Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
The CMA has put out for consultation revised proposed eligibility criteria for Google's search choice screens under which AI assistants could in theory be listed if they meet the criteria, with responses due by 5pm on 9 October 2026
The CMA has not opened the choice screen to AI assistants. It has proposed rewriting the test so that an AI interface is no bar in itself, and under the same proposal Google would run the admission process that decides who passes.
Bottom line: A proposal under consultation that binds nobody. The CMA has not imposed this conduct requirement and says it will consider responses before proceeding with any proposed measures. Responses close at 5pm on 9 October 2026.
Who this affects: UK competition counsel, product and policy teams at search engines and AI assistant providers weighing whether to apply, Android device makers, and regulatory affairs staff following the digital markets regime under the DMCC Act 2024.
Issue date: Consultation document dated 23 September 2026. Responses by 5pm on 9 October 2026, to searchsms@cma.gov.uk or through the consultation portal.
What changed: The proposed eligibility criteria were redrafted around a search service "including by searching the web", and paragraph 4.14 says a service should not be excluded from the choice screen because it has an AI component or interface.
Analysis: The eligibility test in the draft is a three-part test that never mentions AI. On the CMA's proposal, an AI assistant would still have to show it covers the full range of general search use cases, including web search, and that a significant proportion of its UK users regard it as a general search service.
Primary sources: CMA, Consultation: User Choice Conduct Requirement, Google's general search services (PDF, 23 September 2026) · CMA case page: Google's general search and search advertising services
- Instrument (EN)
- Consultation: User Choice Conduct Requirement, Google's general search services
- Authority
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom, digital markets competition regime under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024
- Status
- Further consultation on a revised proposed conduct requirement. The CMA consulted on an earlier version on 28 January 2026. Not imposed
- Bindingness
- Binds nobody. The document describes a draft conduct requirement the CMA is proposing to impose after considering responses
- Issue date / next deadline
- 23 September 2026. Responses by 5pm on 9 October 2026
- Legal basis
- Section 19(7) (open choices objective) and section 20(2)(e) (permitted type) of the Act, as set out in the January 2026 consultation and maintained at paragraph 2.6
- Primary source
- https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6ab29c76fe72ed1e2b02eebe/consultation_user_choice_conduct_requirement.pdf
What paragraphs 4.14 and 4.15 say about AI assistants
This is a consultation document, and everything in it is proposal. Paragraph 4.14 is where the CMA addresses AI directly. It observes that Google Search and many other traditional search services incorporate AI models and offer AI interfaces or generative AI summaries, and concludes: "We therefore do not consider that because a service has an AI component or interface it should be excluded from the choice screen. Given the developments we are seeing in the market, provided they meet the eligibility criteria, AI assistants could in theory be able to be listed on the choice screen."
Note the qualifiers. "could in theory" and "provided they meet the eligibility criteria" are the CMA's own words. The document does not say any named AI assistant meets the criteria.
Paragraph 4.15 answers an argument from four respondents, recorded at paragraph 4.8(b), that because the SMS Final Decision left Google's Gemini assistant outside the designated activity, AI services should not appear on the screen. The CMA rejects that. It says the Gemini analysis "was based on Google's products and commercial decisions, not an assessment of the sector as a whole", and that it recognised AI assistants as an emerging competitive threat in that decision.
The three criteria an AI assistant would still have to meet
Definition 1(f) of the draft conduct requirement sets the Eligibility Criteria. A service would have to "Adequately address the full range of use cases of a general search service on a wide range of subjects, including by searching the web", "Provide a functioning general search experience for relevant search access points", and "Be considered by a significant proportion of UK users of the service to provide a general search service."
None of the three uses the word AI. Paragraph 4.17 explains that an Eligible Provider would need to be able to search the web, including through a syndication agreement, but could address use cases through other means as well. Footnote 39 lists the current use cases as navigational, transactional, simple informational and complex informational queries.
The third criterion is the one we would expect an AI assistant to find hardest, though that is our reading and not the CMA's. It asks whether users of the service regard it as a general search service. Paragraph 4.9 records a respondent's point, made about the earlier January criteria, that AI assistants are not marketed as search engines.
Google would run the admission process
Under paragraph 12 of the draft, Google would have to set up a process, which the draft describes in a list of required qualities, for approving Eligible Providers every six months by reference only to the Eligibility Criteria. It would include public notice two weeks before each application window. Google would take the final decisions and report them to the CMA, with detailed reasoning for any rejection. Paragraph 1.4(b) of the document acknowledges the process "will be run by Google".
