On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta dismissed two antitrust cases filed by Chegg and Penske Media Corporation. Both companies had accused Google of pulling traffic away from their sites with AI‑powered search features called AI Overviews. The judge said the publishers only had an “expectation” of traffic, not a legal agreement, and that antitrust law can’t substitute for new legislation.
What the lawsuits claimed
Chegg and Penske argued that Google forced publishers to give up their content for free to appear in AI Overviews, threatening to drop them from search results if they refused. They said this practice hurt their revenue because fewer users clicked through to their own pages.
Current landscape
Google says it is paying about 100 publishers in a pilot program for content used in AI Overviews, AI Mode, and Gemini, according to a report from The Information. The judge acknowledged the publishers’ concerns but said antitrust rules aren’t the right tool to address the economic impact of new technology.
Why it matters
For publishers, the ruling means they cannot rely on antitrust law to force Google to pay for traffic lost to AI Overviews. It also signals that any compensation will likely come from separate agreements or future legislation, not from courts. The practical impact on ordinary users is minimal; they will continue to see AI‑generated summaries in search results.
