22OCT

Brussels keeps Google DMA replies sealed

2 min read

17:24UTC

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 EU questions AI labs over loss of control Jump to analysis ↓

TechnologyDeveloping

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 Belgium

Belgium

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:European Commission

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

European Commission· 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

European Centre for International Political Economy

ECIPE found nine states gave about 97% of awarded cloud lots to home providers from 2018 to 2025, and every sovereignty-framed lot went to a domestic supplier. The think tank reads sovereignty clauses as a home-bias tool that narrows competition, with a 46% sole-bidder rate on a small sample.

Mistral AI

Mistral opened a Munich industrial AI hub on 28 September with BMW and Siemens Energy work, and Germany's digital minister Karsten Wildberger praised it on the launch page. The French lab gains a German ministerial endorsement while its 21 October Nvidia partnership ties the work to US accelerators.

AWS European Sovereign Cloud

AWS will run its Brandenburg region for several hours on 24 October cut off from the AWS global backbone, with an EU-resident team. AWS says the test follows BSI's C3A criteria and will give regulators and customers verifiable evidence of separation.

Greenland government

Greenland signed a joint declaration with the EU and Denmark in September and received Virkkunen on 24 and 25 September. The Arctic Strategy now backs a cable linking Greenland directly to Europe, an alternative to Greenland Connect, which lands in Canada and Iceland.

Greek government

Kyriakos Mitsotakis inaugurated DAEDALUS at Lavrion on 19 October, a €36m machine on Nvidia GH200 chips that anchors the PHAROS AI Factory. Athens paid 65% through Greece 2.0, making national recovery money the main funder of an EU AI Factory.

ASML

ASML reported record quarterly sales of €11.66bn and said planned supply for 2027 and 2028 will not fully meet demand. It plans about 30% more capacity in 2027, and some customers want to book for 2029 and 2030.

Written with AI from Lowdown's published reporting. Not individually reviewed by an editor. Editorial standards.