Google challenges Digital Markets Act enforcement amid consultation closure

The European Commission closed its public consultation on the first review of the Digital Markets Act on September 24, 2025, after receiving substantial feedback from designated gatekeepers and industry stakeholders. According to official consultation documents, the Commission launched the review in July 2025 to assess the effectiveness of DMA implementation and consider potential modifications to the regulatory framework.

Google submitted a comprehensive 19-page response challenging current enforcement approaches. The submission details significant operational disruptions and economic impacts since DMA obligations became applicable in March 2024. "DMA compliance has degraded some of our services, resulting in worse experiences for users and European businesses," the document states.

The technology company reported that European businesses lost up to 30% of online traffic since DMA implementation. A recent empirical study cited by Google estimates potential revenue losses of up to €114 billion for European businesses across sectors, with retail facing losses between €4.4 billion and €59 billion, and accommodation providers potentially losing €1 to €14 billion.

Consultation timeline and participation framework

The Commission structured the consultation around four key assessment areas mandated by the DMA. These included evaluating whether the regulation achieved its goals of ensuring contestable and fair markets, measuring impacts on business users and end users, reviewing interoperability obligations, and determining necessary rule modifications.

Official consultation documents show the review period began on July 3, 2025, with a September 24, 2025 deadline. The Commission specifically sought feedback from business users, particularly small and medium enterprises, end users of gatekeeper services, and representative associations.

The consultation also addressed DMA implications for the artificial intelligence sector. Commission documents indicate officials welcomed "any type of concrete feedback on how and whether the DMA can effectively support a contestable and fair AI sector in the EU."

Gatekeeper compliance challenges and resource allocation

Google's submission reveals extensive compliance investments involving approximately 3,000 employees, mostly engineers, working over two years to implement Article 5(2) DMA consent configurations. The company submitted over 40 compliance solutions for Article 6(5) DMA requirements alone, supplemented by more than 300 meetings and over 1,000 direct industry responses.

"There remains considerable uncertainty and unpredictability around what the Commission deems to be compliant," according to the Google response. The document notes regulatory demands often evolve based on unverified feedback from stakeholders and varying interpretations of DMA text.

"A striking example of this has been our engagement on Art. 6(5) DMA, where we have made over 40 submissions on potential compliance solutions to the Commission," Google stated in its consultation response. The company emphasized that stakeholders received workshop opportunities on proposals, "which we have supplemented with over 300 meetings and over 1,000 answers to questions directly from industry - yet we still seem stuck on different views over how our search results should be designed."

Google highlighted the unprecedented resource commitment required for DMA compliance in its consultation response. "This work has involved the ongoing commitment of thousands of employees across all functions of our business," the company stated. Specifically addressing Article 5(2) compliance, Google noted it "required extraordinarily extensive work—approx. 3,000 people, mostly engineers, over a period of two years—to introduce consent configurations for which there is no proven demand and which users find disruptive."

Implementation statistics from Google's submission show the company held over 60 meetings with the European Commission since March 2024, responded to more than 85 requests for information, and made over 130 compliance-related submissions.

Search functionality degradation and user experience impacts

The most significant DMA compliance challenges center on search result modifications required under Article 6(5), which prohibits self-preferencing practices. Google's consultation response details extensive changes to how search results display travel, accommodation, and commerce information across European markets.

"To comply with Art. 6(5) DMA, Google was required to change how it displays its search results, making it harder for users to find directly what they were looking for (seeking to subsidize artificially a small subset of companies)," the company stated in its submission. Google emphasized that these modifications resulted in "European businesses losing up to 30% of traffic and European consumers receiving a degraded service and facing higher prices."

The company reported that compliance changes generated negative consumer reactions, with users becoming "so frustrated that they resorted to clunky workarounds to get to the companies and information that they want." Google argued these outcomes demonstrate the regulation's unintended consequences on user experience and business performance.

