On January 27, 2026, the European Commission started two “specification proceedings” with Google under the Digital Markets Act (DMA). In plain terms, the Commission is formalising a process to spell out what compliance should look like, without yet taking a position on whether Google is compliant.
Android interoperability (Article 6(7)): focusing on free and effective interoperability with hardware/software features controlled by Android—especially features used by Google’s AI services (e.g., Gemini)—and what “equally effective access” should mean for third-party AI providers.
Search data sharing (Article 6(11)): focusing on FRAND access (fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms) to anonymized ranking, query, click, and view data held by Google Search, plus whether AI chatbot providers should qualify for access to that dataset.
The Commission expects to share preliminary findings and draft measures within about three months. It then plans to conclude within about six months. It will also publish non-confidential summaries so third parties can comment.
If this leads to clearer rules on what data can be shared, who can access it, and how it must be anonymized, it could change the economics and accuracy of competitive search tools over time.
Why the DMA Exists
The DMA is the EU’s rulebook for large gatekeeper platforms. The goal is to reduce situations where a dominant platform can set the rules of competition just because it controls the infrastructure.
Search and mobile operating systems are two of the biggest examples, because they influence discovery, distribution, and what businesses can realistically build.
What Access to Anonymized Search Data Actually Means
When people hear “Google has to share search data,” it’s easy to imagine a firehose of raw keyword logs. That’s not what this process is about.
The Commission is trying to specify what “access” means in practice: the scope of the dataset, how anonymization works, the conditions of access (FRAND), and who qualifies to request it—including whether AI chatbot providers count.
If that gets nailed down, it’ll likely look like a structured, standardized dataset or interface describing search behavior at scale — not “everything Google knows.”
That’s exactly why the SEO tooling world should care. Most tools today are built on a patchwork of signals: what they can scrape, what users share, what clickstream providers offer, what partnerships allow, and what models can infer.
Some of that works surprisingly well. Some of it breaks the moment Google changes layouts, adds AI features, or throttles certain query types. A FRAND-style access obligation is different.
It’s not meant to help SEOs. It’s meant to reduce situations where only one company can build the best map of the market because it owns the underlying terrain.
The Part Many People Miss: It’s Not Just Search Engines
In the Commission’s own framing of this proceeding, it’s also looking at whether AI chatbot providers should qualify for access to this search dataset. This also lands amid wider EU scrutiny of how AI services are built and integrated, including how web content may be used in AI systems.
That matters long-term, because it hints at how regulators are starting to see the search ecosystem. Search data isn’t only a search engine input. It can also feed AI systems that answer questions, summarize web content, or route discovery in new ways.
If AI assistants become a bigger discovery layer, then who has access to behavioral search data matters more.
The Tension: “Anonymized” is Doing a Lot of Work
The Commission is explicitly balancing data access with privacy and security concerns. Google has pushed back publicly, arguing that expanding access could create risks for user privacy and security, and could also chill innovation.
That tension may determine what happens. Access could end up meaning aggregated, delayed, or thresholded data rather than anything close to real-time, query-level rawness. The details are the whole story.
Plausible Outcomes (What This Could Turn Into)
Nobody knows the exact shape of search data access yet. That’s why the EU is doing specification proceedings.
Still, based on how regulators usually balance competition vs privacy, you can sketch a few plausible outcomes. These aren’t official options from the Commission, just reasonable scenarios that show the range.
In a conservative outcome, access becomes tightly bound.
You might see things like the following.
Highly aggregated data (category-level, not query-level).
Strong thresholds (only shown when volumes are high enough to avoid re-identification).
Time delays (weekly/monthly lag rather than real time).
A narrow definition of who qualifies as an eligible third party.
This outcome establishes the principle and creates a compliance pathway. But it doesn’t immediately rewrite the SEO tools market.
We may see modest improvements in validation and benchmarking, not a revolution. Tools that already have strong datasets keep their advantage, but they gain a new baseline to cross-check against.
This is the outcome most operators should take seriously, because it’s where the ecosystem starts to change.
Here, the Commission could push toward something like the following.
A standardized data schema (clear definitions of ranking/click/view metrics).
Clear eligibility rules (who can access and on what terms).
A controlled delivery method (API, dashboard, or periodic exports).
FRAND terms that prevent “pay-to-win access” or discriminatory restrictions.
This doesn’t mean raw search logs. It means consistent, structured visibility into search behavior at a level competitors can build around.
This would mean differentiation shifts for tooling. “We have the data” becomes less of a moat, and “we interpret it best” becomes more of the moat. That’s a market shakeup, even if it takes time.
This is the scenario Google will fight hardest, because it most directly threatens Google’s data and measurement advantages.
In an aggressive outcome, access might be broad enough that the following occurs.
More granular slices become available (within strict anonymity constraints).
A wider set of companies qualifies, potentially including more AI discovery/chat products.
The dataset becomes good enough to support competitive alternatives that feel close to Google’s own internal view.
That doesn’t mean anyone gets the keys to the kingdom, but it could create a noticeable step-change in what third parties can build.
For tooling, it could mean some existing moats shrink fast, and new players can compete on product experience and intelligence rather than proprietary data scarcity.
Who This Affects First (and Why That Matters)
The groups closest to the measurement layer will feel the impact first. SEO tool companies and analytics vendors should watch this like a hawk because their products are built on the assumption that search data is inherently scarce. Any move toward standardized access changes product strategy and pricing power.
Agencies and in-house teams doing competitive research at scale are next. If more reliable baselines exist, it affects reporting, forecasting, and how confidently teams can call wins or losses without hand-waving. Publishers who monetize through search are in the conversation too, even if indirectly.
When discovery becomes more regulated infrastructure, it tends to reshape the incentives around measurement, attribution, and what counts as fair access in the ecosystem. And then there’s AI chatbot providers. If those products start to qualify for access to key datasets, it’s a hint that regulators see AI discovery as part of the same competitive landscape.
FAQ
Is this EU-only, or could it influence Google globally?
These proceedings are under EU law, so the compliance measures are EU-scoped. Still, when a regulator defines a workable standard (especially around data access and interoperability), companies sometimes align broader product decisions to reduce fragmentation. Whether that happens here depends on what the EU ultimately specifies.
Who is likely to qualify for access to the anonymized search dataset?
The intent is access for eligible third parties on FRAND terms, but the practical question is “eligible how?” That’s one of the key details the EU is trying to specify. The outcome could limit access to a narrow set of qualified providers, or define a broader set with guardrails.
Will this change what normal users see in Google Search (like AI answers or rich results)?
Not directly. The announcement is about how Google should comply with interoperability and data-sharing obligations. Any visible product changes would be downstream effects and would depend on the measures specified and on how Google implements them.
What’s the most realistic first impact if anything changes?
If there’s an early impact, it’s more likely to show up as clarified definitions and compliance measures (what counts as access, who qualifies, what anonymization requires, and the expected delivery approach) rather than immediate, user-facing changes.
How can third parties weigh in during the process?
The Commission has said it will publish non-confidential summaries so third parties can comment. In practice, that usually means there’s a window for stakeholders to respond to the EU’s proposals before the measures are finalized.
We empower people to succeed through practical business information and essential services. If you’re looking for help with SEO, copywriting, or getting your online presence set up properly, you’re in the right place. If this piece helped, feel free to share it with someone who’d get value from it. Do you need help with something? Contact Us
Want a heads-up once a week whenever a new article drops?
