17JUN

Brussels keeps Google DMA replies sealed

2 min read

10:21UTC

The Commission's public consultation on Google's DMA Article 6(11) search-data obligation closed on Friday 1 May; Brussels has not published the submissions, citing Alphabet's right of reply.

← Back to Three records fall in one afternoon Jump to analysis ↓

SportDeveloping

Key takeaway

Brussels has sealed the Google DMA submissions until the binding decision lands on 27 July.

The DMA.100209 public consultation on Google's search-data sharing obligation closed on Friday 1 May⁠¹. The European Commission has not published the submissions, citing Alphabet's right of reply. The consultation was opened on 16 April on the back of the preliminary measures the Commission served on Alphabet; the binding decision is due Monday 27 July.

The sealed submissions are the only public window onto how rivals, advertisers and search-data clients argue the Article 6(11) interoperability test. Holding them back until Alphabet replies narrows what civil society and Brussels press can scrutinise before adoption. The 27 July ruling lands three days after the United States Trade Representative's Section 301 final determination on EU digital rules. The order in which those two outputs arrive, and what Washington says about tariff posture in between, is the political weather under which Brussels writes the EU's first cloud-AI gatekeeper remedy.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

One of the EU's rules for large tech companies (the Digital Markets Act) requires Google to share its search data with rival search engines and comparison services, so competitors can improve their products. A public consultation on exactly what data Google must share closed on 1 May 2026. Normally, the Commission publishes consultation responses so the public can see what companies and civil society said. In this case, it has not done so yet, citing Google's legal right to respond to any submissions before they are published. The binding decision on what Google must actually do is due on 27 July 2026. The sealed submissions mean no one outside the Commission currently knows the arguments Google has made in its defence, or what its rivals have demanded.

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources from Qatar, United States and 1 more

United States×2

Qatar

United Kingdom

LeftRight

Consensus view: EUI (European University Institute) Florence School of Regulation's Pier Luigi Parcu argues the Commission's decision to withhold consultation submissions on the basis of Alphabet's right-of-reply procedural guarantee is legally defensible under DMA Article 34, but sets a disclosure precedent that weakens the Act's credibility as a transparent enforcement regime: the same provision is available to Apple, Amazon, and Meta in their own open proceedings.

Counter-view: US Chamber of Commerce Europe's Marjorie Chorlins contends the sealed consultation is consistent with standard European administrative law and no different from the pre-publication phase of an OFCOM investigation in the UK, and that reading it as a threat to transparency reflects a misunderstanding of how EU administrative procedure works in adversarial enforcement contexts.

Key tension: Whether the Commission's procedural orthodoxy protects enforcement integrity or creates an opacity norm that enables companies to delay disclosure of compliance arguments for months after public consultation closes.

Sources:Al Jazeera·KQED·Fox News

Mentions:European Commission →Google →Digital Markets Act →Meta →United States →Section 301 →Alphabet →Washington →Apple →Amazon →European University Institute →DMA.100209 →USTR →

First Reported In

Update #4 · CISPE moves first; Brussels misses again

Al Jazeera· 7 May 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

DMA clock starts toward six-day AI Act collision

The DMA.100209 consultation closure on 1 May is the next procedural step after the Commission opened the Google search-data consultation on 16 April; the Commission's withholding of submissions advances the file toward the 27 July binding decision.

Occurred 16 Apr 2026

Read story →

This Event

Brussels keeps Google DMA replies sealed

The withheld responses are the only public window onto how Commission rivals and clients argue search-data interoperability before the binding decision lands on 27 July.

Different Perspectives

French Football Federation

The FFF called an 11:00 CEST press conference for 28 July, at its Paris headquarters, following an extraordinary executive committee meeting, at which Zinedine Zidane is expected to be presented as head coach succeeding Didier Deschamps. As of this writing no communique confirms the appointment, contract length or start date.

Morocco

Morocco is pushing for the 2030 final at its Grand Stade Hassan II in Casablanca, a planned 115,000-seat venue that would be the world's largest football stadium on completion. The venue is contested by a Spanish petition for the Santiago Bernabeu, and FIFA has fixed neither the venue nor the tournament's proposed 64-team format.

FIFA

FIFA's first tournament report, published 27 July, itemises nearly 300,000 accredited personnel, 73,700 security staff and 300,000 square metres of custom-grown turf, with no revenue or cost figure attached. As a Swiss association answering to its own Congress rather than a treasury, FIFA has followed the same operational-before-financial sequence it used after Qatar 2022.

Javier Tebas / La Liga

La Liga president Javier Tebas said on 21 July that FIFA's system is rotten from the root and that Gianni Infantino's time as president has, in his words, concluded. Tebas has no vote in FIFA's process, so days after the IOC declined jurisdiction over a separate ethics complaint, he used the only instrument he has.

Mexico City government

Head of government Clara Brugada presented a closing report on 22 July crediting the tournament with 44 billion pesos of economic activity, 2,000-plus accelerated public works and 100,000 formal jobs in June alone. The city has not published the method behind that figure, and three other Mexican bodies count the same five weeks differently.

Town of Foxborough

Foxborough answered Kraft Group's June lawsuit on 7 July with a 61-page counterclaim, calling the stadium's owners 'a collection of multibillion-dollar corporations' trying to shift its $7.8 million security bill onto taxpayers. The town says its licensing power and its billing power run through the same board, and it wants the court to award its own costs too.