Competition in online search platforms

Full Title:
SEARCH Act of 2026

Summary#

This bill aims to limit how very large search platforms favor their own search, AI search, and advertising products. It bans preferential deals and self-preferencing, and it forces covered platforms to share search indexes, ads data, and certain user-side data with qualified competitors. The bill also requires user choice screens, advertiser transparency, yearly compliance certifications, civil enforcement, and penalties. The stated broad goal is to restore competition in online search and digital advertising.

Key changes:

  • Who is covered: A platform is covered if its search or AI search reaches at least 40% of U.S. people age 12+ in a month.
  • Bans on exclusionary deals: Covered platforms may not pay or give value to device makers, browsers, or distributors to make the platform’s search the default or to exclude competitors.
  • No self-preferencing: Covered platforms must not use control of search, browsers, devices, or operating systems to favor their own services in rankings, placement, features, or UI design.
  • Data sharing and syndication: Covered platforms must give qualified competitors non-discriminatory access to search indexes, ranking signals, user-side data (with privacy filters), and search ad inventory via APIs at marginal cost.
  • User choice and defaults: Users on covered platforms’ devices, browsers, and accounts must see a neutral choice screen at setup and at least yearly, and covered platforms may not preinstall their search as the default on new devices.
  • Enforcement and penalties: The FTC, the Department of Justice, or state attorneys general may sue in federal court. Violations can bring civil penalties up to 15% of U.S. annual revenue of the covered platform. The Act sunsets after 10 years.

What it means for you#

  • Consumers

    • You may see a neutral choice screen when you set up a device, install a browser, or create an account on covered-platform products.
    • It should be easier to switch your default search engine on covered devices and apps.
    • Your search results on third-party products that license search content could look more similar to the covered platform’s results.

  • Users of AI search

    • AI-generated answers that draw on search results could be available from more providers that license syndicated search content and data.

  • Advertisers

    • Advertisers would get more detailed, query-level reporting and the ability to export campaign data in real time.
    • Platforms must offer exact-match and negative keyword controls and report material changes to ad auctions to the FTC monthly.

  • Competitors and potential entrants

    • Qualifying competitors can request access to search indexes, ranking signals, ads data, and certain user-side data via APIs at marginal cost. This could lower technical and data barriers to building competing search or AI search services.

  • Publishers and websites

    • Publishers may be barred from signing agreements that give covered platforms exclusive or “most favored” terms that prevent competitors from accessing their content or data.
    • Covered platforms may not condition inclusion in search indexing on giving extra rights for ad targeting or AI training.

  • Device makers, browser developers, and distributors

    • Covered platforms may not pay these parties to make the platform’s search the default or to block competitors. They also may not require distribution partners to install the covered platform’s search as a condition of access.

  • Covered platforms (very large search providers)

    • Must appoint a compliance officer, certify compliance yearly, implement APIs for data sharing, stop certain business practices within specified timeframes, provide training, and may face large fines for violations.

  • Regulators and states

    • The FTC, DOJ, and state attorneys general have civil enforcement authority; the FTC has rulemaking and litigation powers under the bill.

Expenses#

No publicly available information on a formal fiscal estimate or cost projection is provided in the bill text.

Possible public and private costs the bill creates or implies:

  • Covered platforms must build and maintain APIs and systems to share indexes, ranking signals, ads data, and user-side data at marginal cost — this likely requires engineering, security, and support staff.
  • The FTC may need additional staff and resources for rulemaking, monitoring, and enforcement.
  • Covered platforms must appoint compliance officers and provide annual in-person training for senior executives and legal staff, creating internal training costs.
  • Covered platforms may be required to contribute up to 0.05% of their U.S. annual revenue to a public education fund about search choice (the bill caps the amount).
  • Civil penalties (up to 15% of U.S. revenue) could produce government collections if violations are found, and penalties on individual employees for failing training could have financial effects on staff.
  • Publishers, device makers, and other partners may incur compliance and contract-revision costs.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to restore competition and reduce practices that block rivals. Possible arguments in favor based on the bill text:

  • It could reduce exclusionary deals and default bias that keep large platforms dominant by preventing payments, exclusives, and conditional access tied to being the default.
  • Requiring data sharing and syndication could let competitors build better search and AI search services by lowering barriers to the core inputs (index, ranking signals, ads data).
  • User choice screens and easier switching could increase consumer choice and reduce default-driven market power.
  • Advertiser transparency could make ad auctions more open and give advertisers better control and reporting.

Opponents' View#

The bill raises a number of practical or legal concerns based on its terms and omissions:

  • One concern is privacy and re-identification risk. The bill requires removal of direct identifiers and some metadata but allows broad sharing of user-side data to competitors under contractual limits. It is unclear how strong de-identification and re-identification protections will be in practice.
  • One concern is protection of proprietary material. The bill requires access to search indexes and ranking signals but excludes some trade secrets and source code only if not used as inputs; it is unclear where the line will fall between required disclosures and protected intellectual property.
  • One concern is complexity and cost of compliance. Implementing APIs, long-term licensing, and reporting could be costly and technically difficult, for both covered platforms and smaller partners.
  • One concern is how the thresholds and definitions work in practice. The 40% monthly active user test, the definition of “qualified competitor” (tied to a referenced Clayton Act threshold), and valuation-based tests may be hard to measure or litigate.
  • One concern is potential effects on innovation and investment. Mandatory sharing of key inputs could reduce incentives for platforms to invest in search and AI improvements, though the bill does not state this directly.
  • One concern is enforcement scope and legal challenges. The bill creates new duties and significant penalties; courts may see disputes about scope, the commission’s rulemaking, or constitutional limits, and the Act includes a 10-year sunset but few transitional details.

What is unclear from the bill text:

  • How the FTC will set technical and privacy standards in detail and what rulemaking timelines will be.
  • Exact numeric thresholds for “qualified competitor” because the bill references another law’s transaction-size threshold rather than giving a dollar figure.
  • How cross-border data and international platforms will be handled in practice.