Google is weaponizing fears of cybercrime to protect its monopoly over search and mobile operating systems, warning that European competition rules will expose users to fraud—when the real threat is to Google’s data-harvesting stranglehold.
The European Union’s Digital Markets Act is set to force Google to open its Search data and Android operating system to competitors, breaking up the gatekeeper monopoly. But Google is pushing back hard, claiming that interoperability equals insecurity.
Heather Adkins, Google’s vice president of security engineering, told WIRED that if the EU implements its proposed changes, fraud will spike. "The fraudsters are creative and informed," Adkins said. "Past implementation [date], I would give it maybe weeks before we began to see an increase in fraud in Europe." Adkins also claimed the proposed search changes could let bad actors de-anonymize user queries, and that smaller companies given access to search data would be prime targets for criminal hackers.
The Verge notes Google is mirroring Apple’s playbook—another Big Tech giant desperate to keep its walled garden intact. Both companies are framing their anti-competitive moats as essential security features to scare off regulators.
But Google’s competitors aren’t buying it. WIRED reports that rivals, independent researchers, and academics who reviewed the EU proposals argue the privacy and security risks are overstated. They see Google’s warnings for what they are: a lobbying campaign to protect a search empire that controls an estimated 90 percent of the worldwide search market.
The European Commission did not respond to WIRED’s requests for comment on Google’s alarmism. But the stakes are clear. Under the DMA, the EU designates massive tech firms as "gatekeepers"—including Alphabet, Apple, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft—and forces them to open up their systems. Google already shares some search data, but the new rules would significantly alter how that works and expand access to Android for rival AI services.
Google doesn’t care about your safety; it cares about maintaining the infrastructure it uses to harvest data and control information flows. When a company that dominates 90 percent of global search suddenly claims that letting others compete will destroy security, the burden of proof is on them. The question isn't whether criminals will exploit new systems—it's whether Americans should accept a permanent Big Tech surveillance state just because Google promises to keep the gates locked.