If twelve or fewer providers are approved, all would appear on each screen, listed in fully random order, with users scrolling the full list before confirming. Above twelve, Google would select twelve per screen fairly and let users view the rest. All of this remains a draft the CMA is consulting on.
Where the screens would appear
The proposal reaches two surfaces. Relevant Browsers are the Chrome application on any desktop, mobile or tablet operating system, meant for UK distribution, where Google has set Google Search as default, other than when installed on a Relevant Device. Relevant Devices are Android devices meant for UK distribution where the manufacturer pre-installs Google Search, a Search Widget or Chrome with Google as default.
If the requirement were imposed, existing Chrome users would see an unskippable choice screen with the first major update, and new Chrome installations and new Android devices would show one at first use or setup. A skippable notification leading back to the screen would follow at least once a year on existing Chrome installations and new devices, although under paragraph 3 of the draft Google could omit it where the user had deliberately selected or changed their default search provider in the preceding six months. The draft also proposes a test-drive option for a short trial period, a device-level default setting, and APIs that would let an Eligible Provider see whether it is a user's default.
What the CMA chose not to add
Paragraph 2.5 records a submission, made through Preiskel and Co on behalf of the Independent Media Association and three other organisations, asking the CMA to widen the requirement so users could control whether features such as AI Overviews display automatically. At paragraph 2.7 the CMA declines, saying it has not received sufficiently strong evidence of the issues or benefits, while keeping the case for further measures under review.
That keeps this consultation apart from the separate publisher-facing conduct requirement, which footnote 41 of the document cites as "Publisher CR: Final Decision, 3 June 2026". We did not open that decision. The choice screen proposal is about which search service a user picks, not how Google displays its own results.
What we did not verify
What we opened: the 72 page consultation document PDF as published on 23 September 2026, read as extracted text, including the draft conduct requirement, paragraphs 1.1 to 2.7, 4.7 to 4.26 and section 6; and the CMA case page entry for 23 September 2026 through the GOV.UK content API.
What we did not open: the proposed interpretative notes in full, the proportionality assessment in section 5, the User Research report, the January 2026 consultation, the SMS Final Decision, the Publisher CR final decision, and any individual consultation response. We state no cost figures because we did not verify them.
What we refuse to claim: that the CMA has imposed a choice screen requirement; that any AI assistant, including ChatGPT or Gemini, is or will be eligible; that the requirement would take effect on any date; and that Google has agreed to the proposal. Quotations are reproduced with ASCII punctuation in place of the typographic apostrophes and quotation marks in the document, a house typesetting convention and not a change to any word.
Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
If you advise an AI assistant provider, the proposal does not hand you a place on the screen; it removes a reason to refuse one. The work is evidential: showing coverage of navigational, transactional and informational queries including web search, and survey or usage evidence that UK users treat the service as general search. If you want the criteria or the Google-run admission process changed, the window closes at 5pm on 9 October 2026.
Source File
Open the consultation PDF and read definition 1(f) and paragraph 12 of the draft conduct requirement in section 3, then paragraphs 4.14 and 4.15 in section 4, and paragraph 6.3 for the response deadline and address.
We therefore do not consider that because a service has an AI component or interface it should be excluded from the choice screen. Given the developments we are seeing in the market, provided they meet the eligibility criteria, AI assistants could in theory be able to be listed on the choice screen. ยท CMA, Consultation: User Choice Conduct Requirement, Google's general search services, paragraph 4.14, 23 September 2026
FAQ
Has the CMA required Google to put AI assistants on its choice screens?
No. This is a proposed conduct requirement under consultation and binds nobody. Even as proposed, AI assistants could only be listed in theory, and only if they meet the eligibility criteria.
Does the proposal name any AI assistant as eligible?
No. The document names OpenAI as a respondent that argued the earlier criteria were not forward-looking, and discusses Gemini only in rejecting the argument that its exclusion from the SMS designation should keep AI services off the screen.
Who would decide which providers qualify?
Under the draft, Google would run an approval process every six months by reference only to the Eligibility Criteria, take the final decisions, and report them to the CMA with detailed reasoning for any rejection.
How can I respond?
By email to searchsms@cma.gov.uk or through the consultation portal, no later than 5pm on 9 October 2026. The CMA says it expects to publish responses, so confidential material should be marked and a non-confidential version supplied.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.