Google is pushing back hard against new European Union plans that could force the company to share more Search and Android data with competitors. The idea behind the rules sounds simple enough: make Big Tech less closed, give smaller rivals a fairer shot, and reduce the power of dominant digital platforms.
But Google’s security team says the situation is not that clean.
According to a WIRED report, senior Google privacy and security staff are warning that Europe’s proposed changes could expose search data to hacking, fraud, and possible user reidentification. The concern centers on the EU’s Digital Markets Act, the competition law designed to open up major tech platforms that are considered “gatekeepers.”
Why Google Search Data Is Suddenly Part of the Debate
The European Commission has been looking at how Google should share search-related data with competing search engines. That could include anonymized search queries, click data, ranking results, and other information that helps explain how people use Google Search.
For search competitors, this kind of data could be extremely valuable. Google has spent years building its search engine around massive user behavior signals. Smaller search companies do not have the same volume of data, which makes it harder for them to compete at the same level.
That is the competition argument.
Google’s argument is different. The company says search queries are not ordinary data. They can reveal health worries, financial problems, personal fears, political interests, location clues, and private questions people never expected anyone else to see.
Google Says Anonymized Search Data May Not Stay Anonymous
The EU proposal includes anonymization requirements, contracts, and security obligations for companies receiving the data. On paper, that should reduce privacy risks.
Google does not sound convinced.
Company officials told WIRED that the proposed anonymization methods may have serious weaknesses. Google’s concern is that even if names and direct identifiers are removed, search patterns could still be matched with other information and traced back to real people.
That is where things get uncomfortable. A single search query may not identify someone. A string of searches, timing patterns, location-related hints, and outside data can tell a much richer story.
In Google’s view, once the data leaves its systems, the company can no longer fully control how securely it is stored or whether attackers might target the companies receiving it.
Smaller Search Companies Could Become Bigger Targets
One of the sharper warnings from Google is that smaller companies receiving valuable search data could become attractive targets for hackers.
That is not a small concern. Search data has a different kind of sensitivity compared with many other datasets. People type things into search engines that they may never say aloud. If that data were stolen, even in supposedly anonymized form, the damage could be serious.
Google security leaders also suggested that AI could make reidentification easier. Large language models can connect patterns across messy data, summarize clues, and find relationships that older systems might miss. That does not mean every dataset can suddenly identify everyone. But it does make the privacy question more complicated than it was a few years ago.
Competitors Say Google’s Warnings May Be Overstated
Not everyone agrees with Google’s framing.
Some search competitors and policy experts argue that the EU’s approach can protect privacy while still opening the market. Their point is that Google has a strong business reason to resist data sharing, so its warnings should not be accepted without scrutiny.
DuckDuckGo, for example, has argued that Google’s concerns can be handled within the existing framework. Others believe independent experts should be allowed to test the data-sharing system and verify whether the anonymization protections actually work.
That may be the more practical path. Not blind trust in Google. Not blind trust in regulation either. Actual technical testing.
Android Access Raises Another Security Fight
The debate is not limited to Search.
The EU is also looking at Android interoperability, including broader access for AI assistants and third-party services. That could involve wake words, app interaction, and deeper operating system permissions.
Google’s Android security team says rushed implementation could create new risks around fraud, scams, microphone access, camera permissions, and screen visibility. In plain language, if outside services get more power inside Android, bad actors may try to abuse that access.
This is where competition policy runs straight into device security. More openness can help users and developers. Too much access, handled badly, can also create new attack surfaces.
The Real Issue Is Trust
The fight is being presented as Google versus the EU, but the bigger issue is trust.
Can Google be trusted to control so much of the search market without sharing more data? That is the competition problem.
Can smaller companies, auditors, and regulators be trusted to protect search data once it moves outside Google? That is the privacy problem.
Both questions matter. Pretending only one side has a valid concern misses the point.
Why This Matters for the Future of Search
Search is no longer just a list of blue links. It is becoming tied to AI answers, digital assistants, mobile operating systems, ad systems, shopping behavior, and personal data trails.
That makes the EU’s decision important far beyond Europe. If regulators force Google to share more Search and Android data, other governments may watch closely. If the rules lead to better competition without privacy damage, it could become a model. If they create security failures, it could become a warning.
Google wants the rules slowed down or redesigned. Competitors want access that gives them a real chance to compete. Regulators are trying to prove that Big Tech can be opened up without putting users at risk.
That is a hard balance. And for once, the boring-sounding policy fight is not boring at all.