A federal judge dismissed two antitrust lawsuits over Google’s Search and AI Overviews on Wednesday, cutting off Chegg’s and Penske Media’s claims as pleaded. Google wins this round, but the ruling does not establish whether AI-generated search summaries have cost publishers visitors or revenue.
That distinction matters beyond these cases. The publishers alleged that Google used its position in search to obtain their content without payment while making visits to their sites less likely. U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta did not test whether those losses occurred. He found that the complaints failed to meet the legal requirements for the antitrust claims they brought.
An expected exchange is not an agreement
Chegg and Penske Media, joined by affiliated publishers in the latter case, alleged that Google made access to search referral traffic depend on publishers supplying content it could use in search and generative-AI products. They said summaries could give users enough information to stay on Google instead of visiting the sites that created the material. Those were the plaintiffs’ allegations, not findings after a trial.
One theory required a plausible agreement to exchange content for search traffic. Mehta found that the complaints described publishers’ expectation of referrals, not an agreement. As Engadget reported, Mehta wrote, "But an expectation is not an agreement. It is simply how a general search engine works".
That is a substantial obstacle for publishers whose businesses rely on search referrals. A change they regard as unfair to that relationship does not, by itself, establish the agreement this particular antitrust theory requires. Google and Alphabet argued that the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded such an arrangement; the court agreed on that point.
A search monopoly finding did not decide these claims
Mehta found in a separate 2024 case that Google maintained a monopoly in general search services. That earlier finding gives context to publishers’ concerns about their leverage with Google. It did not, however, establish that Google’s treatment of their content violated antitrust law.
Free newsletter
Get the morning briefing
Start each day with the AI stories that matter and why — a short, free email from our newsroom.
The complaints had other defects. Mehta found problems with the publishing markets the plaintiffs proposed and with their antitrust standing for claims tied to general search. A market definition identifies the field of competition a claim asks the court to examine; standing concerns whether the plaintiffs can pursue that claim for their alleged injuries. The court found the necessary allegations insufficient.
Penske’s tying claim also fell short because it did not plausibly establish that Search and AI Overviews were separate products. That distinction was necessary to its argument that Google improperly linked one product to another. The judge ruled on what the complaints alleged, not on an independent assessment of how AI Overviews changes publisher traffic.
The economic dispute outlasts these lawsuits
The immediate benefit to Google is clear: the federal antitrust claims in these complaints cannot proceed as pleaded. The cost to the publishers is the loss of this route to seek relief for the traffic diversion and uncompensated use they allege. But the dismissal neither measures those claimed losses nor determines whether publishers should be paid for material appearing in AI-generated search features.
Mehta also dismissed the state-law unjust enrichment claims after declining to hear them alongside the federal claims. He did not decide whether those claims had merit. Nor did the ruling resolve whether Google’s use of publisher material complies with copyright law.
The strongest version of Google’s position is narrower than a claim that publishers face no harm: even a serious business loss does not excuse a plaintiff from pleading a viable antitrust case. The publishers’ counterpoint is that search traffic can matter greatly to their ability to earn from original work, and they say Google has used its search position to take content without compensation. This decision accepts neither account as a measured description of AI Overviews’ economic effects.
Mehta suggested that Congress or regulators may be better placed to address economic disruption from technological change. His opinion says a final, appealable order accompanies the dismissal, but it does not establish whether either plaintiff has appealed. An appeal could revisit the legal outcome; independent evidence on clicks and revenue would address the separate question the ruling leaves unanswered.
