What is this proceeding about?

Google is the search engine with the largest market share worldwide. Google is also increasingly relying on AI as a search application. Google’s market power makes it difficult for alternative search engines and AI providers to gain significant market share.

To open up the market for search engine AI applications and keep it as open as possible, Google must, among other things,

1. in accordance with Article 6(7) of the DMA, grant third-party providers access to its system, which is to ensure interoperability. This pertains in particular to functions used by Google’s own AI services, such as Gemini. In doing so, Google may not treat third-party providers less favorably than its own Google services. As part of the clarification process, the exact manner in which Google must implement this obligation under the DMA is now to be specified.
2. Pursuant to Article 6(11) of the DMA, Google must grant providers of alternative search engines access to anonymized ranking, query, click, and view data held by Google Search. Google must grant this access under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms.

So far, it remains unclear what data Google must share and how personal data must be anonymized so that the shared dataset remains usable. To ensure that Article 6(11) of the DMA actually promotes innovation and contributes to greater competition in the search engine market, the ranking, query, click, and view data that Google makes available to third parties must be usable. They must not be rendered unusable by excessive anonymization under the guise of data protection.

At the same time, the protection of personal data contained in these datasets must, of course, be safeguarded. The Commission is now seeking to resolve this tension, among other issues, through this proceeding by clarifying the requirements for the anonymization of ranking, query, click, and view data.

It comes as no surprise that opinions differ on what exactly constitutes fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory conditions. In this procedure, the European Commission therefore also intends to clarify what is meant by these terms.

What happens next?

At this stage, the focus is not yet on determining a violation or imposing a fine. The goal of the proceedings is to work with Google to define technical requirements for compliance with Article 6, paragraphs 7 and 11, of the DMA. The choice of this procedure is likely based on strategic considerations. The effective implementation of the obligations under Article 6(7) and (11) of the DMA and thus effective competition may be achieved more quickly this way than through an investigation and fine proceeding. The outcome of an investigation and fine proceeding would be a finding of a possible violation and, if applicable, the imposition of a fine. It would not yet be clear how the violation can and must be remedied.

Both procedures are to be completed within six months. To this end, the European Commission will present Google with a preliminary draft of the measures it deems necessary. Third parties may comment on the measures proposed by the Commission. Non-confidential summaries will be published for this purpose.

If Google fails to comply with the requirements, the European Commission may initiate formal proceedings, which could result in substantial fines.

Charlotte Werther, LL.M., is a lawyer and research associate at the Open Search Foundation e.V. As part of the PriDI project, she focuses on designing an open search infrastructure that complies with fundamental rights.