Google has challenged the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), describing its proposed measures to promote rival artificial intelligence (AI) services as unlawful. The dispute centers on the CMA’s consultation, launched in January, that aims to require Google to present users with a choice of competing AI products alongside its own Gemini AI.

The CMA first designated Google with “strategic market status” last October, giving the regulator increased powers to impose conditions intended to foster competition. Initially focused on rival search engines, the CMA expanded the consultation in September to cover AI assistants as well. Under the proposals, users would be shown a pop-up screen offering alternative search engines and AI assistants, such as ChatGPT and Claude, to encourage competition in the search and AI markets.

In its response to the consultation, Google argued that AI assistants had been deliberately excluded from the original market investigation, and therefore, including them in the new proposal would be unlawful. The company warned that the requirement to promote rival AI services could paradoxically harm the growth of other competing search services by privileging well-established AI assistants. Google has invested heavily in its Gemini AI to counter market disruption posed by ChatGPT, which it identified as a serious threat to its core search business earlier this year.

The ongoing disagreements have intensified tensions between Google and the CMA. Following its designation as a strategic market player, Google cautioned that stringent regulations could hamper the company’s growth prospects in the UK, potentially turning the CMA into an obstacle for innovation and investment.

The regulator’s approach has faced political scrutiny as well. Concerns that an overly aggressive regulatory stance might stifle economic growth contributed to the removal of CMA chairman Marcus Bokkerink in 2025 by then-Chancellor Rachel Reeves. A CMA spokesperson said the authority is reviewing all consultation responses before making final determinations. Google did not provide additional comment beyond its official submission.

In a separate development, Amazon and TikTok have been criticized for declining to send executives to appear before parliamentary committees despite requests from Members of Parliament. Both companies may face “empty chair” actions for their refusal to participate. Amazon stated that it had provided written evidence to Parliament, while TikTok declined to comment.