Legal expert challenges Google's narrative on DMA compliance

Competition lawyer Thomas Höppner sharply criticized Google's characterization of DMA requirements in social media commentary following the consultation period. Höppner, a partner at GERADIN specializing in Digital Markets Act litigation, disputed Google's claims about mandatory search result modifications.

"Your post as Google employee is disinformation," Höppner wrote in response to a LinkedIn discussion about DMA impacts. "The DMA does not force a designated search engine 'to remove direct links to hotels, flights, and restaurants'. Nowhere, ever. Neither does it (obviously) force Google to push suppliers down the SERP."

Höppner argued that Google's implementation choices represented strategic decisions rather than regulatory requirements. "It was your employer's decision to implement the above, in order to play off direct suppliers against intermediaries- and then blame the DMA for it," he stated. The legal expert noted these implementation choices violated Article 6(5) DMA provisions, prompting the European Commission to launch non-compliance investigations.

"All your post does is to describe the harm that your employer's non-compliance with the DMA is causing to direct suppliers and consumers," Höppner concluded, directly challenging Google's narrative that regulatory requirements caused search result degradation.

Technical implementation challenges and search ecosystem changes

Search result modifications include removing direct booking capabilities, eliminating interactive flight displays, and restructuring how comparison sites appear alongside direct supplier listings. Google noted that compliance efforts required "implementing various iterations of a compliance solution, engaging resources that could have been dedicated to product development and innovation."

The company highlighted particular concerns about enforcement focusing on outcomes rather than process fairness. "We find it concerning that enforcement has proven to focus more on outcomes rather than an objective assessment of the fairness and contestability of our services," Google stated, arguing that low uptake of compliance solutions might indicate "there was no problem to begin with and there is little genuine demand for the solution from the market."

Google's submission detailed specific compliance burdens beyond search modifications. The company noted that information requests "often take place outside the context of formal proceedings, and require considerable resources." Following extensive Commission requests, Google reported providing "more than 100,000 documents, without a relevance review," necessitating external reviewer engagement due to time constraints.

Google emphasized broader concerns about regulatory predictability in its consultation response. "We remain committed to complying with the DMA and welcome this opportunity to respond to the Commission's public consultation on its first review," the company stated at the beginning of its submission. However, the document detailed persistent implementation challenges despite extensive compliance efforts.

"We established an early and constructive dialogue with the Commission, seeking the views of affected third parties, and implementing multiple changes to our products to abide by the new rules," Google noted. The company emphasized creating "new opportunities for third-party businesses and developers in Europe and proactively adapted our systems and processes."

Proportionality concerns and regulatory dialogue recommendations

Google's consultation response emphasized the need for proportionality assessments in DMA enforcement. "The DMA does not include an express proportionality safeguard to mitigate against adverse consequences of regulatory intervention on the relevant platforms or third-party stakeholders," the company stated. Google argued this absence leads to regulations being "applied without adequate consideration of their real-world consequences."

The submission outlined specific recommendations for improving DMA implementation. Google called for the Commission to "prioritize regulatory dialogue over sanctions" and "remove the 'Sword of Damocles' that currently hangs over some of us." The company emphasized the need for "clear, timely decisions that move beyond the current state of legal uncertainty and inertia."

Addressing enforcement approaches, Google advocated for focusing on "fairness and contestability over prescribed outcomes." The company argued that "specific outcomes should not be the benchmark against which such compliance is assessed," noting that low initial uptake might indicate limited market demand rather than compliance failures.

Google also called for "a public and strong commitment to proportionality" when assessing compliance changes. "This should take account of the significant impact new demands place on consumers and businesses who must not be disproportionately penalized by complex compliance processes," the submission states.

Despite these concerns, Google concluded its response by reaffirming commitment to DMA objectives. "We remain committed to the goals of the DMA and stand ready to do our part in the changes we propose to ensure its more effective application," the company stated. This qualified support reflects the complex relationship between regulatory compliance and business operations under the current framework.

Search functionality changes represent the most visible DMA compliance measures. Google announced major changes to Search Features in Europe under DMA compliance in November 2024, implementing more than 20 distinct modifications affecting flights, hotels, and shopping categories.

