LONDON — Britain’s competition watchdog on Tuesday opened an investigation into Google search services, marking its first major probe under the country’s tough new competition rules.

The Competition and Markets Authority said that it’s looking to assess whether Google has “strategic market status” (SMS) under the new U.K. Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCC).

The DMCC, which officially entered into effect on Jan. 1, aims to prevent anti-competitive behavior in digital markets. Designation of a company as having “SMS” would give the regulator the power to impose changes to prevent anti-competitive behavior.

Sarah Cardell, the CMA’s chief executive, said the regulator was probing Google’s dominance of the search market to ensure a “level playing field” — especially as artificial intelligence is shifting the way people search online.

“It’s our job to ensure people get the full benefit of choice and innovation in search services and get a fair deal — for example in how their data is collected and stored,” Cardell said.

“And for businesses, whether you are a rival search engine, an advertiser or a news organisation, we want to ensure there is a level playing field for all businesses, large and small, to succeed,” she added.

The CMA move follows a bid from the U.S. Department of Justice to force Google to divest its Chrome browser. The DOJ filed to break the internet giant up after finding it holds a monopoly in the search market.

The regulator on Tuesday highlighted Google’s dominant position in the U.K. search market as a primary point of concern.

Google accounts for more than 90% of all general search queries in the U.K., and more than 200,000 advertisers in the country use the firm’s search advertising tools, according to the CMA.

Search is “vital for economic growth,” the CMA said, explained that its role in connecting companies with other businesses, investors and customers means it is “critical” that competition works well.

“Google Search supports millions of U.K. businesses to grow by reaching customers in innovative ways. The CMA’s announcement today recognises that,” a Google spokesperson told CNBC via email.

“We will continue to engage constructively with the CMA to ensure that new rules benefit all types of websites, and still allow people in the U.K. to benefit from helpful and cutting edge services,” the Google spokesperson added.

The CMA added that effective competition in search was needed to ensure fair treatment of news publishers for the use of their content.

With new AI-based search methods like OpenAI and Perplexity emerging, the CMA said it is also concerned about Google’s position in the market potentially putting new and innovative players at a disadvantage.

LONDON — The U.K. says it wants to do its “own thing” when it comes to regulating artificial intelligence, hinting at a possible divergence from approaches taken by its main Western peers.

“It’s really important that we as the U.K. do our own thing when it comes to regulation,” Feryal Clark, Britain’s minister for AI and digital government, told CNBC in an interview that aired Tuesday.

She added the government already has a “good relationship” with AI companies like OpenAI and Google DeepMind, which have voluntarily opened their models up to the government for safety testing purposes.

“It’s really important that we bake in that safety right at the beginning when models are being developed … and that’s why we’ll be working with the sector on any safety measures that come forward,” Clark added.

Her comments echoed remarks from Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Monday that Britain has “freedom now in relation to the regulation to do it in a way that we think is best for the U.K.” after Brexit.

 “You’ve got different models around the world, you’ve got the EU approach and the U.S. approach – but we have the ability to choose the one that we think is in our best interest and we intend to do so,” Starmer said in response to a reporter’s question after announcing a 50-point plan to make the U.K. a global leader in AI.

The U.S., meanwhile, lacks any AI regulation whatsoever at a federal level and has instead adopted a patchwork of regulatory frameworks at the state and local level.

During Starmer’s election campaign last year, the Labour Party committed in its manifesto to introducing regulation focusing on so-called “frontier” AI models — referring to large language models like OpenAI’s GPT.

However, so far, the U.K. is yet to confirm details on proposed AI safety legislation, instead saying it will consult with the industry before proposing formal rules.

“We will be working with the sector to develop that and bring that forward in line with what we said in our manifesto,” Clark told CNBC.

Chris Mooney, partner and head of commercial at London-based law firm Marriott Harrison, told CNBC that the U.K. is taking a “wait and see” approach to AI regulation even as the EU is forging ahead with its AI Act.

“While the U.K. government says it has taken a ‘pro-innovation’ approach to AI regulation, our experience of working with clients is that they find the current position uncertain and, therefore, unsatisfactory,” Mooney told CNBC via email.

One area Starmer’s government has spoken up on reforming rules for AI has been around copyright.

Late last year, the U.K. opened a consultation reviewing the country’s copyright framework to assess possible exceptions to existing rules for AI developers using artists and media publishers’ works to train their models.

Details of Labour’s plans for AI legislation were initially expected to appear in King Charles III’s speech opening U.K. Parliament last year.

However, the government only committed to establishing “appropriate legislation” on the most powerful AI models.

“The U.K. government needs to provide clarity here,” John Buyers, international head of AI at law firm Osborne Clarke, told CNBC, adding he’s learned from sources that a consultation for formal AI safety laws is “waiting to be released.”

“By issuing consultations and plans on a piecemeal basis, the U.K. has missed the opportunity to provide a holistic view of where its AI economy is heading,” he said, adding that failure to disclose details of new AI safety laws would lead to investor uncertainty.

Still, some figures in the U.K. tech scene think that a more relaxed, flexible approach to regulating AI may be the right one.

“From recent discussions with the government, it is clear that considerable efforts are underway on AI safeguards,” Russ Shaw, founder of advocacy group Tech London Advocates, told CNBC.

He added that the U.K is well positioned to adopt a “third way” on AI safety and regulation — “sector-specific” regulations that rules to different industries like financial services and health care.

The Chinese government is considering a plan that would have Elon Musk acquire TikTok’s U.S. operations to keep the app from being effectively banned, Bloomberg News reported on Monday.

The contingency plan is one of several options China is exploring as the U.S. Supreme Court determines whether to uphold a law that calls for China-based ByteDance to divest TikTok’s U.S. business by Jan. 19, the report said, citing anonymous sources.

After that deadline, third-party Internet service providers would be penalized for supporting TikTok’s operations in the country.

Under the plan, Musk would oversee both X, which he currently owns, and TikTok’s U.S. business, Bloomberg said. However, Chinese government officials haven’t yet decided on whether it would proceed, the report said, noting that the plan is still preliminary.

It’s unclear whether ByteDance knows about the Chinese government’s plans and TikTok and Musk’s involvement in the discussions, the report said. Senior Chinese officials are debating contingency plans involving TikTok’s future in the U.S. as part of larger discussions about working with President-elect Donald Trump, the report added.

A TikTok spokesperson said in an email to CNBC, “We can’t be expected to comment on pure fiction.” X didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last week, the Supreme Court held oral arguments about the law potentially banning TikTok, which President Joe Biden signed in April. TikTok’s legal team argued that the law violates the free-speech rights of the millions of users in the U.S. while the U.S. government said that ByteDance’s ownership of TikTok poses a national security risk.

With the Supreme Court appearing to side with the government, TikTok could turn to Trump, when his second term begins on Jan. 20. Trump, who favored a TikTok ban during his first administration, has since flip-flopped on the matter. Late last month, he urged the Supreme Court to intervene and forcibly delay implementation of Biden’s ban to give him time to find a “political resolution.”

Trump’s rhetoric on TikTok began to turn after he met in February with billionaire Jeff Yass, a Republican megadonor and a major investor in ByteDance who also owns a stake in the owner of Truth Social, Trump’s social media company.

WATCH: SCOTUS hears TikTok ban case