Google was today fined €890 million ($1 billion) by the European Union for breaching antitrust rules with regard to its search and Google Play store services.
The European Commission found that Google had broken the Digital Markets Act (DMA) by using its dominant position in the search market to favour its own services, like shopping and hotel deals, over those of rivals.
The Commission also said that the company had abused its position by preventing developers from directing users to cheaper ways to buy apps and app subscriptions on websites and alternative app stores.
The Commission noted that Google has begun testing changes to how its own services are placed in search results and rolled out changes to its steering terms, which the EU’s main executive body described as substantial progress towards compliance.
“Google has fallen short of effective compliance with the Digital Markets Act, and today we have taken decisive yet balanced enforcement action sanctioning these breaches,” said Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition.
“The best products should succeed because they’re better, not because they’re owned by the company running the search engine. And European consumers have a right to be told by app developers where to sign up to the best offers, even when the app store owner does not get a cut.”
With search, Google is required to share with competitors — search engines and AI chatbots alike — a massive amount of user data from Google Search user interactions. What terms people search for, what they click on in results, what languages and devices they use. It’s all ostensibly anonymized but that’s tricky when it comes to search terms. A lot of the terms people type into web search fields are to some degree personally identifying. The EC seems to be saying it’s Google’s problem to filter out things like passwords and usernames and omit them from the shared datasets. Google can charge money for this access, but only under “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND)” prices, based on a Commission-defined methodology.
So if you search for the score of a sporting event, it’s illegal in the EU for Google to show you the score, like this search I just tried. What the EC is saying is that because Google Search is so popular, it’s no longer allowed to improve.
It drives me insane when in Europe the link between Google Search and Google Maps is broken and I often have to copy paste an address between the two. Thanks EU, what if I like Google’s integrations?
They could have simply added a selector when a user first clicks on the maps preview in the search result, and then remembered it on device or across that user’s account.
But of course, then the user could choose a competitor’s product and Google would have to honor it. That would be horrible, so instead they just made the user experience worse for everyone and elegantly made people blame the EU.
Back in 2018, Google was handed a record-setting 4.34 billion-euro ($4.9 billion) fine in Europe for abusing its monopoly on Android. The company has spent the intervening years challenging that decision, but the continent’s highest court has put a stop to that. The Court of Justice of the European Union has affirmed the penalty, meaning Google is out of options.
[…]
The EU took issue with Google search and Chrome being the default options on Android. Even devices made by other companies, such as Samsung and Xiaomi, include Google apps as the default per the Android licensing agreement, giving Google an unfair advantage, according to European antitrust regulators. This is not to be confused with a 2.95 billion euro ($3.45 billion) fine against Google’s advertising monopoly issued by the European Union last year.
There’s never a reason not to string the appeal process out, but it’s especially true when your profits are growing at an exceptional rate. By growing their profits around 5×, they’ve reduced the relative sting of this fine by 5×
Apple’s challenge against the EU’s designation of its App Stores and iOS platform as “gatekeepers” was dismissed by Europe’s top court on Wednesday, reports Reuters.
[…]
The company also disputed the classification of iMessage as a number-independent interpersonal communications service, or NIICS, which would subject the app to EU telecoms rules. But the General Court said Apple’s actions regarding the iMessage service are inadmissible.
Back in 2023, Apple acknowledged that it qualified under the then-new definition of being what the EU called a gatekeeper service. But key to that is the size of the operation, and since 2024, Apple has been claiming it runs five smaller App Stores rather than one large one.
[…]
“Irrespective of the devices in question,” ruled the judges, “those stores have the same purpose, namely to connect app developers with end users in order to facilitate the distribution of software applications.”
Apple disagreed with the decision but didn’t say yet if it would appeal. “We firmly believe the DMA’s mandate goes beyond what is lawful and proportionate, threatening to erode decades of privacy and security protections we’ve built and leaving our users vulnerable to new risks,” an Apple spokesperson said in a statement to multipleoutlets. “We will continue advocating for the innovation and privacy our European customers deserve.”
Apple still has two cases pending with EU courts. The first is a challenge to the EU Commission’s decision last year forcing Apple to open iOS to third-party developers, and the second is an appeal against the €500 million fine imposed in April last year for anti-steering violations.