The modifications include new comparison site promotion units, modified advertising systems, and removal of interactive features. Testing occurs in Germany, Belgium, and Estonia, following over 100 stakeholder conferences and roundtables. Technical changes encompass equally formatted units presenting comparison site listings alongside direct supplier website links.

European comparison sites urged EU regulators to act on Google Shopping's alleged DMA violations in December 2024. The coalition of over 20 price comparison websites criticized Google's proposed alterations, stating they failed to address fundamental DMA issues.

Hotel industry data shows particularly significant impacts. Research from hospitality technology company Mirai documented decreased clicks and direct bookings, with hotels in DMA regions experiencing 30% reduced clicks and 36% fewer direct bookings compared to non-DMA markets.

Enforcement fragmentation concerns

Google's submission highlighted parallel DMA-related proceedings at national levels as undermining the regulation's harmonization objectives. The company cited examples from Italy and Germany where national authorities initiated overlapping investigations despite ongoing Commission discussions.

"These proceedings risk undermining the DMA objective of harmonization of digital market rules—necessary for the creation of a single European market," the response states. The document argues such fragmentation contradicts the DMA's legal foundation in Article 114 TFEU, which mandates legal harmonization across Europe's digital markets.

The submission calls for Commission guidance on national enforcement to prevent "the DMA's effectiveness from being diluted by uncoordinated, fragmented enforcement." Google specifically requested clarification ensuring national assessments coordinate with Commission oversight.

Consumer experience and service quality concerns

Consumer survey data from Nextrade involving 5,000 European consumers revealed widespread dissatisfaction with post-DMA service quality. Sixty percent of respondents reported needing to search longer than before DMA implementation, while 42% of frequent travelers found flight and hotel search results less helpful.

Service degradation affected multiple categories according to the survey findings. Thirty-five percent of users reported declining map service quality, while 33% noted reduced search result relevance. Fifty-nine percent of Europeans preferred direct app access over mandatory app choice screens.

The survey indicated 70% of Southern European consumers would prefer restoring pre-DMA services, with significant numbers willing to pay for service restoration. These findings contrast with DMA objectives of enhancing consumer choice and digital market fairness.

Regulatory dialogue and procedural concerns

Google's submission advocated for deeper regulatory dialogue over sanctions-based enforcement. "We call on the Commission to make clear, timely decisions that move beyond the current state of legal uncertainty and inertia," the document states.

The company criticized current access to file procedures, arguing they fall below established EU legal standards for defense rights. Under Commission implementing regulations, gatekeepers receive only documents cited in Preliminary Findings rather than complete file access.

Information request procedures also drew criticism for their scope and targeting. Google reported providing over 100,000 documents following Commission requests, requiring external reviewer engagement due to time constraints and document volume.

Digital advertising transparency measures

Platform transparency initiatives preceded the consultation as companies prepared for potential DMA modifications. Google and Amazon introduced new transparency reports in March 2024, providing detailed pricing and revenue distribution information for EU advertisers and publishers.

Amazon's pricing transparency report offers comprehensive breakdowns including publisher earnings, supply-side fees, demand-side platform charges, and total advertiser costs. Google implemented similar reporting across Google Ads, Display & Video 360, Google Ad Manager, AdSense, and AdMob platforms.

These transparency measures demonstrate preemptive compliance preparation as platforms anticipate continued regulatory scrutiny. The digital advertising ecosystem modifications reflect industry adaptation to evolving competition requirements under DMA oversight.

Market concentration and gatekeeper designation issues

Google's consultation response challenged current gatekeeper designation procedures, arguing quantitative thresholds under Article 3(2) DMA fail to account for service-specific competitive landscapes or user behavior patterns. The company noted inconsistent Commission standards between designation procedures and rebuttal processes.

The submission documented differential treatment examples, citing Microsoft's successful rebuttals for Edge, Bing, and Microsoft Advertising based on market share considerations, while Google received guidance that rebuttal procedures did not constitute opportunities for market power discussions.

