Key points
- A judge tosses two publisher suits over AI Overviews
- Leaving your site open to Google isn't a deal, he says
- The judge says any gap in the law is for Congress
A federal judge has dismissed Penske Media and Chegg's (CHGG) antitrust suits against Google (GOOGL) over AI Overviews. Judge Amit Mehta explained his decision in a 41-page opinion issued Wednesday.
I run a publishing site, and one passage stood out to me. Publishers let Google crawl their sites "because doing so serves their own independent interest in search traffic, not because they struck any bargain with Google," Mehta wrote. That distinction is central to why their reciprocal-dealing claim failed.
What were Penske and Chegg arguing?
Penske owns Rolling Stone, Variety, Billboard, and The Hollywood Reporter, and they all joined the suit. Chegg is the homework-help company. Both argued that Google uses its search monopoly to force publishers to hand over their content for free. They alleged that Google uses that content in AI Overviews and Gemini to answer questions directly, reducing clicks to the original sites.
The complaints called the old trade, content for search traffic, the "fundamental bargain" of the internet. Their argument was that Google changed the terms on its own.
Why did the judge throw it out?
The main claim was reciprocal dealing, which needs an actual agreement between two sides. Mehta found the publishers hadn't plausibly alleged one. He also pointed out where the theory leads: "if accepted, it would mean that Google contracts with every website that it indexes for Google Search." He called that "entirely implausible."
Penske also argued that Google illegally ties AI Overviews to search. Mehta said they're one product, citing his own earlier ruling: "If AI Overviews is a separate product from Google Search, then so is potentially every other type of search result Google delivers." Their claim that Google unlawfully maintained its search monopoly failed for lack of antitrust standing, as an earlier publisher suit in his court had. Their claims about monopolies in publishing markets were dismissed too.
He didn't rule on the state-law unjust enrichment claims. He declined to hear them once the federal claims were gone.
Is this over?
Not necessarily. The order dismisses the case without prejudice and calls itself "a final, appealable order." So the publishers can appeal, and the unjust enrichment theory hasn't been tested on the merits.
Mehta also ruled in 2024 that Google illegally maintained its search monopoly. Here, he rejected the publishers' particular antitrust theories.
What does this mean for publishers like us?
Mehta acknowledged the problem. The court is not "unsympathetic to the situation publishers now find themselves in," including "journalists, educators, and other online creators whose content Google takes and repurposes without compensation." But he said any gap in the law is "an issue for Congress."
We leave AIStockWire open to Google's crawler because we depend on search traffic. Google hasn't promised us visits or payment in return. Blocking the crawler would mean giving up traffic we need, so keeping access open makes business sense even when we dislike how Google uses the content.
That's the choice Mehta described. From a publisher's side, it leaves little bargaining power. In his ruling, it also falls short of an agreement that could support the reciprocal-dealing claim. We've felt a similar squeeze from Facebook, which capped our link posts.
An appeal, other legal claims, licensing negotiations, or legislation could change the position. These cases show why publishers can't assume antitrust law will turn access to their content into a right to payment.