The EU required Apple to permit third-party app stores, while a US court ruled that developers have the right to direct iPhone users to third-party payment platforms for app purchases and subscriptions. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is now proposing to apply this latter rule in the UK.
The U.K.’s competition regulator has proposed letting app developers direct users to payment options outside Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store, in a move aimed at increasing competition and reducing the fees charged by the two companies.
[…]
The regulator said any fees Apple and Google charge developers for enabling such “steering” must be fair and reasonable, remain below existing App Store and Play Store commissions, and allow developers to either pass savings on to consumers or reinvest them in innovation.
Requiring Apple to allow apps to steer users to the web to make payments is, I’ve long argued, sensible regulation. I’ve also long argued that Apple has been obstinate in disallowing it. If in-app payments — through Apple’s system — can’t compete with out-of-app payments on the web, something is wrong with IAP. But it’s wrong to assume that payments outside IAP will result in lower prices and better policies for users.
They may increase prices when costs grow but that does not mean they do the opposite. But who cares? Lower costs permit more flexibility on pricing and, even if that money ends up in the pockets of developers instead of Apple, is that supposed to be a bad thing? Is there a reason why someone should be upset that they might pay the same amount but an indie developer gets to keep more of it?
The proposed policies are pretty straightforward from what I can see. Among other obligations, Apple is not allowed to use or require scare tactics when users are routed to an external payment mechanism and, while it is allowed to charge a steering fee, it is not allowed to count services not used by developers offering third-payments nor double-count for services already accounted for by other developer fees. Also, the CMA calls bullshit on Apple’s claim that third-party payments are particularly risky[…]
Apple said new UK App Store rules would give regulators a “highly intrusive” role dictating how it runs its business, reports Reuters. Apple submitted feedback to the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority as it considers forcing Apple to change its App Store rules around steering.
[…]
UK regulators said Apple can charge developers a fee, but it must be fair and reasonable, and below existing App Store commissions, so developers can pass savings to customers or reinvest them in innovation.
According to Apple, the CMA’s proposed rules would undermine innovation and investment, and would amount to price regulation because of the restriction on fees.
The issue before the commission currently is the built-in advantage for Gemini on Android. When you turn on any Google-powered Android phone, Gemini is already there and gets special treatment at the system level. The European Commission is taking aim at the lack of features available to third-party AI services. The commission believes that there are too many experiences on Android that only work with Google’s Gemini AI, and as a gatekeeper, Google must change that.
[…]
European regulators are proposing several broad changes to the way AI tools operate on Android phones. Some of this is straightforward, like allowing third-party AI tools to be invoked system-wide via hot words or button presses. This might also include allowing AI tools to view screen context when the user opens them.
[…]
Many of the Gemini AI features in Android, including Magic Cue, rely on running local models, and Google has been slow to allow third parties the system access to make that work effectively. So the EU is also suggesting a mandate that would ensure developers have the necessary hardware access to run local models “with high levels of performance, availability and responsiveness.”
The difference between Google and Apple on this front is that Google just blazed ahead and shipped Gemini integrated into Android in the EU, and is now facing compliance problems after shipping. (Ask forgiveness.) Apple isn’t shipping Siri AI in the EU in iOS 27, knowing that it’s going to be deemed non-compliant. (Ask permission.)
The European Commission today formally ordered Google to give third-party AI services the same access to Android device features that Gemini has.
[…]
The European Commission is giving Google a full year to implement changes that will meet the Digital Markets Act requirements, and that's before any legal appeals Google might make.
The EC is demanding that Google create APIs that allow third-party AI assistants to do everything Google Gemini does now[…]
[…]
Also, in my reading, the EC is demanding that Google make available to third-party AI assistants all information in Google’s own apps (Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Docs, Google Maps, etc.) that Gemini has access to.
[…]
Apple unfortunately hasn’t shared any technical details describing its proposal for a “Trusted System Agent” that it shared with the EC last year. But whatever Apple’s vision for the Trusted System Agent is, I don’t see how the EC would deem it compliant with the DMA if they want from Apple anything close to what they are now demanding from Google.
I don’t know what will come of this, but I’m pleased to see it in the sense that it is logically coherent. The TSA seems like a way to give the appearance of doing something without actually solving the problem. Like Gruber, I don’t really see why Google would want to comply with this rather than taking their Gemini ball and going home. Unlike Gruber, I don’t find it scary to let users opt into sharing their data and background time with apps of their choosing. I don’t like software design by government committee, but it seems less bad than further entrenching an unfettered monopoly. Maybe this could have been avoided if Google had developed its own reasonable solution instead of shipping something that was obviously not compliant.
