Google takes the EU's Android and Search data orders to the General Court

An Android owner speaks to the phone, an assistant other than Gemini answers, and it goes on to finish a task inside another app. The European Commission said its Android measure, due next year, would allow that by giving competing AI assistants access to features available to Google's own services ^[4].

Google says Android is already open to other services ^[5]. Both positions can hold at once. Installing a rival app is one thing. Getting the voice activation and cross-app access that Gemini has is another, and the Commission's measure is written about the second ^[4].

Google's appeal rests on privacy and security. "We're appealing decisions that will force us to share people's private search history without sufficient anonymisation and weaken vital security protections on Android," said Oliver Bethell, Google's senior director for competition ^[3]. Google also says the search data rules lack user knowledge and consent ^[5]. The Commission had already answered that objection in July. "Importantly, the measures incorporate robust safeguards to ensure that the privacy of users, device integrity and security are protected," it wrote ^[7]. Thurrott.com, which agrees with the Commission, wrote that Google was relying on "that most spurious of excuses" ^[10].

For a rival's product team, the clause that matters is already in the order Google is fighting. It lets Google assess, before sharing any data, whether sharing with a specific third party poses serious cyber security and data protection risks ^[9]. Google's challenge goes after the anonymisation and security terms ^[3]. In my view a ruling for Google on those grounds would mean heavier anonymisation or a stricter recipient check. Either one shrinks the amount of usable data a rival engine gets.

The Commission said the search data feed is meant to "rebalance the playing field" for rival search engines ^[6]. The Android changes are also due next year ^[4]. The sources do not say whether the appeal pauses either date.

Teams planning on either measure can sort their exposure on two axes. The first is which obligation the product depends on. The Android hooks are something a user notices the day they ship. The Search data is something a user never sees directly. The second axis is whether the product works today without that obligation. Products that already work without either have the least riding on the court. An assistant that only becomes usable once it can be woken by voice depends on the court calendar. A search engine that needs the shared data to compete depends on the calendar and on passing Google's recipient check as well ^[9].