Technology & Science
EU Opens Antitrust Probe Into Google’s AI Overviews and YouTube Training
On 9 Dec 2025 the European Commission formally triggered an Article 102 investigation into whether Google leveraged publishers’ websites and YouTube videos to build its Gemini-era AI tools without payment or opt-out, potentially distorting competition.
Focusing Facts
- Case AT.40983 was opened by DG-COMP on 9 Dec 2025 targeting Google’s AI Overview and AI Mode features and Gemini training pipeline.
- If abuse is proven, Google faces fines up to 10 % of 2024 global turnover—roughly $24-30 billion.
- YouTube’s terms prohibit rival model training while forcing uploaders to cede data rights to Google, a policy now under scrutiny.
Context
The clash echoes the 1998–2001 US v. Microsoft case, where bundling Internet Explorer into Windows was ruled anti-competitive; both involve a dominant platform leveraging a captive asset (desktop OS then, user-generated content now) to strangle emergent rivals. More broadly it fits a decades-long EU agenda—seen in the 2017 €2.4 bn Google Shopping and 2024 AI Act—to curb US tech gatekeepers and assert digital sovereignty. At stake is whether data itself becomes an enclosed corporate resource or a shared infrastructure, a question reminiscent of 19th-century enclosure of common lands and likely to shape information markets for the next century. Whichever way Brussels rules, the precedent will inform how AI models worldwide source training material, determining who captures the economic rents of the coming era of algorithmic knowledge production.
Perspectives
European tech and media outlets
e.g., Silicon Republic, Variety, Engadget — Frame the Commission’s probe as a necessary step to protect publishers, creators and fair competition because Google may be abusing its dominant search and video platforms. Echo EU institutional language and regulatory priorities, giving limited attention to Google’s innovation arguments or the investigation’s potential chilling effect on Europe’s tech sector.
Business-oriented U.S. and finance media
e.g., UPI, PYMNTS.com — Stress Google’s warning that the case could ‘stifle innovation’ in a highly competitive market and portray the move as another example of Europe’s aggressive posture toward American tech firms. Leaning on corporate statements and investor concerns, these reports downplay publisher grievances and may cast the EU as protectionist or over-regulating without fully examining underlying antitrust evidence.
Global south and smaller public broadcasters
e.g., The Whistler Nigeria, Public Radio of Armenia — Welcome the inquiry, arguing Google is exploiting creators’ work without permission or payment and that strong action is overdue to curb Big Tech dominance. Adopts a David-versus-Goliath narrative that highlights creator exploitation, potentially glossing over contractual complexities and the benefits audiences gain from free Google services.