A group of 48 China-based iOS developers have filed an antitrust complaint against Apple with the country’s market regulator over the App Store’s commission rates, the South China Morning Post reports.
The developers sent an open letter to China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR), alleging that Apple failed to deliver on a promise to offer the lowest commission rate to the Chinese market. The group asked the SAMR to investigate and penalize Apple for allegedly abusing its market dominance to impose “unfair and excessively high” costs on local developers.
Apple lowered the fees in March but not as much as it did in Brazil and Japan.
Unfortunately, due to the Digital Markets Act (DMA), Apple will not be able to ship Siri AI in the European Union with the release of iOS 27 and iPadOS 27. Over the past several months, EU regulators did not accept any of Apple’s proposed solutions to bring Siri AI to the EU while safely supporting other virtual assistants.
[…]
EU users will be able to access Siri AI on macOS 27 and visionOS 27. Developers located in the EU will not be able to test or use the new Siri AI features for their apps on iOS 27, iPadOS 27, and watchOS 27.
[…]
According to EU regulators, the DMA requires Apple to give any AI system nearly unlimited access to a user’s device, as well as the ability to act on that access autonomously without a user’s ongoing visibility and control.
[…]
Apple designed a solution called Trusted System Agent — an intermediary that would allow virtual assistants to safely access the same features and capabilities as Siri AI for devices in the EU. Apple also shared a plan to launch Siri AI in the EU while gradually rolling out this new solution over an 18-month period. The European Commission said no. In fact, the European Commission did not agree to any of Apple’s proposals.
This phrasing is not very clear, perhaps intentionally so. Apple is trying to give the impression that it did all this extra work to meet the DMA’s requirements, and yet the EC rejected its proposals, so it’s their fault Siri AI isn’t shipping in the EU. But it looks like the crux is that the Trusted System Agent is currently vaporware. What the EC rejected is that Apple wanted to be able to ship Siri AI now on the promise of future openness. The TSA would actually be built during this 18-month window of exclusivity. It’s not surprising that the EU would reject that proposal. The App Store doesn’t approve apps that flout the guidelines but promise to comply later. It doesn’t even entertain proposals of the form, “If I built this would it be approved?”
Apple said it detailed its plans for Siri AI to EU regulators six months ago, along with a technical proposal to allow secure third-party access to that data.
“In essence, a commission that’s asking us to conduct a very risky experiment on many, many, many tens of millions of users,” Greg Joswiak, Apple’s marketing chief, told reporters, “and we only want to ship these capabilities when we can do so safely.”
The EU said not to ship it without the TSA, yet Joswiak spins this as the EU asking Apple to be reckless? And if Apple wanted to ship them safely, why did it stop working on them?
Apple spoke of having spent hundreds of thousands of engineering hours on changes to comply with the EU. In the new report, though, Apple now says that it no longer knows what to work on.
So currently none of its engineers are working on adapting Siri AI to meet the EU’s demands.
It seems like Apple isn’t taking this very seriously. They’re more interested in trying to score PR points by blaming the delay on the EC rather than on building something compliant. So I guess the EC was prescient not to grant an exemption based on the promise that they’d follow through with the TSA.
However, do I think Apple should be made to open up that level of system access?
Honestly yes. They are worried about protecting my data. But it’s MINE. Me, the user.
Stick a big privacy prompt, maybe a system settings screen and reboot, but I want access to my data!
We can look to BrowserEngineKit to see how well it works out to introduce a trusted intermediate layer that Apple doesn’t itself rely on. And this seems like a much harder problem.
I keep seeing people (usually Americans) confused by where the EU is coming from with Apple and the DMA, eg “how can they care about privacy but also demand AI companies can access your data?”
My read is, the EU’s starting point is that a gatekeeper cannot treat itself as inherently more trustworthy than any other company. So if anyone’s AI can access your data, including Apple’s, it’s not up to the gatekeeper to say “we trust ourselves but don’t trust other companies” and force that on users.
