The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has opened a formal investigation into Google’s agreements to pre-install its Gemini assistant on Android smartphones sold in the United Kingdom, marking the first significant regulatory test of how artificial-intelligence assistants are distributed to consumers. The watchdog is examining whether the deals struck between Google and handset manufacturers effectively lock out competing AI products such as Perplexity, Anthropic’s Claude and a growing field of independent assistants before buyers ever switch their devices on.
The probe lands at a delicate moment for the search giant, which already faces scrutiny under the CMA’s new digital markets regime. While the case echoes the long-running battles over default search engines that have dogged Google in both Brussels and Washington, regulators say the rise of generative AI raises fresh and arguably sharper questions about entrenchment — because an assistant that sits at the centre of a phone can shape every query, recommendation and purchase that follows.
What the regulator is examining
At the heart of the investigation are the commercial terms under which Google secures prominent placement for Gemini. The CMA wants to understand whether revenue-sharing arrangements, bundling with the Play Store, or conditions tied to Android licensing make it commercially irrational for manufacturers to ship a rival assistant by default — or even to offer one a comparable level of visibility.
The authority is using powers granted under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which came into force last year and allows it to designate firms with “Strategic Market Status” and impose tailored conduct requirements. Google was provisionally designated in the general search market earlier this year, and officials have signalled that AI assistants could fall within the scope of that designation.
“The concern is not simply that Gemini comes pre-loaded,” said Dr Helena Marsh, a digital competition researcher at the Oxford Institute for Internet Governance. “It’s that the default is sticky. Most users never change it, and an assistant accumulates data, context and habit in a way that makes switching feel pointless within weeks.”
Why AI defaults differ from search
The search-default disputes of the past decade turned largely on a single question: which engine answers a query typed into a browser bar. AI assistants are more pervasive. They can be invoked by holding a button, summarising notifications, drafting messages and increasingly mediating actions across apps. That breadth, analysts argue, makes the default position far more valuable — and far harder for rivals to dislodge.
Newer entrants have been vocal about the barrier. Perplexity has publicly courted handset makers in an attempt to win pre-installation slots, while Anthropic has pursued partnerships to embed Claude at the operating-system level. Both have found, according to industry sources, that incumbency and Google’s deep integration with Android present formidable obstacles.
“You can build the better assistant and still lose, because distribution is the whole game,” said Tomas Reyes, principal analyst at Cheltenham-based advisory firm Northgate Insight. “If you can’t get onto the phone at the moment of setup, you’re asking consumers to go out of their way to find you. Most won’t.”
Google’s defence and the wider context
Google is expected to argue, as it has in previous cases, that Android remains an open platform on which users can freely download and set alternative assistants, and that pre-installation reflects genuine consumer demand rather than exclusionary intent. The company has also pointed to the rapid pace of AI competition as evidence that no single player is entrenched.
Critics counter that the very speed of the market is the reason regulators should act early. Once an assistant becomes the habitual gateway to information for millions of Britons, they warn, unwinding that advantage becomes near impossible.
- The CMA can require Google to offer choice screens or rival placement if concerns are upheld.
- Financial penalties of up to 10% of global turnover are available for breaches of conduct requirements.
- Any remedies would likely be watched closely by the European Commission, which is weighing similar issues under the Digital Markets Act.
The investigation is expected to run for several months, with the CMA inviting submissions from manufacturers, rival developers and consumer groups before reaching any provisional findings.
What this means
For consumers, the immediate impact is minimal — Gemini will remain on shelves and phones throughout the inquiry. But the case could prove pivotal in setting the rules for an entire generation of AI products. If the CMA concludes that default deals foreclose competition, the UK may become the first major market to mandate genuine choice over which assistant sits at the heart of a smartphone. For challengers like Perplexity and Claude, that outcome could mean the difference between a fair fight and a market settled before it began.
Photo by Sarah Blocksidge on Pexels
