Google appeals EU search-data orders about three months before the first deadline

Google filed on 28 September ^[1], 74 days after the Commission's decision of 16 July ^[5][1]. The search-data obligation falls due in January 2027 and the Android changes in July 2027 ^[4]. That puts the first deadline three to four months after the filing and the second nine to ten months after it ^[2]. Neither report says whether Google has asked the General Court, the EU's second-highest court ^[2], to suspend either obligation while the case is heard. The Commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment ^[13].

The case can go several ways for the rival search engines and AI chatbots due to receive the data ^[6]. In the first, the deadlines hold and Google delivers in January while it litigates. In the second, the dates slip, either by court order or by agreement with the Commission. In the third, the court accepts Google's privacy argument and the specification tightens, so more is removed before any data leaves Google. In my view the third is the one rivals should plan around, because it is the outcome Google's own statement argues for.

"We're appealing decisions that will force us to share people's private search history without sufficient anonymization and weaken vital security protections on Android," Oliver Bethell, Google's senior director of competition, said in a statement ^[8]. The Commission says its aim is to give rival search and AI services enough data to improve their products ^[11]. Each protection on its list ^[9] takes something out of what those rivals receive. If Google wins the argument that the anonymisation is insufficient, rivals get less data, and perhaps get it later.

Support for the Commission's version comes from a competitor. DuckDuckGo, a search firm that emphasises privacy, backed the Commission, according to Reuters as cited by Mint ^[12]. On 29 September a DuckDuckGo spokesperson said the anonymisation framework is sound and that Google's appeal will have a major impact on implementation ^[12]. The data is meant for alternative search engines ^[11], so DuckDuckGo has a stake in both the timing and the privacy question.

For Google, the other side of the ledger is the penalty schedule. The DMA allows fines of up to 10% of annual global revenue, up to 20% for repeat infringements, and periodic penalty payments of up to 5% of average daily sales ^[14]. If that periodic cap were charged for every day of non-compliance, a year of it would total about 18 days of sales. That is roughly 5% of annual revenue, half the ceiling on a first fine ^[4]. Alphabet is a designated gatekeeper, so the schedule applies to it ^[17].

This view, that the specification matters more than the date, is wrong if the court suspends the January obligation outright. Timing would then be the only question for rivals. It is also wrong if Google hands over the dataset on the Commission's current terms in January 2027 while the case runs ^[4][9].