The users should get to choose who they trust. And I think Apple is trying to draw a different line than it says. It worries that AI could be hijacked to steal your passwords and photos. But you can already install apps that manage and access that data. You can also install apps that access your calendar and mail data, and these apps can incorporate AI. Such apps actually get more access than what the EC wants because they must communicate with your servers directly. I would rather let an AI search my downloaded e-mails than read/write to my IMAP server, but Apple is blocking that option. The actual line it’s drawing isn’t that AI can’t access your data but that (aside from iMessage) it can only access it via additional engineering work and additional hoops for users to enter credentials. It seems like what Apple really wants is to make it hard for anyone to compete with Siri.
I’m skeptical that Siri AI is even capable of being meaningfully private or secure. As far as I know there is no mitigation for prompt injection, as Matthew Green describes here.
If it has access to private information, is exposed to external input and can access the Internet then how can they meaningfully claim it’s private or secure?
There’s a lot to unpack here, including more background information — and on-the-record statements — from a briefing Apple held Tuesday that I was invited to at Apple Park.
It’s frustrating that Apple has said so little on the record. They want to communicate that their “offers for compromise have been rejected,” but what exactly did they offer? Personally, I don’t think the TSA would be a very good solution because it would lock in both the limitations of Apple’s technology and their role as a gatekeeper. But Apple did not even say that the EC rejected the idea of the TSA, only that it rejected their proposal to violate the law for 18 months while building it.
But the bottom line is that Apple’s public statements regarding the DMA and the European Commission have never been this strident before.
[…]
Now, they’re a bit more on war footing. There’s a massive gulf between what Apple is willing to do with Siri AI in the EU and what the Commission is demanding from Apple for DMA compliance.
The European Commission isn’t demanding anything, the law is demanding it. The laws have been in place for several years now, Apple is currently in default of the law on several fronts, and is fighting its existing fines.
When the Chinese government wanted access to user data, Apple complied, but when the EU parliament voted for their citizens to be able to choose how to share their own data, that put Apple on a “war footing.”
There is some kind of irony in how Apple isn’t allowing Europe access to the new AI stuff; and meanwhile for the US, Apple is removing the setting for us to opt-out of it, effectively forcing it on us.
That’s how it is these days, huh? Either a government or a giant corporation makes our technology choices for us. We don’t get to choose for ourselves.
What exactly is the motivation for Apple and Google to engineer entirely separate systems for the EU to bring new features into compliance with the Commission’s broad interpretation of the DMA? Because if Apple doesn’t engineer a DMA-compliant version of Siri AI, iOS users in the EU will ... switch to Android, whose system-level AI was deemed noncompliant by the Commission a few months ago?
I briefly hoped that the DMA would lead to a sort of California effect for software, where products are designed for the stricter (more open, in this case) jurisdiction, and everyone else reaps the benefits, too, because that’s easier for companies than making separate versions of their products. But it turns out that Apple finds it well worth it to feature flag away the EU features it doesn’t want us to have, as well as the ones it doesn’t want to adapt for the DMA.
This doesn’t directly hurt Apple. It doesn’t force Apple to design, engineer, and ship a compliant EU-exclusive version of Siri AI that supports plug-and-play LLM back ends. It only hurts iPhone users who live in the EU, who are stuck with the old dumb version of Siri for the foreseeable future.
This demonstrates a market failure or legislative failure, depending on how you look at it. Both halves of the duopoly are in conflict with the law of the second largest economy in the word. Users will get a worse Siri, but this doesn’t bother Apple enough to do anything about it. Maybe the customers in the EU can be used as a bargaining chip. Neither Apple nor Google is worried that a competitor will come along with a compliant phone to challenge their dominance.
Gotta admit that as an EU citizen, I feel handicapped when it comes to brainstorming ideas to utilize Foundation Models.
Like, if I were to build a new app around them, it’s difficult to gauge if this is something Siri AI does out of the box when it isn’t available to me.
And unlike Apple, I intend to build software for the entire world.
Apple is acting out of greed and spite (see their hairbrained fee structures for alternative marketplaces as an example), but also yes, the DMA and enforcement thereof seems like a particularly difficult and capricious regulatory dynamic.
[…]
Those arguing that Apple is acting purely out of spite seem to suggest there is some obvious solution for iPhone Mirroring that would satisfy the interoperability mandate, but they never go into what that obvious solution is because they don’t know. They don’t know because I would guess no one does, not even Apple and certainly not the European Commission.
