EU Antitrust vs Big Tech: What the Google Probe Means for Search and AI

In-depth guide to the EU’s new antitrust probe into Google’s AI search tools, what antitrust law is, and how it affects AI, competition and privacy in Europe.

The European Commission has opened a major antitrust investigation into Google’s use of online content to power its AI search features, including AI Overviews and AI Mode. Regulators want to know whether Google is unfairly using web publishers’ and YouTube creators’ content to strengthen its own AI products, while making it harder for rivals to compete. This case goes to the heart of how search, AI, competition and privacy will work in Europe over the next decade.

What Is Antitrust – and Why Does It Matter?

“Antitrust” (or competition law in EU terms) is about preventing companies with very large market power from abusing that position. The goal is not to punish success, but to make sure dominant players do not use their size to block competitors or exploit users and partners.

Competition law aims to keep markets open and fair.
Dominant firms face special duties not to abuse their position.
Abuse can include squeezing rivals, locking in users, or imposing unfair terms.
Penalties in the EU can reach up to 10% of a company’s global annual turnover.

In digital markets, this matters because a small number of platforms control search, app stores, social media, online advertising and now AI services. Once a company is deeply embedded in everyday life, its choices can shape who gets seen, who gets paid and which technologies survive.

What Exactly Is the EU Investigating at Google?

The new probe centres on how Google uses online content to power its AI search features – and what that means for publishers, creators and rival AI developers.

Content use for AI: Whether Google has used web publishers’ articles and YouTube videos to train and run AI Overviews and AI Mode without appropriate compensation.
“Take it or leave it” terms: Concerns that publishers and YouTube creators must allow AI training to stay visible on Google and YouTube, with little real choice to opt out.
Access for rivals: Allegations that Google keeps its own access to YouTube content for AI training while blocking competing AI companies from using the same material.
“Google Zero” risk: Fears that rich AI answers at the top of search results will reduce clicks to third-party sites, undermining publishers’ business models.

If the Commission concludes that Google used its dominance in search and online video to secure an unfair advantage in AI, it could find an abuse of a dominant position under EU law and impose major fines, as well as behavioural remedies.

How AI Overviews Change the Search Game

Google’s AI Overviews and AI Mode aim to give users direct answers rather than a simple list of links. From a user perspective, this can be convenient. From a competition and media point of view, it is more complicated.

AI Overviews summarise information from multiple websites into one AI-generated box.
Users may click fewer individual links, reducing traffic to publishers.
Publishers still provide the underlying content, but may receive less visibility and ad revenue.
Google’s own AI product becomes more attractive precisely because of that external content.

Regulators are asking whether this model unfairly extracts value from publishers, and whether it entrenches Google’s power by keeping users inside Google’s environment instead of directing them out to the open web.

Why Publishers and Creators Are Concerned

European media groups have long warned that AI-rich search experiences could undermine journalism and independent publishing if traffic falls sharply while AI tools continue to rely on their work.

Many publishers depend heavily on search traffic for ad income and subscriptions.
If AI answers satisfy most users, fewer will click through to original sources.
Publishers fear being forced to provide content for AI training without fair deals.
YouTube creators are worried about their videos being used as raw material for AI while rivals cannot access the same data.

The EU’s antitrust case reflects not only a competition worry but also a broader concern about media diversity and the sustainability of independent content in an AI-driven environment.

Does This Hold Back Europe’s AI Development?

One of the biggest debates is whether strict EU enforcement risks slowing down Europe’s own AI ecosystem compared with the US and Asia. There are arguments on both sides.

How Enforcement Could Restrain AI Development

Large companies may deploy new AI features more cautiously in the EU than elsewhere.
Accessing training data might become more complex, with more licences and negotiations.
Regulatory uncertainty can delay product launches and discourage investment.

How Enforcement Could Support Long-Term Innovation

Ensuring fair access to data can prevent a few giants from controlling the entire AI stack.
Smaller European AI firms may have a better chance if data and distribution are not locked up.
Clear rules can give developers and investors more confidence over the long term.
Protecting media and creative industries helps maintain a rich content ecosystem for AI to work with.

The Commission’s view is that effective competition enforcement is a precondition for a healthy AI sector, not an obstacle to it. Critics argue that if the EU moves too slowly or too cautiously, major breakthroughs will continue to come from abroad.

How Europe Is Handling the Privacy Angle

Although this investigation is primarily an antitrust case, privacy and data protection are never far away in Europe. Using online content for AI raises several privacy-linked questions:

Personal data in content: Articles, comments and videos can contain personal information that ends up in AI training sets.
Lawful basis: Companies must justify how they collect and process this data under GDPR.
Transparency: Users and creators should know when and how their content is used for AI.
Data minimisation: Only necessary data should be used, and retention should be limited.

In practice, Europe is trying to manage this through several overlapping tools:

GDPR: Governs personal data use, including in AI training and deployment.
AI Act: Introduces rules for high-risk AI systems and transparency obligations.
Digital Markets Act (DMA): Sets conduct rules for “gatekeeper” platforms like Google.
Digital Services Act (DSA): Focuses on platform accountability, algorithms and transparency.

The Google AI case sits at the intersection of all these instruments. Antitrust law asks whether competition is harmed; GDPR and the AI Act ask whether data rights and safeguards are respected. The combined pressure is designed to stop “move fast and break things” behaviour in the European market.

What This Means for Ordinary Users

For everyday users in France and across the EU, the immediate effects may feel subtle, but they are important.

AI features in Google Search could be limited, adjusted or delayed in Europe compared with other regions.
If the EU requires better labelling or links, users might see clearer paths from AI answers to original sources.
Rules could strengthen media diversity by preventing a “Google Zero” world where most traffic stays inside Google’s interface.
Stronger competition might encourage alternative search and AI tools to emerge and improve.

Users benefit if the web stays open, with multiple tools to choose from and fair treatment of the content creators they rely on for information.

Implications for Publishers, Small Sites and Developers

For publishers, bloggers and small online businesses, the outcome of this case could shape traffic and revenue trends over the next few years.

If AI overviews are forced to link more clearly to sources, referral traffic may be better protected.
Publishers may gain stronger bargaining positions when negotiating licences for AI training.
Developers of alternative search engines and AI assistants could see more favourable conditions if Google faces behavioural remedies.
At the same time, compliance and legal questions will remain complex for any company building AI tools that rely on web content.

For smaller European AI companies, the case is both a challenge and an opportunity: stricter rules to follow, but potentially a more level playing field against global giants.

Conclusion: Setting the Rules for AI Search in Europe

The EU’s antitrust probe into Google’s AI search tools is about more than one company or product. It is a test of how Europe wants AI to develop: who controls the data, who captures the value, and how user rights and media diversity are protected.

If regulators move too slowly or too softly, a handful of platforms could lock in their advantage in AI, leaving little room for European challengers. If they move too aggressively, they risk discouraging investment and slowing down useful innovation. The coming years will show whether Europe can strike a balance that keeps AI open, competitive and respectful of privacy – without leaving users and creators behind.

Affiliate & Monetisation Notes

This article is a policy and competition analysis and intentionally contains no affiliate or commercial links, in line with CHB44’s editorial and transparency standards for regulatory coverage.