On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta dismissed two antitrust lawsuits that had been brought by Chegg and Penske Media Corporation, the parent of Rolling Stone. The suits claimed that Google’s artificial-intelligence-driven search features, marketed as AI Overviews, were unlawfully diverting web traffic away from the plaintiffs’ sites.
According to the complaints, Google allegedly abused its dominant position in online search by forcing publishers to provide content for its AI Overviews without compensation. The plaintiffs argued that refusal to comply would result in their material disappearing from Google’s search results, effectively coercing free contributions while simultaneously siphoning visitor traffic that previously supported their revenue streams.
Judge Mehta concluded that the allegations failed to satisfy the legal standards required for an antitrust claim. In his written opinion, he stated that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that Google’s conduct constituted unlawful monopoly behavior under existing jurisprudence, leading to the dismissal of both cases.
Despite the court’s ruling, many publishers continue to report sharp declines in traffic after Google rolled out its AI-enhanced search interface. Industry observers note that news outlets and smaller websites have experienced a pronounced drop in visitor numbers, a trend that some attribute to the prominence of AI-generated answer boxes that replace traditional organic listings.
According to a report by The Information, Google has begun a pilot program that compensates roughly one hundred publishers for supplying material used in AI Overviews, its AI Mode feature, and the Gemini model. The payments are intended to encourage participation in the AI ecosystem, though the scale of the program remains limited relative to the broader pool of content creators.
The antitrust actions were filed in the previous year, reflecting growing frustration among digital publishers over Google’s evolving search algorithms. With the dismissals, the plaintiffs lose a potential avenue for recovering alleged revenue losses, and the decision may influence how future challenges to AI-driven search practices are framed in U.S. courts.