As far as I can tell, the European Commission doesn’t see it as their responsibility to help gatekeepers design features ahead of time in a way that should be compliant with the DMA. What they want instead is to decide whether or not a given feature runs afoul of the DMA after its released in the EU and presumably after they’ve gotten feedback from third parties.
If a developer emails Apple and asks if an app idea they have will be approved, they will get told to build it, submit it to the App Store, and see. The EU is the App Store here, and Siri AI is the app. I guess Apple don’t like their own policies.
I sympathize, even though Apple is in a better position than the developer, because it has more resources, because it would only potentially be blocked from shipping in one market, and because it can still sell its product in the EU, just with certain features disabled. Building something that might not be accepted is risky, but if you don’t submit anything that you think would be complaint with the rules, you don’t seem very serious. It’s still unclear to me exactly what Apple’s plan is. Its press release says it “will continue working” on bringing the features to the EU, but its SVP of marketing said in an interview that “none of its engineers are currently working on solutions.” Perhaps this implies that it’s banking on a legal or political solution rather than a technical one.
While the relationship between the European Commission and Google tells us nothing about playing ball, it tells us exactly how inconsequential support for alternative marketplaces is when it comes to regulatory scrutiny of integrated features. Apple hasn’t played ball with alternative marketplaces and now its new AI-based features are being withheld from the EU lest they get scrutinized for fines by the European Commission. Google hasn’t had to play ball with alternative marketplaces and now its new AI-based features are either being scrutinized for fines by the European Commission or being withheld lest they also get scrutinized. The European Commission is, rightly so in my opinion, regulating both operating systems equally and regardless of their support for alternative marketplaces.
It struck me today what a contrast this is with the rest of the AI world, increasingly connected via MCP. Imagine if Gmail was only accessible to AI on Android phones. If Teams was only accessible from a Windows Surface laptop. That is the kind of environment Apple’s policies create, with data locked into silos and monopolies free to leverage their existing strengths into dominance of new technologies too.
No thanks. Just as I should be able to sideload an app onto my own phone, I should be able to choose whether ChatGPT can access my iMessage history. The world is not going to come crashing down by giving users control of their own data.
Apple CEO Tim Cook held “constructive” talks with EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen on Tuesday about releasing Siri AI in the bloc while complying with the bloc’s digital rules, reports the Financial Times ($).
[…]
As for Apple’s proposed Trusted System Agent, a Commission official told the publication its contact with Apple on the idea was limited, and that it lacked a concrete proposal or details on how such an agent would work beyond the general concept. The official claimed Apple “focused on obtaining a green light to delay compliance.”
The DMA has been in effect for nearly four years and there is no reason why either party should be having so much difficulty with this proposal stage. Either the Commission is mischaracterizing Apple’s engagement, or Apple’s representatives need to be far better prepared.
It seems like Apple’s strategy is to encourage its customers to pressure the EU into changing the rules.
Apple is working to settle an antitrust lawsuit with the U.S. Department of Justice, reports Bloomberg. Apple has proposed several offers and is now in early settlement talks with the DOJ.
The DOJ sued Apple for antitrust violations in 2024 as part of an expansive antitrust investigation into major tech companies. The government accused Apple of getting customers "hooked" on its platform through a long-running history of anti-competitive behavior.
The lawsuit accused Apple of restricting "super apps" with broad capabilities, limiting cloud gaming, preferencing its own Messages app over third-party apps, and limiting the function of third-party digital wallets and smartwatches.
Since the lawsuit was filed in 2024, Apple policy changes have addressed many of the claims, weakening the DOJ's position.
While the talks are ongoing, Bloomberg says there's no guarantee an agreement will be reached. Apple attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed last year, but was unsuccessful. So far, no trial has been scheduled.
A dried-out felt-tip marker and a snapped-off piece of molded black plastic sold for $857,600 at a Sotheby's auction on Wednesday.
What otherwise might have been worthless bits of trash commanded the highest bids due to where the two items were 57 years ago—lifting off aboard NASA's Apollo 11 spacecraft on humanity's first mission to land astronauts on the Moon. More than flown odds and ends, one was the problem that almost stranded Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the lunar surface, and the other was the simple solution to saving the mission.
