Almost two years ago, when the Digital Markets Act (DMA) came into effect, I was hopeful. But today, it’s clear that the user experience has worsened, business metrics have plummeted, and Google’s monopoly is as strong as ever.
As an SEO professional, I’ve joined countless others in agreeing that Google has long abused its dominant position in search to favor its own services over others. The DMA was supposed to be the solution—a regulation promising to level the playing fields in the digital world.
The European Union was hailed for finally taking steps against tech giants with the 2022 passage of the DMA, which came into force in March 2024, aiming to balance competition. Headlines were optimistic, signaling a fair and promising digital era.
Back in 2024, my perspective was captured in an article where I wrote about this legislation being a ‘much-needed piece.’ Fast forward two years, the DMA is doing more harm than good and this is not just speculation—it’s supported by concrete evidence.
The DMA was born from understandable frustration over Google’s well-documented abuses, where it would promote its own services like Google Shopping, often at the cost of others with better offerings.
Years of watching Google rank its own products first while burying competitors ignited the creation of this act, attempting to enforce fairness by having tech giants, the gatekeepers, treat all services equally.
For those like me, who have seen clients lose traffic to Google’s products despite providing superior content, the promise of algorithmic neutrality and fairness was nothing short of intoxicating.
But, as a comprehensive assessment reveals, the reality is different. Findings from a recent survey of 5,000 European consumers indicate that users find the online experience more cumbersome since the DMA was enacted.
It’s disconcerting when users, who previously received services for free, express willingness to pay to regain their prior experiences.
In professional circles, we have to acknowledge a truth: many users favored the integrated Google experience that we spent years criticizing. Now, users must jump through more hoops—and they aren’t pleased with this supposed ‘fair’ competition landscape.
The business implications have also been damaging. Metrics reveal declines in click-through rates and a drop in direct bookings, highlighting a disconnect between DMA’s objectives and real-world outcomes.
The issue of enforcement is daunting. Without addressing the core monopoly, any attempts to fine or regulate Google amounts to levying cost of doing business fees for them, rather than ushering in real change.
Long term, it raises a pivotal question for regulators: is it time to consider breaking monopolies to genuinely foster competition? Or continue to enforce rules that fail to address the underlying problem?
We need to create conditions that truly allow emerging companies to compete, not just manage monopoly symptoms with ineffective regulations. The DMA had the right intent, but it’s the wrong solution to this complex problem.
I’ve noticed the European Union is turning its gaze towards Google once more, scrutinizing how it handles its AI and search data. This could lead to changes that might open up its Android features and search data, ultimately reshaping the competitive landscape.
The European Commission is now formally outlining the ways Google must share specific Android functionalities and its search data with competitors, in line with the Digital Markets Act.
Tuesday marked the start of two official proceedings by the Commission, aimed at establishing a structured approach for Google to meet key obligations under the DMA. It’s fascinating to see these regulatory dialogues become more concrete.
Why I care. This move by the European Commission could alter the dynamics in mobile AI and search. With Google potentially needing to share its search data and Android AI capabilities, it could boost the competition from other search engines and AI services. Such changes might impact where advertisers allocate budgets, alter the availability of advertising inventory, and shift campaign dependencies away from Google’s platforms.
First focus — Android and AI interoperability. The regulators are delving into how Google must enable third-party developers to access Android hardware and software features as freely as Google’s own AI services, like Gemini.
– The objective is to allow rival AI providers the same level of integration with Android devices as Google’s native tools.
Second focus — search data sharing. The Commission aims to define how Google should provide anonymized search data including ranking, queries, clicks, and views to rival search engines under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory conditions.
– This includes specifying the types of data to be shared, how it will be anonymized, eligibility for access, and whether AI chatbot providers can use this dataset.
Between the lines. It’s not just about ticking off compliance boxes. The Commission is making it clear that AI services are under the DMA’s watchful eye, especially where data and device control could influence emerging markets.
What’s next: Within three months, the Commission plans to send Google its initial findings and recommended actions. The full proceedings should wrap up within six months, accompanied by non-confidential summaries for public input.
The backdrop. Since March 2024, Google has been required to comply with DMA obligations, having been identified as a gatekeeper in services like Search, Android, and YouTube.
Bottom line. The EU is moving from planning to action with the DMA, testing how strongly it will influence competition by overseeing Google’s AI functions and search data management.
