startups: Google made search worse in Europe, and said so out loud

Google has enacted significant changes to its search engine across Europe, explicitly stating that these modifications represent the most substantial decline in search quality in its 29-year history. This controversial move, rolled out on Tuesday, comes as Google complies with a European Commission order stemming from a €460 million fine for self-preferencing practices, mandated by the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

The search giant’s new layout for European users now prioritizes specialized search engines at the top of results, followed by two additional ones with fewer details attached. Below these primary listings, a carousel for hotels, airlines, and restaurants appears, notably stripped of key features such as real-time pricing. While Google's underlying algorithm continues to dictate the order of these results, the company warns that these mandated alterations will "degrade the user experience for Europeans" and will not affect users outside the EU.

The European Commission levied the fine in July, citing Google's practice of favoring its own services in various categories, including shopping, hotels, transport, and sports. This "self-preferencing" is a direct violation of the Digital Markets Act, which targets designated "gatekeepers" like Google to ensure fair competition. Google was given a strict 60-day deadline to implement remedies; failure to comply would result in escalating periodic penalties, potentially reaching up to 5% of its total worldwide turnover. Therefore, Tuesday’s rollout signals Google meeting a regulatory deadline, rather than a voluntary change of approach.

Nick Fox, Google’s Senior Vice-President for Knowledge and Information, asserted that these "significant changes" are designed to "boost online intermediaries at the expense of local businesses." Google points to price comparison sites and vertical search services, specifically mentioning Expedia and Booking.com, as the primary beneficiaries of the new system. The company argues that while the Commission intended to level the advertising playing field, the actual effect is to force smaller, local businesses—like a hotel in Porto, which now appears as a simple link, phone number, and address—to pay commissions to intermediaries even when a customer is already seeking them directly, thereby losing direct traffic.

Google supports its dire assessment with several claims, all of which remain internally sourced and unverified by external parties. The company alleges that earlier DMA-related adjustments already led to a 30% reduction in free direct booking traffic for European businesses, though no specific underlying data or comparison period has been released. Furthermore, Google claims its internal testing, involving millions of European users, revealed high dissatisfaction with the new layout, with users reportedly needing to retype queries to find desired information. The most dramatic assertion—that this constitutes the biggest quality drop in Google Search's 29-year history—came from an unnamed official. The lack of public methodology or underlying data for any of these figures makes independent validation impossible, leading to questions about the company’s motives, particularly when it is implementing and simultaneously critiquing a mandated remedy.

Adding a layer of complexity to the remedy's effectiveness, a detail from existing DMA booking widgets surfaced recently. A notice observed on these blocks in EU regions states: “This price was customised by the booking partner based on factors such as your device type.” This implies that prices shown within compliance widgets are not universal and can vary. While it's yet to be confirmed if this disclaimer applies to Tuesday’s newly launched carousel, or what other factors influence customization, this practice complicates the notion of fair comparison, especially when coupled with the removal of real-time price information. The original intent of Brussels was to promote transparency and enable consumers to compare prices easily, a goal potentially undermined by personalized pricing and static data.

As of the rollout, the European Commission has not issued an official response to Google’s latest changes or its accompanying warnings. This silence highlights a critical aspect of DMA compliance: gatekeepers are tasked with drafting their own remedies, giving them significant control over the initial implementation. Brussels then evaluates the adequacy of these drafts. This situation is the latest in a long-running saga; Google has accumulated €10.38 billion in EU antitrust penalties over nearly two decades, a situation that has even drawn diplomatic concern from the US President, who previously threatened an investigation into what he termed the bloc's "robbing" of American companies.

The veracity of Google’s warning—whether it is an accurate reflection of degraded quality or a tactical maneuver—hinges on several future developments. First, the European Commission's ultimate decision on whether this new layout fully complies with the DMA is paramount, as this is the only judgment carrying financial penalties. Second, independent verification will come from European hotels and airlines, who can track their direct traffic and have no incentive to protect Google if a forecast collapse occurs. Finally, observers will watch to see if the current "austere" layout persists once the immediate deadline pressure subsides. This rollout adds another chapter to the ongoing regulatory skirmishes, following Google's earlier cessation of demoting EU publishers under its spam policy, and the EU's continued probing into the effectiveness of an AI search opt-out for publishers. The broader landscape sees rivals continually challenging the DMA's boundaries, as evidenced by Opera's lost case over Microsoft Edge and the discovery of silently installed Android apps outside uninstall rules.

This recent development marks a unique moment in the history of tech regulation: a major gatekeeper implementing a mandated change while simultaneously and publicly declaring its detrimental impact on user experience.

FAQ

Q: Why did Google make these changes to its search engine in Europe?

A: Google implemented these changes to comply with an order from the European Commission, which fined the company €460 million for self-preferencing its own services in search results, a practice prohibited under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

Q: What specific changes were made to the European search results?

A: The new layout prioritizes specialized search engines at the top, followed by two more with fewer details. A carousel for hotels, airlines, and restaurants is also included, but features like real-time prices have been removed, and Google claims these changes degrade user experience.

Q: Can Google's claims about degraded search quality be independently verified?

A: No, Google's claims about user dissatisfaction, traffic drops for European businesses, and the 29-year quality low are based on internal figures and methodologies that have not been publicly disclosed, making independent verification impossible.