The European Commission has taken its boldest step yet in its long-running battle with Google, and this time it is targeting the company’s most valuable asset: data.
According to a Reuters report, EU regulators are proposing that Google be required to give rival search engines access to its search data, including datasets used to train and power AI-driven search tools. The move falls under the bloc’s sweeping Digital Markets Act, designed to curb the dominance of Big Tech “gatekeepers.”
The proposal goes beyond vague regulatory pressure. It specifies what data must be shared, how frequently it should be provided, how it should be anonymised, and even how pricing should be structured. The goal is to enable smaller search engines and AI firms to “optimise their services” and meaningfully compete with Google’s near-monopoly in search.
Google, unsurprisingly, is pushing back. The company argues that the plan risks exposing deeply sensitive user information and undermining privacy protections, warning that Europeans trust it with searches about “health, family, and finances.”
A consultation is ongoing and will run until May, with a final decision expected in July. But beneath the legal process lies a deeper question: Is this even possible?
Because what the EU is effectively attempting is not just regulation, but a redistribution of data, of advantage, of power.
Search dominance is not simply a matter of market share; it is a function of feedback loops. Google is dominant because it has more users. It has more users because it has better results. And it has better results because it has more data. Breaking that cycle is far harder than legislating against it.
Forcing Google to share anonymised datasets might sound like a clean solution, but it runs into three structural problems.
First is the illusion of “neutral data.” Search data is not just raw input. Instead, it is context-heavy, behaviour-driven, and constantly evolving. Even anonymised, it reflects patterns built over decades of user interaction. Handing that to competitors does not instantly level the playing field; it simply gives them fragments of a system they did not build.
Second is the privacy paradox. The EU is simultaneously the world’s strictest defender of data protection and now its most aggressive advocate for data-sharing mandates. The idea that sensitive search behaviour can be fully anonymised and safely redistributed is, at best, optimistic. At worst, it is contradictory.
Third and most overlooked is the innovation dilemma. If companies know that any competitive advantage they build through data will eventually be shared with rivals, what incentive remains to invest at scale? Google has poured billions into infrastructure, AI, and indexing systems precisely because it could internalise the benefits. Strip that away, and you risk slowing the very innovation regulators claim to protect.
This is not to defend Google’s dominance. The company has already paid over €9 billion in EU antitrust fines and remains under constant scrutiny for anti-competitive practices.
But there is a difference between disciplining dominance and attempting to re-engineer it.
What Brussels is proposing begins to look less like a market correction and more like market design, where regulators do not just set rules but actively redistribute the inputs of competition. History suggests that such interventions rarely produce the intended results. Telecom unbundling, for instance, created short-term competition but often failed to sustain long-term innovation. Financial data-sharing regimes have improved access but introduced new systemic risks.
The uncomfortable truth is that Google’s dominance may not be entirely due to regulation. It may simply be the outcome of scale, infrastructure, and compounding data advantages that are extremely difficult to replicate, even with regulatory help. Which raises the final, unavoidable question: if competitors need Google’s data to compete with Google, are they truly competitors at all?
The EU’s ambition is understandable. But ambition alone does not guarantee feasibility. And in trying to open Google’s vault, Europe may discover that the real challenge is not access but replication.
Get the latest news and insights that are shaping the world. Subscribe to Impact Newswire to stay informed and be part of the global conversation.
Got a story to share? Pitch it to us at info@impactnews-wire.com and reach the right audience worldwide
Emmanuel Abara Benson is a business journalist and editor covering artificial intelligence, global markets, and emerging technology.
He has previously worked with Business Insider Africa and Nairametrics, reporting on finance, startups, and innovation.
His work focuses on AI, digital economy, and global tech trends.
Discover more from Impact Newswire
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