I’ve always been fascinated by how companies navigate complex regulatory landscapes. Recently, TikTok made headlines with the launch of a new U.S.-controlled joint venture, a decisive move aimed at aligning with American national security rules.
To ensure that TikTok can continue serving its vast user base of over 200 million Americans, the company established TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC. This step was officially taken following an executive order from President Trump on September 25, 2025.
The big picture. This joint venture stands out because it’s primarily owned by American interests, functioning independently concerning U.S. user data, content moderation, and algorithm security. While ByteDance maintains a 19.9% stake, this remains under the level that’s often scrutinized for national security.
This initiative leverages TikTok’s already established U.S. Data Security (USDS) program, aiming to protect sensitive information from foreign interference.
Why it matters to me. As someone who appreciates the dynamic between technology and regulation, this joint venture is a significant test of whether TikTok can continue its operations in the U.S. without facing bans or demands to sell its U.S. assets. It effectively transfers control of key operational areas to American oversight, addressing long-standing security concerns.
For creators and advertisers like me who rely on TikTok, this development signifies a potential blueprint for future regulations of foreign tech by the U.S.
Understanding the safeguards. User data from the U.S. will be securely stored in Oracle’s cloud infrastructure in the U.S., with rigorous audits and third-party cybersecurity certifications to ensure adherence to federal and industry standards like NIST, ISO 27001, and CISA.
The content recommendation algorithm for U.S. users will also be adapted and tested using U.S. data within Oracle’s systems, ensuring robust security through continuous source code evaluations under software assurance protocols.
Trust, safety, and content moderation at the forefront. The joint venture now holds the decision-making power over trust, safety policies, and content moderation for U.S. users, further reducing foreign influence over crucial decisions.
Balancing global reach with U.S. control. While U.S.-based security and safety controls are tightened, TikTok’s global entities still handle interoperability and commercial activities like advertising and e-commerce, supporting worldwide visibility for American creators and businesses.
Governance and leadership. The joint venture is led by a seven-member board predominantly composed of Americans, including executives from Silver Lake, Oracle, Susquehanna International Group, and MGX. Adam Presser serves as CEO, with Will Farrell as Chief Security Officer, and Raul Fernandez, CEO of DXC Technology, chairs the board’s security committee.
Ownership details. Silver Lake, Oracle, and MGX are the cornerstone investors, each with a 15% stake. Other investors include entities linked to Michael Dell, General Atlantic, Dragoneer, and Xavier Niel. These safeguards also cover CapCut, Lemon8, and other TikTok-associated apps in the U.S.
What comes next. TikTok USDS Joint Venture positions itself as a definitive response to U.S. regulatory pressures. It remains to be seen whether it will fully placate lawmakers and security agencies, ultimately securing TikTok’s future in the U.S. as scrutiny begins.
Catch-up. A $14 billion arrangement keeps TikTok operational in the U.S.
I recently discovered that Google is planning to lift its previous restrictions on ads for prediction markets in the U.S., starting January 21st. This is exciting news as it opens a previously restricted category on Google Ads, though with stringent rules in place.
Google will only permit ads from entities that are federally regulated. These developments mean that only Designated Contract Markets (DCMs) authorized by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) are eligible. Additionally, brokerages registered with the National Futures Association (NFA) offering access to products listed by qualifying DCMs can also participate. However, advertisers need to become Google certified to run these ads in the U.S.
Why am I interested in this? Because prediction markets have historically been a restricted area on Google Ads. The new policy could greatly benefit advertisers, providing access to a target-rich, high-intent audience, yet within set compliance and regulatory confines. The strict eligibility criteria mean less competition—only those meeting stringent compliance standards need apply.
All advertisements must comply with local laws, financial regulations, and Google Ads policies. This new policy is already available for preview in the Advertising Policies Help Center, specifically in the Financial Services and Gambling and Games sections.
Looking at the more prominent perspective, it’s evident that Google is carefully extending its policy by acknowledging prediction markets as regulated financial products, yet keeping unregulated platforms at bay.
I’ve been following the significant regulatory move in which the European Commission launched a formal antitrust investigation into Google.
At the heart of this issue is Google’s use of publisher content to develop AI Overviews and other generative AI features, potentially diverting traffic from original publishers.
As someone involved in SEO or content strategy, I’m immediately affected by these developments.
