On Monday, the European Commission published draft new regulatory measures requiring tech giant Google to open its Android operating system to competing artificial intelligence assistants. These measures outline, for the first time, the precise steps the company must take to ensure that rival applications, such as ChatGPT and Claude, receive the same level of access to device features as its own Gemini smart assistant.
These developments come at a crucial time when the pace of AI innovation is accelerating, making mobile operating system access the next battleground for major tech companies. Through these strict steps, Europe seeks to ensure that no single entity monopolizes these vital technologies, thereby opening the door for innovation and fair competition.
The Digital Markets Act serves as a powerful legislative tool specifically designed by the European Union to curb the dominance of tech giants and ensure a fair competitive environment for startups and independent developers. The Commission believes that major corporations exploiting their control over operating systems to force their own services harms innovation opportunities and limits consumer choices in the digital market.
Details of European demands to enhance interoperability
The preliminary findings, issued as part of the specification proceedings under the new law, outline how Google must comply by ensuring that competing artificial intelligence services can interact effectively with applications installed on Android devices. Under these proposed measures, competing smart assistants will be able to perform complex tasks such as sending emails, ordering food from delivery apps, and sharing photos with ease. Currently, these functions remain exclusive to the Gemini assistant thanks to deep integration at the core operating system level.
The draft includes interoperability obligations under Article 6(7) of the Digital Markets Act, targeting vital features such as voice activation, integration with system-wide search, and application programming interfaces that allow smart assistants to operate seamlessly across various mobile apps.
Technology experts have explained that opening the operating system to external developers will spark a genuine revolution in how individuals use their smartphones. For instance, users will be able to choose their preferred smart assistant as the default option for all daily tasks, ranging from reading text messages aloud while driving to controlling connected smart home devices through the phone seamlessly and securely.
Parallel legal pathways and strict timelines
In parallel, a separate legislative track addresses the company’s obligation to share anonymized search data with competitors, including AI-powered chatbots, with preliminary findings published on April 16. The Commission initiated both sets of specification proceedings on January 27, 2026, granting the American company a 6-month compliance window, which sets the deadline for a binding decision on July 27, 2026. Public consultations on the operating system interoperability measures continue until May 13.
Google’s stance and privacy concerns
For its part, the company strongly opposed these proposals. Clare Kelly, senior competition counsel at Google, described the intervention as “unjustified.” She emphasized that these regulatory measures would strip device manufacturers of their independence, mandate access to sensitive hardware and system permissions, unnecessarily increase costs, and undermine essential privacy and security protections for users on the European continent.
The company has long maintained its position that Android is an inherently “open” system, and that device manufacturers already possess complete autonomy to integrate AI experiences they deem appropriate and useful for users. However, the European Commission’s stance firmly asserts that merely downloading an AI app from the Play Store does not constitute equitable access at all, especially when such third-party apps cannot be activated via voice, granted screen-reading capabilities, or allowed to interact directly with core system apps built into the smartphone.
General landscape and consequences of non-compliance
These decisive legal actions arrive as the company completes its strategic transition from the traditional Google Assistant to the advanced Gemini assistant across more than 2 billion smart devices worldwide. Non-compliance with Digital Markets Act rules carries severe and impactful fines of up to 10 percent of the company’s total annual global turnover, escalating to 20 percent in the event of continuous repeat violations.
Conversely, Apple has faced similar regulatory pressure, having already begun allowing users in the European Union to set an alternative default voice assistant to Siri. This stark contrast in approach—with some companies moving proactively while others object to requirements—may shape how regulators proceed as the crucial July deadline approaches. These decisions will undoubtedly have a profound and lasting impact on the future of mobile technology and artificial intelligence applications globally, not just on the European continent.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the European Commission demanding from Google?
The European Commission is demanding that Google grant competing AI applications the same level of access and functionality enjoyed by its proprietary smart assistant on its operating system, including voice activation, screen reading, and complex task execution.
When is the deadline for Google to comply with these rules?
The European Commission has set July 27, 2026, as the deadline for a binding decision, following a 6-month compliance window given to the company to meet the new regulatory rules.
What is the penalty for non-compliance with the Digital Markets Act?
Non-compliant companies can face massive financial penalties reaching up to 10 percent of their total annual global revenue, with this percentage potentially rising to 20 percent for repeated violations.
How is Google responding to these European measures?
Google strongly opposes these measures, viewing them as an unjustified intervention and noting that forcing it to grant access to sensitive hardware would undermine privacy and security protections while increasing costs for manufacturers.