"Houston, Tranquility. Do you have a way of showing the configuration of the engine arm circuit breaker?" radioed Aldrin to Mission Control after realizing he or Armstrong had inadvertently broken off the top of the circuit breaker switch that would enable their ascent engine to ignite, beginning their trip back to Earth. "The reason I'm asking is because the end of it appears to be broken off. I think we can push it back in again. I'm not sure we could pull it out if we pushed it in, though."
A dried-out felt-tip marker and a snapped-off piece of molded black plastic sold for $857,600 at a Sotheby's auction on Wednesday.
What otherwise might have been worthless bits of trash commanded the highest bids due to where the two items were 57 years ago—lifting off aboard NASA's Apollo 11 spacecraft on humanity's first mission to land astronauts on the Moon. More than flown odds and ends, one was the problem that almost stranded Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the lunar surface, and the other was the simple solution to saving the mission.
"Houston, Tranquility. Do you have a way of showing the configuration of the engine arm circuit breaker?" radioed Aldrin to Mission Control after realizing he or Armstrong had inadvertently broken off the top of the circuit breaker switch that would enable their ascent engine to ignite, beginning their trip back to Earth. "The reason I'm asking is because the end of it appears to be broken off. I think we can push it back in again. I'm not sure we could pull it out if we pushed it in, though."
Big changes are coming to Android apps, but they're not the changes Google wanted. The settlement between Google and Epic that aimed to put to rest the companies' long-running antitrust battle is being withdrawn, and that means third-party app stores are coming to the Play Store. Google has confirmed that it will begin distributing rival app stores next week, setting the stage for competing platforms to take a bite out of Google's Android revenue stream.
This case has the potential to upend software distribution on Android, and it's all because of V-Bucks. In 2020, Epic Games was frustrated that it had to pay a 30 percent cut to Apple and Google every time someone bought a bundle of V-Bucks in a mobile version of Fortnite. The publisher added a direct purchase option to the game in violation of both Apple's and Google's rules. Naturally, Fortnite was pulled from the App Store and Google Play, kicking off the antitrust lawsuit that is only now reaching its conclusion.
While Apple suffered little penalty in its Epic case, Google was tripped up by its anti-competitive management of the supposedly open Android ecosystem. Google used its market position to discourage device makers from promoting or pre-loading non-Google app stores and attempted to hide that conduct. The remedies set by Judge James Donato included lower fees, mirroring Google Play apps in other stores, and most vitally, placement of alternative app stores in Google Play.
Big changes are coming to Android apps, but they're not the changes Google wanted. The settlement between Google and Epic that aimed to put to rest the companies' long-running antitrust battle is being withdrawn, and that means third-party app stores are coming to the Play Store. Google has confirmed that it will begin distributing rival app stores next week, setting the stage for competing platforms to take a bite out of Google's Android revenue stream.
This case has the potential to upend software distribution on Android, and it's all because of V-Bucks. In 2020, Epic Games was frustrated that it had to pay a 30 percent cut to Apple and Google every time someone bought a bundle of V-Bucks in a mobile version of Fortnite. The publisher added a direct purchase option to the game in violation of both Apple's and Google's rules. Naturally, Fortnite was pulled from the App Store and Google Play, kicking off the antitrust lawsuit that is only now reaching its conclusion.
While Apple suffered little penalty in its Epic case, Google was tripped up by its anti-competitive management of the supposedly open Android ecosystem. Google used its market position to discourage device makers from promoting or pre-loading non-Google app stores and attempted to hide that conduct. The remedies set by Judge James Donato included lower fees, mirroring Google Play apps in other stores, and most vitally, placement of alternative app stores in Google Play.
An international team of geophysicists examining the Southern Indian Ocean floor witnessed a section greater than two meters split apart, releasing millions of cubic meters of stored-up magma within just a few days.
Jean-Yves Royer, a marine geophysicist at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) in Brest and a co-author of the study detailing the team’s serendipitous discovery, said witnessing the ocean floor splitting apart in real time was “a major surprise,” while the team hailed the scientific value of finally witnessing these processes up close.
Scientists Have Never Witnessed The Ocean Floor Splitting Apart in Real Time
Because the ocean floor is dynamic, the movement of tectonic plates pulling the existing crust away from mid-oceanic ridges allows magma to well up to the surface. When it dries, this material solidifies, adding to the existing crust. While scientists have understood this process for decades, no one has ever witnessed the phenomenon directly. This absence has left a gap in scientific knowledge that, as study co-author Isobel Yeo, a geoscientist at the National Oceanography Center in Southampton, UK, notes, persists to this day.
