On 16th July 2026, Under the Digital Markets Act, the European Commission issued two binding orders against Google. One forces the company to hand anonymized search data to rivals. The other forces Android to treat competing AI assistants the way it treats Gemini. Neither is fine. Both are just structural - and Structural remedies are the ones that actually change markets.
The Data Moat
The search advantage of Google is not an algorithm but rather a feedback loop: More users lead to more searches, more searches lead to improved rankings, and improved rankings attract more users. All competitors begin with nothing, and this is the reason why all challengers have been unsuccessful in their endeavors for two decades despite their engineering skills.
Starting in January 2027, Google will be required to make anonymized search data available to some of its competitors. The stated reason for this move by the Commission is that Google is sitting on top of a data stockpile that no competitor can build up realistically.
The Distribution Moat
The second directive applies to the phone in your hands. The Commission determined that other AI agents besides those from Google could not function on the Android operating system like Gemini. Under the new directives, Android would have to accommodate alternatives to the voice activation of assistants – the "Hey Google" stance will no longer hold – and allow them to carry out background operations, such as reserving a restaurant via third party applications.
This is more important than it seems. Default location holds the most prized real estate in consumer software. Whoever controls the assistant's default location on about three billion smartphones controls how many billions of people develop a habit with an AI model. These changes to Android are anticipated to affect consumers starting from July 2027.
Google's Counterargument
According to Kent Walker, president of global affairs at Alphabet, the remedy is trading one evil for another, whereby Europeans searching online and exposed to companies they do not recognize are not adequately anonymized or with the consent of users, exposing potential dangers to trade secrets and national security.
It may well be true if it is viewed in the light-hearted view of things. But if viewed cynically, privacy is the best defense argument that an incumbent has when he is using his data monopoly.
Why this is the pattern, Not the exception
The Google orders come together with Brussels requiring interoperability from Apple's hardware and pushing Meta to disassemble engagement features such as infinite scroll. The rationale behind the DMA is clear: regulate the chokepoint, not the product. Data access, default access, operating system access.
The moves are legally binding but not part of an actual investigation process, which means there will be no fines imposed for now – although more could be done. Washington has protested strongly, claiming the DMA as targeting U.S. companies.
The more general issue is whether forced access will lead to competitive outcomes that the market did not deliver. Europe has chosen to conduct this experiment with the two most profitable moats in consumer technology. The results will be seen starting 2027.