Previous coverage documented the Commission's designation of six major technology companies as gatekeepers: Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft. These designations triggered comprehensive obligation compliance requirements affecting core platform services.

Artificial intelligence sector implications

Google's submission specifically addressed DMA applicability to artificial intelligence technologies, arguing the regulation lacks appropriate frameworks for AI sector oversight. "We consider that the DMA is not an appropriate regulatory tool for the AI sector which is characterized by openness, dynamism, innovation and intensifying competitive pressure," the response states.

The document emphasizes AI functions as enabling technology within digital products rather than standalone core platform services. According to Google's analysis, AI lacks the multisided characteristics and network effects that define DMA-regulated services.

Recent developments show Google delayed AI Mode launch in Europe due to regulatory uncertainty, despite availability in other jurisdictions for months. This delay exemplifies how DMA compliance affects European access to technological innovations.

Industry-wide compliance costs and implementation challenges

Beyond Google's specific experiences, DMA implementation affects all designated gatekeepers through similar compliance requirements. Meta challenged Commission decisions in July 2025, appealing rulings requiring less personalized advertising options without compensation mechanisms.

Apple criticized DMA impacts on European users in September 2025, citing feature delays, security vulnerabilities, and privacy concerns emerging since March 2024 implementation.

The consultation review process reflects broader industry concerns about regulatory predictability and proportionality assessments. Multiple gatekeepers reported substantial resource allocation to compliance activities, affecting innovation capacity and product development timelines.

Future regulatory framework considerations

The Commission must now synthesize consultation feedback to prepare its impact assessment report. Official documentation indicates the review will evaluate whether DMA objectives have been achieved and determine necessary regulatory modifications.

Key considerations include balancing competition promotion with innovation preservation, addressing enforcement fragmentation, and ensuring proportional regulatory responses. The consultation responses provide substantial evidence for both DMA benefits and unintended market consequences.

Digital competition experts have identified four key priority areas for 2025-2026, including enhanced enforcement mechanisms, artificial intelligence regulation, merger control modernization, and international coordination frameworks.

The consultation closure marks a significant milestone in DMA evolution, providing comprehensive stakeholder input for regulatory refinement. Commission officials must now evaluate competing claims about DMA effectiveness while maintaining the regulation's core objectives of promoting fair and contestable digital markets.

Timeline

• March 2022: Google begins early DMA discussions with European Commission
• July 2022: European Union adopts Digital Markets Act legislation
• May 2023: Commission designates six major tech companies as gatekeepers
• March 2024: DMA obligations become legally binding for designated gatekeepers
• March 2024: Amazon and Google introduce transparency reports for EU advertising
• April 2024: Commission rules Meta's European offering non-compliant with DMA
• May 2024: Mirai research documents hotel industry impacts from DMA implementation
• July 2024: Commission launches first DMA review consultation
• July 2025: Meta formally appeals Commission compliance decision
• November 2024: Google announces major European search modifications
• December 2024: European comparison sites criticize Google's compliance approach
• September 24, 2025: Commission closes DMA review consultation period
• September 24, 2025: Apple releases statement criticizing DMA implementation

Summary

Who: The European Commission conducted the consultation with designated gatekeepers including Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, and ByteDance, along with business users, end users, and industry associations.

What: A comprehensive review of Digital Markets Act effectiveness, focusing on compliance assessment, market impact evaluation, and potential regulatory modifications. Google submitted extensive criticism citing €114 billion in European business losses and degraded services.

When: The consultation ran from July 3, 2025, to September 24, 2025, representing the DMA's first formal review since obligations became binding in March 2024.

Where: The review covered Digital Markets Act implementation across all 27 European Union member countries, with specific focus on core platform services provided by designated gatekeepers.

Why: DMA legislation mandates regular effectiveness reviews to ensure the regulation achieves its objectives of promoting contestable and fair digital markets while addressing any unintended consequences or implementation challenges.