“We still know remarkably little about the frequency, magnitude, and dynamics of the eruptions and tectonic processes that build them”, the researcher explained
To try to fill that gap, the team focused its research on a section of the seafloor called the Southeast Indian Ridge, which runs east to west across the Indian Ocean. Due to its location, the ridge separates two tectonic plates, the Antarctic and the Australian.
The team notes that these two plates, which contain Antarctica and Oceania and the surrounding oceanic crust, are continuously moving in opposite directions by roughly six centimeters each year. Although both plates are exerting stress on the ridge, the team said the northward movement of the Australian plate accounts for most of this annual expansion.
The motion dynamics can also change by location. For example, one section of the Australian plate may stay stationary for a period and then suddenly experience a large surge in motion. These sudden events are accompanied by earthquakes.
Ocean Floor Movement in Real Time
In hopes of catching the ocean floor splitting in real time, Royer and colleagues ventured to the Southeastern Indian Ridge in February 2024. Once on site, the team deployed three categories of sensors at several different locations along a 100-kilometer stretch of the ridge. The sensor array included five hydrophones that detect underwater sound, including the telltale sonic waves produced by earthquakes. The team also deployed 15 battery-powered acoustic beacons designed to emit and detect sounds at selected locations along the ridge.
Because the acoustic beacons can produce and receive sounds, the team programmed them to exchange audio signals every four hours. This regular exchange allowed the team to measure the time between sound and response, which they used to determine the distance between the two beacons at four-hour intervals.
After the sensors were all in place, the team’s efforts finally paid off. According to the study, the carefully placed hydrophones began to detect seismic tremors on the ocean floor. These signals were followed by several days of acoustic beacon returns, indicating some of the stations had moved. When the team calculated the time between beacon signals, they determined that some sections of the ocean floor had moved by “at least” two meters as they were pulled away from the ridge.
The team also found evidence that the ocean floor was splitting apart in real time, altering the ocean floor’s depth. According to a reading from a single pressure sensor, the depth change caused by the event was “substantial.”
a rare direct view of these processes in action
In the study’s conclusion, the research team estimates that 160 million cubic meters of lava rose between the split ocean floor and spilled onto the seafloor. They also suggested that the magma explosion emptied a reservoir that had accumulated along the ridge, which caused portions of the floor to “subside.”
Royer said the team was only expecting to find a vertical displacement of “a few centimeters.” Instead, he notes, “we measured 4.2 meters.” The team said this large amount of change suggests that three to six decades’ worth of stress from the northward movement of the Australian tectonic plate was released during the ocean-floor-splitting event.
When discussing the significance of witnessing the ocean floor splitting apart in real time for the first time, Yeo said their study “provides a rare direct view of these processes in action.”
Christopher Plain is a Science Fiction and Fantasy novelist and Head Science Writer at The Debrief. Follow and connect with him on X, learn about his books at plainfiction.com, or email him directly at christopher@thedebrief.org.
In a groundbreaking study published in Scientific Reports, a team of researchers led by Liu, D., Li, X., and Zhang, Z. has unveiled pivotal insights into the intricate mechanisms dictating how particle size influences the migration and deposition behaviors of weathered crust elution-deposited rare earth ores. This investigation probes deeply into the physicochemical principles and dynamic environmental interactions responsible for the distribution patterns of these valuable mineral resources, providing an unprecedented lens on their geochemical mobility.
The research tackles the challenge of understanding the migration pathways of rare earth elements (REEs) within the weathered crust, a layer significantly dictating ore generation. Central to their inquiry is the particle size of these ore constituents, which affects not only sediment transport dynamics but also the ore’s eventual deposition patterns through complex physicochemical interactions with surrounding media. The work bridges gaps between mineralogy, sedimentology, and geochemistry, offering a holistic view important for both scientific and industrial applications.
Their methodology encompassed a series of meticulously designed experiments and computational models to simulate natural conditions accurately. By varying particle sizes in controlled settings, the research team could monitor kinetic behaviors, adhesive interactions, and sedimentation rates of particles subjected to elution and migration processes. This allowed them to unravel size-dependent mechanisms underlying the spatial distribution and aggregation tendencies of REE particles within lateritic profiles.
