Google Challenges EU Orders on Android AI Access

Google has filed two appeals with the European Union’s General Court in Luxembourg, challenging orders that would require it to grant rival artificial intelligence (AI) assistants access to certain features of its Android operating system. The move comes as part of a broader effort by the EU to promote competition and fairness in the digital market.

The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) requires Google to open up eleven key features on Android, including microphone, camera, screen contents, and wake-word detection, to competing AI assistants such as ChatGPT and Perplexity. This would allow these rivals to function more seamlessly within the operating system, potentially giving them an edge over Google’s own Gemini assistant.

The orders also require Google to share anonymized search data with rival search engines and AI chatbots from January 2027 onwards. However, Google has argued that this would compromise user privacy, as it would involve sharing sensitive information without adequate safeguards in place.

Oliver Bethell, Google’s senior director for competition, described the potential consequences of mandating such a move as ‘irreversible harm to user privacy.’ The company’s public statement echoed these concerns, stating that the orders would force it to share people’s private search history without sufficient anonymization and weaken vital security protections on Android.

The EU Commission has responded by pointing out that it has developed specific safeguards for anonymizing search data, which are designed to strip identifying signals before any query reaches a competitor. However, Google remains opposed to these measures, arguing that they do not go far enough in protecting user privacy.

One of the key issues at stake is parity between Google’s Gemini assistant and its rivals. Currently, Gemini has privileged access to certain features on Android, such as being able to listen for wake words with the screen off or read what’s on the screen. The DMA aims to erase this kind of gap by requiring Google to grant similar access to competing AI assistants.

The case is significant because it marks a shift in focus from earlier EU actions against Google’s search and Android business, which were primarily concerned with distribution deals and default placement. This time around, the Commission is tackling raw system access – the underlying wiring that makes an assistant feel native rather than bolted on.

Google’s appeal does not pause the Commission’s order, as EU law requires that deadlines be met unless a court explicitly grants interim relief. The January 2027 deadline for sharing anonymized search data and the August 2027 deadline for opening up Android features to rival AI assistants remain in place, pending the outcome of Google’s appeal.

DuckDuckGo, a company known for its no-AI search page, has already sided with Brussels on this issue. A spokesperson for DuckDuckGo stated that the anonymization rules proposed by the Commission are sound and that Google’s appeal would only delay the inevitable – not change the outcome.

The spike in traffic to DuckDuckGo’s No AI search page following Google’s latest AI-heavy Search announcements is a telling indicator of growing demand for search products that make AI optional. While this does not yet threaten Google’s dominance, it highlights an emerging trend where users are seeking more control over their online experience and the data they share.

The Android order has significant implications for how people find and use AI on their devices. With roughly seven out of ten smartphones worldwide running on Android, granting rival AI assistants access to key features could fundamentally reshape the competitive landscape in this space.

If OpenAI, Perplexity or Anthropic can gain similar hooks into the operating system as Gemini currently enjoys, it would effectively level the playing field for default AI assistant on a phone. This is what makes Google’s appeal so critical – if they succeed, their Android advantage in AI could be preserved; but if they fail, it would become just another feature to compete on.

While Google’s privacy concerns are not entirely unfounded, some observers believe that its objections may also serve as a delay tactic rather than a genuine safety concern. The Commission has built safeguards into the anonymization scheme specifically designed to address these worries, including allowing Google to assess whether a given recipient poses a security risk before handing over data.

The case now enters the General Court’s process, which typically takes well over a year to produce a ruling. If Google loses this appeal, it can still seek further review with the European Court of Justice after that. Meanwhile, the clock set by the Commission remains ticking – Android 18 is due to ship with those eleven features opened up by next August unless Google convinces the court to freeze the order while the underlying case plays out.