Google has decided to challenge Brussels in European courts over two decisions that require it to open Android features to rival AI assistants and share certain search engine data with competitors. The company filed its appeals with the General Court of the European Union at the end of September, after the European Commission approved the measures in July under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
The dispute is divided into two distinct fronts : third-party AI services accessing Android system capabilities currently associated with Gemini, and the sharing of search data with rival search engines and chatbots, including OpenAI and ChatGPT. Brussels maintains that the orders include safeguards for the privacy, security, and integrity of devices; Google argues otherwise and warns that they could weaken user protections.
Google appeals to the General Court of Luxembourg
The appeals are directed against the two decisions adopted by the European Commission on July 16 in application of the Directive . The company has taken the case to the General Court, based in Luxembourg. The appeal expands the dispute between Google and European regulators over the scope and application of the regulation, and no date has yet been announced for the court to issue its ruling.
This is not a ruling or a premature victory: it is a legal appeal that opens a new procedural chapter . While it is being resolved, the debate continues to focus on whether the European requirements are proportionate or whether, as the company argues, they end up shifting too many risks onto users and mobile phone manufacturers.
Android: Rival assistants and more interoperability
In the first section, the Commission wants to ensure that choosing an AI assistant other than Google's doesn't leave you out in the cold. The measure aims to allow rival services to effectively access key system functions and perform tasks similar to those already carried out by Gemini and Google Assistant , such as voice activation or integration with phone apps. The idea is that users can explicitly consent to this access, rather than relying on the manufacturer's or platform's discretion.
Google counters that Android is already an open ecosystem for other assistants and that granting deep permissions to third parties could weaken mobile security. Brussels, on the other hand, maintains that the orders incorporate safeguards to protect the integrity of devices and users. The sticking point is precisely whether these permissions can be granted with sufficient guarantees.
Search data: conditional access and anonymization
The second front concerns search. The Commission is demanding that Google share certain data with competing search engines , including chatbots that offer search functionality, such as OpenAI or ChatGPT. The stated objective is to enable them to better interpret queries and provide more useful results. Access would not be universal or free: it would be subject to conditions and safeguards established by Brussels.
The Commission is considering anonymizing data before sharing it, as well as assessing serious cybersecurity or data protection risks linked to a specific recipient. Google argues that this is insufficient and that sharing personal histories without adequate anonymization would open the door to irreversible damage to privacy. Anonymization has thus become the red line in the debate.
Privacy, security and competition: clash of versions
Oliver Bethell, Google's senior head of competition, has been the company's public face in this dispute. He has warned that the measures would force users to share their private search history without sufficient anonymization and would weaken essential Android protections. He has also pointed out that users make personal searches and that handing over this information without safeguards could cause irreparable harm.
The European Commission maintains that both decisions incorporate safeguards for privacy, security, and device integrity. In the case of search data, it insists that it would be anonymized. For Android users, the measure aims to facilitate interoperability between rival assistants; for search, it aims to allow certain competitors to receive data from Google Search under certain conditions.
The legal process also affects competition. Rivals like OpenAI and ChatGPT are at the center of the debate because they could benefit from access to data and functions, but practical application won't be immediate: it will depend on interested companies developing alternatives that take advantage of this framework. Regulatory theory and market reality are not progressing at the same pace.
For European users, the change could translate into more options when choosing an assistant and search services with more information to improve their answers. However, this doesn't mean new features will appear overnight. The ball is in the court of the General Court, and in the meantime, Brussels and Google maintain opposing positions on privacy, security, and competition.
All this activity paints a multi-layered picture: Google is trying to curb obligations it considers intrusive, the Commission argues that its framework protects users and opens the door to more competitors, and competitors see access that could shift the balance of AI and search in Europe. What happens in Luxembourg will set the tone for a battle that goes far beyond a simple legal challenge and affects how assistants and data are used on mobile devices.