In particular, the findings underscore the critical role of smaller particle fractions, which exhibited enhanced mobility due to lower gravitational settling but showed a propensity to adsorb onto mineral surfaces, thus influencing local concentration hotspots. Conversely, larger particles demonstrated reduced migration, primarily influenced by mechanical transport limits and gravitational forces, leading to more stable deposition zones. These differential behaviors directly affect the ore-forming processes and the quality of recoverable deposits.
Chemically, weathered crust environments present dynamic pH and redox conditions, which modulate particle surface charge, coagulation tendencies, and dissolution rates. The research elaborates how particle size accentuates these processes, with fine particles showing increased surface area promoting more extensive ion exchange and adsorption phenomena. Such micro-scale interactions substantially dictate macro-scale deposition patterns, impacting exploration strategies targeting rare earth mineralizations.
Moreover, the research extends its implications to understanding the environmental fate of rare earth elements beyond mining contexts. Rare earth particles, when mobilized through weathering, can traverse soil and water systems, posing ecological and human health risks. The particle size-dependent migration insights unveiled serve as crucial input for predictive environmental risk assessments and remediation planning around mining sites.
One of the most compelling aspects of the study is its integration of field data with laboratory results, ensuring real-world relevance. Samples collected across multiple deposit sites demonstrated consistent size-dependent migration tendencies, validating laboratory conclusions and revealing nuanced local variations driven by topographical and hydrological factors. Such data synthesis enhances the predictive power of their proposed migration and deposition models.
Their study also contributes to refining current geochemical theories related to elution-deposited ores, challenging prior assumptions that often overlooked particle size as a key variable. By pinpointing size-specific migration thresholds, the researchers clarify ore genesis mechanisms in weathered crusts, a region crucial for the global rare earth supply chains. This knowledge can revolutionize resource estimation practices, allowing for improved accuracy in reserve quantification.
Technologically, the researchers leveraged state-of-the-art microscopy and spectroscopic techniques to characterize particle morphologies, mineral compositions, and surface chemistry details. These sophisticated analytical methods provided high-resolution data necessary to comprehend how particle physical attributes interact with chemical environments, culminating in comprehensive migration and deposition profiles. This multidimensional approach epitomizes modern Earth sciences research.
The implications for mining engineering and metallurgy are profound. Understanding particle size effects on ore distribution allows for optimized beneficiation processes, enhancing the efficiency and economic viability of rare earth extraction. Tailored grinding, sorting, and sedimentation techniques can be developed based on specific ore particle sizes, reducing waste and environmental footprints. This research lays the foundation for such industry advances.
Further, the research opens avenues for innovative environmental management practices. By predicting rare earth particle transport pathways, stakeholders can implement targeted monitoring and control strategies to minimize ecological disturbances. This is particularly relevant in the context of expanding rare earth mining activities fueled by the global demand for clean energy technologies, where sustainable practices are paramount.
The interdisciplinary essence of the research, combining geology, chemistry, physics, and engineering, sets a benchmark for future studies addressing complex natural and anthropogenic processes influencing critical mineral resources. The clarity gained about particle size’s role in migration and deposition elucidates broader Earth system processes, benefiting multiple scientific domains and policy frameworks concerning resource stewardship.
In conclusion, Liu and colleagues’ study represents a significant advancement in our understanding of the fundamental processes underlying rare earth ore formation within weathered crust environments. Their comprehensive focus on particle size effects offers vital scientific and practical insights, opening new research horizons and contributing to the sustainable development of an indispensable resource underpinning modern technologies.
Subject of Research: Influence mechanism of particle size on the migration and deposition of weathered crust elution-deposited rare earth ores
Article Title: Research on the influence mechanism of particle size on the migration and deposition law of weathered crust elution-deposited rare earth ores
Article References:
Liu, D., Li, X., Zhang, Z. et al. Research on the influence mechanism of particle size on the migration and deposition law of weathered crust elution-deposited rare earth ores. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-56907-6
In an age of AI hallucinations and collapsing trust, Jimmy Wales argues that Wikipedia’s human transparency may be exactly what makes it worth trusting.
Day 3 of creation, God formed dry land and initiated life with green plants, establishing essential conditions for future sentient life forms. This day also included the formation of Earth's physical structures. All creations were designed perfectly, paving the way for environmental balance and the development of biodiversity.
Login
