16APR

Brussels keeps Google DMA replies sealed

2 min read

14:27UTC

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 Treasury kills the Russian crude waiver Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

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

Bulgarian government

Bulgaria's Prime Minister, Rumen Radev, said the sinking of HS Dignity "benefits the Russian Federation" while saying Bulgaria lacked solid evidence to accuse anyone, and Defence Minister Dimitar Stoyanov asked NATO for air defence on 16 October. The request comes from a government that stopped state military aid to Ukraine in June.

Radoslaw Sikorski

Poland's foreign minister challenged Elon Musk on X after SpaceX capped Ukraine's Starshield terminals on 14 October. Poland pays about $50m a year for Ukraine's Starlink subscriptions, so Warsaw speaks as the paying customer as well as the ally.

Andy Burnham

Burnham fast-tracked £10m of a £45m air-defence missile delivery when Zelenskyy visited London on 14 October, and his ministers are lobbying allies to ban maritime services for Russian liquefied natural gas. The measure targets insurers and shipowners, many of them in London, rather than the gas itself.

Ministry of External Affairs (India)

India's foreign ministry said after the 16 September House vote that New Delhi would take all necessary measures to protect its trade.

European Council

EU leaders on 15-16 October rejected a US idea to hand Washington the roughly €200bn of frozen Russian assets held in Europe, and Kaja Kallas said the decision belongs to Europeans. The same summit put off a decision on financing Ukraine, saying leaders "will revert to the issue in a timely manner".

Donald Trump

Trump signed the 16 October order that sets the Graham Act's duties and waives them under section 115(a), with a certification sent to Congress. He says the United States has not stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine, and on 11 October he said both sides had agreed to halt attacks on energy infrastructure.

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