The question I’m pondering is whether Google is overstepping by using publisher content for AI answers, or if it’s just part of being in an open web environment.
With regulators stepping in, I’m seeing the industry reevaluate how we use, manage, and value machine-readable content. It raises questions about the cost to brands, publishers, and agencies if regulation doesn’t catch up with innovation.
Here’s what’s going on, why it’s significant, and how the industry is already responding.
What’s Actually Happening: Core Allegations in the Complaint
This move from the EU is unfolding alongside other legal challenges, like those from publishers taking a stand against OpenAI and Penske Media’s recent antitrust suite targeting Google’s AI offerings.
Many publishers see Google’s actions as a no-choice situation: allow the use of their content for AI, or face losing vital search traffic.
At the same time, I notice how technical tools like robots.txt, Google-Extended, and new noai/nopreview conventions are reflecting an industry that’s striving to reclaim control.
The crux of the issue is whether AI training and answer generation stretch the bounds of traditional indexing and require licensing or proper attribution.
The Big Debate: ‘Google Doesn’t Owe You’ vs. ‘It’s Not Their Content’
I often see the assumption that control of web content lies in our hands.
Yet, without search engines, their reach is quite limited.
This tension fuels an ongoing debate dividing SEO perspectives.
On one side is the belief that ‘Google doesn’t owe you anything’.
Many argue that the web is open, allowing search engines to crawl freely grants implicit permission for content use.
Google facilitates discovery, but clicks or backlinks aren’t guaranteed.
On the flip side, there’s the perspective that ‘It’s not their content’.
Publishers argue against unlicensed use of content for LLM training and AI responses.
They see generation without attribution or compensation as disruptive.
This debate is active across social media and discussion forums.
Some suggest focusing on generative engine optimization, or GEO, replacing traditional rankings with AI quotes.
Nonetheless, that approach keeps publishers reliant on Google’s linking decisions.
In practice, there’s validity to both arguments.
Yet, the broader trend reveals the trajectory.
Even if Google faces consequences, search is unlikely to return solely to blue links.
The zero-click conversion is advancing.
The Dark Future of a Web Without Unique Content
Before diving into potential outcomes of the complaint, consider the impact on information itself.
As creators feel their work is reused without reward, the drive for original content wanes.
Simultaneously, AI-generated content is growing, often with minimal human input.
Entire sites now rely heavily on generative systems for content.
This often involves reworking existing text, with occasional inaccuracies.
As this cycle continues, the risk is declining informational quality due to a lack of truly fresh inputs.
The debate over AI training isn’t just about traffic or monetization.
It questions how the web can sustain unique knowledge creation and why protecting publishers is crucial to prevent information quality degradation.
What Can Happen if Google Loses
The traditional Google-publisher agreement was straightforward: “I let you crawl, you give me clicks.”
Generative AI disrupted this balance.
If the EU finds Google’s actions anticompetitive, we could witness major shifts:
Mandatory opt-out mechanisms: Effective changes could enforce a granular system that protects against AI summaries without sacrificing rankings.
The licensing economy: Following the music industry model, licensing could become compulsory, splitting organic search into free and premium sectors.
AEO formalization: Attribution could be legally required, turning source citations into a ranking factor.
Ads and the Shifting Economics of Visibility
While this primarily concerns AI and content rights, ads still significantly impact SERP dynamics.
As organic space shrinks due to AI summaries, paid ads remain a strong visibility tool.
Even if EU pressures curb AI answers, the space for blue links is unlikely to grow.
The landscape will continue to favor revenue-driven Google products.
If AI Overviews reduce organic visibility, CPCs could rise, affecting ad positions.
Whatever the AI outcome, one truth is apparent: the cost of visibility is on the rise.
How to Adapt Your SEO and Content Strategy
Before any EU decision, I see top teams already shifting their strategies from merely ranking for keywords to ensuring they are the main entity answer wherever an AI model scans.
This involves several key actions:
Enhancing entity clarity with schema and consistent data for accurate AI association.
Auditing brand representation in AI Overviews and tracking emerging visibility KPIs.
Reconsidering robots.txt strategies to manage IP protection versus AI visibility.
Educating leadership that visibility extends beyond traffic, incorporating citation and AI source value.
The strategic goal is remaining readable and rights-conscious while ensuring brand presence where AI answers are most trusted.
