekeeping role over the most sensitive capabilities. The deadline is the next major Android release, Android 18, and no later than 1 August 2027 3.

The second concerns Article 6(11). Google must share anonymised ranking, query, click and view data with eligible rival search engines and AI chatbots 3. That obligation is due to take effect in January 2027 2.

The stay question

The most consequential detail is whether the appeal pauses anything. One report stressed that filing an appeal does not freeze compliance deadlines 2. Proceedings at the General Court typically take two to four years 2, so without a court-granted stay, ChatGPT, Claude and other rivals could start receiving EU search data on schedule in January 2. That report said no interim stay request had been filed 2.

Later reporting says that changed. Google has asked the court to suspend the search-data order through an interim measure 4. Its spokesperson argued that such relief is meant for cases posing a risk of serious harm, and that the 6(11) data-sharing obligation fits that description because of the privacy stakes 4. The interim request appears aimed at the search-data order specifically 4. That is notable because the Android interoperability deadline sits months further out.

Why it matters

Search data is arguably the core asset behind Google's dominance. Query logs, click patterns and ranking signals show a search engine what users want and which results satisfy them. Rivals have long argued that this scale advantage is self-reinforcing: more users produce better data, which produces better results, which attract more users. The DMA's data-sharing obligation is designed to break that loop. Extending eligibility to AI chatbots means the order could feed directly into the products now competing with Google for how people find information.

Google's privacy argument is not frivolous. Anonymising search logs is notoriously hard, because queries can reveal identities, health conditions and locations. Still, the argument is convenient. The Commission's decision already requires anonymisation 3, so the dispute is less about whether data should be protected than about who decides when it is protected enough.

Reading the move

In this analysis, the interim-measure request matters more than the appeal itself. A multi-year court case on the merits would leave the January 2027 deadline intact. A stay would effectively hand Google that time, potentially delaying access for rivals well beyond the date regulators set. Critics will see this as a delay tactic, and the timing supports that reading. The bar for interim relief in EU courts is high, though. Google must show urgency and serious, irreparable harm, not merely disagreement with the rules.

If the court refuses the stay, Google will have to comply while it litigates. In that case the practical outcome will depend on how much usable data survives anonymisation. If the court grants the stay, the DMA's flagship attempt to open up search could stall just as AI assistants are becoming credible alternatives. In either case, the interim ruling will indicate how far EU judges are willing to let gatekeepers slow DMA enforcement by challenging it in court.