EU Launches Dual-Track Clampdown on Google Under DMA and AI Scrutiny, Raising the Specter of a Digital Trade War

European Commission Notifies Google of Preliminary Findings for Alleged “DMA Breach”
AI Overviews Drive Sharp Click-Through Declines, Accelerating “Zero-Click” Search and Deepening Fears of a Publisher Ecosystem Breakdown
Trump Administration’s Retaliatory Tariff Warnings Collide With a Hardening EU Line, Intensifying U.S.-EU Trade Frictions

The European Union is tightening a comprehensive regulatory cordon around Google. The target is twofold: “self-preferencing” powered by the company’s search dominance, and allegations of “content free-riding” as generative AI scales. This is not a one-off skirmish that ends with a single fine. The EU is now activating a full-fledged “dual-track strategy”: using the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to pre-emptively police platform monopolistic conduct, while deploying competition law to pursue after-the-fact enforcement over AI training and distribution. Among experts, the case is being likened to the browser-tying saga involving Microsoft two decades ago—and, at the same time, to an incident that touches the fuse of U.S.-EU trade tensions.

DMA Enforcement Targeting Search and App Store in Parallel

On the 19th (local time), the European Commission released preliminary findings that Alphabet’s Google Search and Google Play violated the DMA. The Commission concluded that Google Search engaged in “self-preferencing” by giving its own services more favorable placement than rivals in areas such as airfare and hotel bookings. It also faulted Google Play for blocking app developers from directing users to cheaper external purchase routes or alternative payment methods, stating that this breached the DMA’s “anti-steering” requirements.

The DMA’s enforcement ladder is incremental. A first infringement can trigger a fine of up to 10% of global annual revenue; repeated violations raise the ceiling to 20%. Non-compliance with corrective orders can also prompt penalty payments akin to daily coercive fines, reaching up to 5% of average daily worldwide turnover. The key point is that it does not end there. If breaches recur and the Commission deems them “systematic non-compliance,” the EU can go beyond behavioral remedies and impose structural measures, including potential business divestitures.

This is not the EU’s first strike. Under the previous competition-law regime, the Commission imposed major penalties on Google, including over Google Shopping in 2017 ($2.84 billion), Android in 2018 ($5.09 billion), and AdSense in 2019 ($1.75 billion). The latest move is therefore widely read as an extension of the EU’s long-standing regulatory posture of repeatedly challenging the abuse of market power by dominant platforms.

AI Antitrust Probe and the Fear of “Zero-Click”

On the 9th, the European Commission announced it would open an antitrust investigation into Google’s use of online content from web publishers and videos from YouTube to train its in-house AI models. European Commissioner Teresa Ribera said, “It appears that Google is abusing the dominant position of its search engine to impose unfair trading conditions on publishers and to use content in its own AI service (‘AI Overviews’).”

At the heart of publishers’ objections is choice. They argue that it is difficult to selectively refuse AI training and summary display, and that, in practice, opting out means surrendering search visibility altogether. That concern also underpins the move by independent publisher groups, which filed a complaint with the EU in July and requested interim measures—warning that traffic declines could cascade into a collapse of their revenue models.

In practice, AI Overviews place summarized answers above link lists, nudging users toward “zero-click” behavior. An analysis of March data from a U.S. user panel by the Pew Research Center found that, on search results pages where an AI summary appeared, the click-through rate to standard search-result links was 8%, versus 15% when no AI summary was shown. Digital marketing firm SparkToro, drawing on clickstream data, estimated that about 59.7% of Google searches in the EU in 2024 ended without any external click. Such declines translate directly into weaker advertising revenue for publishers and a deterioration in their bargaining leverage against platforms. If the model expands in which advertising is integrated into AI Overviews, commercialization at the top of search results could intensify further, while publishers’ traffic inflow routes narrow even more.

Experts describe the episode as a déjà vu of the “Netscape moment.” Just as Microsoft once used the monopoly power of Windows to bundle Internet Explorer as the default and suffocate Netscape, critics argue that Google is using its dominant distribution channel—search—to artificially amplify the reach of its own AI service. For publishers and the broader content industry, the reality is stark: a change in search-page design alone can determine traffic and revenue structures. They warn that this transfer of market power could harden into an entrenched “monopoly lock-in.”

Escalation of U.S.-EU Trade Frictions and Korea’s Challenge

The EU’s big-tech crackdown is showing signs of spilling into a trade confrontation. According to Reuters, President Donald Trump in February instructed the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to resume investigations into retaliatory tariffs against countries imposing digital services taxes (DST). The White House has also signaled an intent to examine whether not only digital taxes but EU rules such as the DMA and the Digital Services Act (DSA) function as non-tariff barriers aimed at U.S. companies. In August, Trump also warned via his Truth Social account that countries applying digital taxes could face additional tariffs. The EU, for its part, has left open the possibility of levies on U.S. digital firms if negotiations fail, raising the risk that regulatory conflict could metastasize into a trade war.

Korea is not insulated from the fallout. The larger the regulatory debate grows, the more tightly it becomes bound to a trade frame. According to Reuters, the United States, in its “2025 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (NTE),” specifically cited that the Korean government has never approved a license for the overseas transfer of map and other location-based data—escalating the pressure. As a result, there is growing speculation that platform issues could be raised as a bundled package in the course of U.S.-Korea trade negotiations.

Spillovers are already materializing in neighboring countries. In April, Japan’s Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) issued a cease-and-desist order to Google over smartphone manufacturer contracting practices, moving to check alleged monopolistic conduct. Korea, by contrast, remains cautious. The Financial Times reported indications that Korea, after advancing a platform-regulation concept partly informed by the EU’s DMA, has shifted into a slower gear in response to U.S. pushback and concern over trade risks.

Ultimately, the core dispute is not a simple fine. It is about who regulates—and how—the power of search as today’s distribution gatekeeper and AI as the next distribution channel. If the EU sets the benchmark, global regulatory standards will tilt in that direction. Korea must move beyond reflexive alignment and urgently craft precise principles and an execution plan capable of capturing two objectives at once: securing digital sovereignty and managing trade risk.