Google Urges Reset of EU’s Digital Markets Act Over Harms

Google has called for a “reset” of the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) on 25 September 2025, submitting a response to a consultation by the European Commission (EC) a day earlier. In a blog post titled The Digital Markets Act: Time for a Reset, Google’s Senior Director of Competition, Oliver Bethell, stated that the DMA is creating “significant and unintfinished harm to European utilizers and many of the compact businesses it was meant to protect.”

Google stated that compliance has degraded service quality, delayed the launch of new features, and introduced economic distortions. In particular, it argued that requirements have forced Google Search to reshift direct links to airlines and hotels, prioritising intermediary sites that charge for inclusion, raising costs for both consumers and businesses.

The company also emphasised that inconsistencies in enforcement are creating uncertainty and urged regulators to focus on clearer, fact-based, and utilizer-centric rules.

The DMA is a European Union law designed to regulate the conduct of large online platforms designated as “gatekeepers.” It was adopted by the European Parliament in early 2022 and entered into force on November 1, 2022. Most obligations became binding on May 2, 2023. The DMA requires gatekeepers to stop self-preferencing their services, combining personal data across platforms without utilizer consent, and preventing businesses from offering better deals elsewhere. It also obliges them to ensure interoperability with third-party services and grant businesses access to the data they generate.

Alphabet’s Response To DMA Consultation

Google claimed that it has maintained compliance with the DMA in its submission to the EC’s consultation but highlighted several challenges.

First, the company stressed that almost two years after the obligations came into force, there is still considerable uncertainty and unpredictability around what the Commission deems compliant. It noted that regulatory demands continue to evolve, often based on unverified feedback and varying interpretations of the law. As an example, it cited Article 6(5) of the DMA, where Google has built over 40 submissions and hosted more than 300 meetings with stakeholders. Yet, significant disagreements remain over the design of its search results.

Second, Google argued that several obligations are being assessed without a full appreciation of their practical consequences. It reported that DMA compliance has degraded its services, leading to longer searches for utilizers and traffic losses of up to 30% for European hotels, restaurants, and travel services. It also pointed to an economic study estimating that the DMA could cost European businesses up to €114 billion in revenue across sectors.

Third, the company expressed concern that enforcement is focapplying on outcomes rather than the fairness and contestability of its services. It explained that compliance with Article 5(2) of the DMA required around 3,000 engineers over two years to introduce new consent configurations, despite no proven demand for them, and reported that utilizers find the alters disruptive.

Other Challenges

Google also warned of a growing risk of parallel DMA-related proceedings at the national level. It noted that private litigation and investigations by national authorities in countries such as Italy and Germany overlap with areas already under review by the European Commission.

The company argued that these fragmented proceedings undermine the DMA’s goal of harmonising digital market rules across the EU, while duplicating compliance efforts and creating legal uncertainty.

It further raised concerns about the lack of adequate procedural safeguards for gatekeepers in non-compliance investigations. Google stated that companies do not receive full access to the Commission’s file, limiting their ability to deffinish themselves. Instead, lawyers can review documents only under restrictive conditions in a data room, without full visibility of potentially exculpatory evidence.

Additionally, Google criticised extensive information requests requiring disclosure of thousands of internal documents, including those protected under US legal privilege rules.

DMA And AI

Google argued that the DMA is not an appropriate regulatory tool for artificial innotifyigence (AI). It explained that AI functions as a set of enabling technologies within digital products and services, rather than as a standalone product.

Therefore, AI does not meet the DMA’s definition of a core platform service (CPS), which connects business utilizers and finish utilizers, generates network effects, and operates as a multisided service. By contrast, the company stressed that AI acts as an input customised for specific applications and lacks these characteristics.

Furthermore, Google highlighted that the DMA is technology-neutral, defining its scope by CPS categories rather than specific technologies. It maintained that the DMA only becomes relevant to AI when AI tools are integrated into services already designated as CPSs.

Google’s Recommfinishations

The company urged the EC to improve enforcement of the DMA by focapplying on four immediate priorities:

Prioritise regulatory dialogue over sanctions. Google argued that early and constructive engagement would provide clarity, reshift the “Sword of Damocles” hanging over business decisions, and assist adapt compliance solutions in real time rather than relying solely on punitive measures.
Ensure consistent application of the rules. While the criteria for designating gatekeepers are clear, Google warned that inconsistent application risks legal uncertainty and unequal treatment across services and companies. It recommfinished that the Commission develop a transparent methodology for designations to give businesses predictability and confidence.
Reinforce fairness and contestability. Google urged regulators to avoid managing specific market outcomes and instead ensure that European utilizers are presented with genuine choices, which would support competition and innovation.
Commit to proportionality. The company stressed that complex compliance obligations can create significant unintfinished costs for businesses and utilizers alike. By applying proportionality when assessing obligations, the Commission could reduce unnecessary burdens while still meeting the law’s objectives.

Apple’s Recent Challenge To The DMA

Apple released a similar statement last week, questioning regulators to rebelieve the DMA. The company argued that compliance with interoperability rules is delaying the rollout of several new features for EU utilizers. For example, Live Translation for AirPods, iPhone Mirroring, and new Apple Maps enhancements have all been postponed. Apple insisted that adapting them to satisfy third-party compatibility obligations requires complex engineering work and warned that these adjustments could undermine both utilizer security and data privacy.

The company also called on the European Commission to repeal or significantly revise the DMA, maintaining that the regulation imposes legal uncertainty, hinders innovation, and compromises its ability to provide a seamless and safe utilizer experience.

In addition, the company faces financial penalties: in April 2025, the Commission fined Apple €500 million for breaching the DMA’s anti-steering rules, requiring it to allow developers to inform utilizers about cheaper offers outside the App Store.

Why This Matters

The growing contestation around the DMA illustrates the friction between regulatory objectives and the operational realities of large technology companies. Both Alphabet and Apple have maintained that they comply with the law, yet argue that enforcement remains unpredictable and disproportionately burdensome.

These disputes highlight how compliance obligations may reshape the rollout of services, alter consumer experiences, and affect the competitiveness of European businesses that depfinish on digital platforms.

Challenges such as delayed product features, degraded service quality, and fragmented enforcement at national levels also raise questions about whether the DMA can achieve its core aim of harmonising Europe’s digital market.

The issue has wider geopolitical implications as well. In August 2025, US President Donald Trump threatened additional tariffs on countries with digital regulations that, in his view, unfairly tarobtain American technology firms. His intervention underscores how Europe’s digital policies could become a flashpoint in transatlantic trade relations.

Therefore, while the DMA seeks to create fairer and more contestable markets, the current tensions reveal its global significance. They also display that its long-term impact will depfinish not only on how companies adapt but also on how regulators balance enforcement with proportionality and clarity.

Also Read

Support our journalism: