ChatGPT search is growing quickly in Europe, OpenAI data suggests

Tech Crunch - Apr 21st, 2025

ChatGPT Search, a feature by OpenAI enabling up-to-date web information integration, is rapidly expanding in Europe. According to OpenAI Ireland Limited, ChatGPT Search's average monthly active 'recipients' soared to 41.3 million over the six months ending March 31, 2025, up from 11.2 million for the prior period. This growth highlights the increasing adoption of AI-driven search tools, challenging incumbents like Google. However, the platform still trails significantly, with Google conducting 373 times more searches. The rise in users could soon subject ChatGPT to strict EU regulations under the Digital Services Act (DSA), requiring platforms with over 45 million recipients to adhere to data sharing, auditing, and user opt-out mandates.

The DSA aims to ensure transparency and accountability for large online platforms, potentially impacting how ChatGPT Search operates if it surpasses the 45 million recipient threshold. Non-compliance could lead to fines or service suspension within the EU, emphasizing the importance of adherence to these regulations. Despite its growth, ChatGPT Search faces challenges regarding reliability and accuracy, with studies indicating a high rate of incorrect responses compared to traditional search engines. This raises questions about the effectiveness of AI in search functionalities and its implications for user trust and the future landscape of digital information access.

Open Ai Google European Union Ai Search Engines Chat Gpt Search Digital Services Act Online Platforms

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a timely and relevant overview of the growth of ChatGPT search in Europe, highlighting its rapid expansion and the regulatory challenges it faces under the EU's Digital Services Act. The content is generally accurate and clear, with a logical flow of information that makes it accessible to a broad audience. However, the article could benefit from greater transparency and source diversity to enhance its credibility. While it touches on important public interest topics, it lacks depth in exploring the implications of these developments and the controversies surrounding AI-powered search engines. Overall, the article offers a solid foundation for understanding the current state of ChatGPT search but could be strengthened by more comprehensive analysis and diverse perspectives.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports on the growth of ChatGPT search in Europe, citing specific data from OpenAI's EU corporate division, OpenAI Ireland Limited. The claim that ChatGPT search had roughly 41.3 million average monthly active recipients for the six-month period ending March 31 is supported by a report from OpenAI. The increase from 11.2 million average monthly active recipients in the previous period is also documented. However, the article does not provide direct access to the original report for independent verification. Additionally, the mention of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and its implications for platforms like ChatGPT is consistent with known regulations, but the article could benefit from more precise definitions and examples of how these rules are applied in practice. The comparison of ChatGPT to Google, including the statistic that Google handles 373 times more searches, is a strong claim that should be backed by a direct citation to the study or source that provided this data.

Balance

The article presents a balanced view of the growth of ChatGPT search by discussing both its rapid expansion and its limitations compared to established services like Google. It acknowledges the challenges ChatGPT faces, such as reliability issues and lower search volumes compared to Google. However, the article could improve balance by including more perspectives from industry experts or users who have experienced both platforms. This would provide a more nuanced view of the competitive landscape and user preferences.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information. It begins with the main claim about ChatGPT's growth, followed by regulatory implications and comparisons to competitors. The language is straightforward, making the content accessible to a broad audience. However, the article could benefit from clearer explanations of technical terms, such as 'recipients' in the context of the DSA, to ensure all readers fully understand the implications.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on data from OpenAI and mentions a poll and a study without providing specific details about these sources. While OpenAI is a credible source for information about its own services, the lack of diversity in sources limits the article's depth. Including insights from independent analysts or third-party studies would enhance the credibility and reliability of the information presented. Additionally, providing more information about the methodologies of the cited poll and study would strengthen the article's foundation.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of providing direct access to the data and studies it references. While it cites specific numbers and regulations, it does not offer links or references to the original sources, such as the OpenAI report or the studies on ChatGPT's accuracy. This makes it difficult for readers to verify the claims independently. Greater transparency could be achieved by including hyperlinks to the sources or more detailed descriptions of how the data was collected.