Judge Throws Out Antitrust Suits Over Google's AI Overviews

A federal judge has sided with Google in two antitrust cases that challenged how its AI-powered search features treat publishers. US District Judge Amit Mehta dismissed the lawsuits, brought by education company Chegg and Rolling Stone owner Penske Media Corporation (PMC), ruling on Wednesday that their claims fail under antitrust law. Reuters reported the news first.

Both companies filed their suits last year. They argued that Google was abusing its monopoly in search by effectively forcing publishers to hand over content for AI Overviews, the AI-generated summaries that appear at the top of results, at no cost. The alternative, they said, was to be dropped from search results altogether, which for most web publishers would mean a collapse in traffic.

The publishers also alleged that the summaries answer questions directly on the results page, so fewer readers click through to the original sites. For ad-supported and subscription businesses, that shift threatens revenue, and the complaints framed it as the product of anticompetitive leverage rather than a simple change in search design.

Mehta was unpersuaded that the allegations amounted to an antitrust violation. He is the same judge who presided over the landmark case in which Google was found to hold an illegal monopoly in online search, which gives his view of the company's market power particular weight. The dismissal suggests that, at least in this court, complaints about AI Overviews will need a sharper legal theory than harm to traffic alone.

The ruling is a setback for publishers who have been looking to competition law as a way to push back against AI features that reuse their reporting. Media companies have increasingly turned to licensing deals, copyright claims and regulatory complaints to address the same worry, with mixed results so far.

It is not yet clear whether Chegg or PMC will appeal or try to refile with revised claims. For now, Google keeps its current approach to AI Overviews, and the question of what publishers are owed when their content feeds AI search remains unsettled.