The EU Is Forcing Google to Open Android and Search Data to AI Rivals

Android's AI gate is being forced open

On most Android phones, Google's Gemini can sit close to the operating system. It can respond to a wake phrase, read on-screen context with permission, work across apps and perform background tasks. Rival assistants may be available as apps, but they do not necessarily receive the same depth of access.

The European Union has now turned that imbalance into a binding competition issue. On July 16, the European Commission adopted two sets of specifications under the Digital Markets Act that tell Google how it must open Android and Google Search to competitors.

What will change on Android?

Google must make 11 Android capabilities available to qualifying rival AI assistants. The measures are designed to let a user choose another assistant and still access important system functions, including voice activation and tasks that cross into third-party apps.

A rival assistant could, for example, respond to a voice command and complete a restaurant or taxi booking without being treated as a second-class app. The Android requirements are expected to reach users with the next major Android iteration in July 2027.

This is not an order to remove Gemini. It is an order to give competitors a technically meaningful opportunity to serve as the user's main assistant.

Google Search data will also be shared

The second measure targets an advantage that is harder to see: the enormous volume of interaction data Google uses to improve Search. From January 2027, Google must make certain anonymised search data available to eligible rival search engines and AI services with search features.

That could help companies improve ranking, relevance and answers without first accumulating decades of their own query and click history. The Commission will use a pricing formula rather than requiring unlimited free access.

The change is particularly important as AI assistants increasingly answer questions directly. The contest is no longer only between blue-link search engines. It also includes systems such as ChatGPT and other AI products that retrieve and summarise information.

Why this could reshape mobile AI

System access can decide which assistant becomes useful enough to remain a habit. A product that can be launched hands-free, understand the current screen and act across apps has an advantage over one confined to its own window.

By forcing interoperability, the EU is trying to separate ownership of Android from automatic dominance in AI assistance. If implementation works, European users may gain more meaningful choice, while smaller developers could build assistants around specialised languages, professions or accessibility needs.

The privacy and security dispute is real

Google argues that the requirements could expose private searches, weaken device safeguards and reveal business-sensitive information. A poorly secured assistant with deep system privileges could create new routes for data theft, manipulation or accidental disclosure.

The Commission says access will not be automatic. Competitors must meet privacy and security criteria, data must be anonymised, and Google may assess whether an applicant creates cybersecurity or data-protection risks.

Anonymisation is not perfect, however. Detailed datasets can sometimes reveal patterns about individuals or organisations when combined with other information. Regulators will therefore have to test the safeguards in practice, not merely specify them on paper.

A major experiment in platform competition

The rules apply in the European Union and will arrive in stages, so their global effect remains uncertain. Google may also challenge details or interpret technical requirements narrowly, while rivals must prove they can build safe products that users actually prefer.

Still, the decision establishes an important principle for the AI era: owning the operating system and the largest search dataset should not automatically determine which assistant can compete. The next battle will be over whether technical implementation delivers the choice promised by regulation.