U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta threw out two antitrust suits against Google on Wednesday. Penske Media, which owns Rolling Stone, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, brought one. Chegg, the homework-help company, brought the other. AI Overviews are the AI summaries at the top of Google search results. Both companies said Google made sites choose: let AI Overviews use their work, or drop out of search. They said that pulled readers and revenue away from their sites. Mehta said their core claim, that Google made publishers trade their content for traffic, fails "to get out of the starting gate." He's the same judge who ruled in 2024 that Google illegally kept a monopoly in search. He dismissed Penske's case without prejudice, so Penske can refile. His order also says it's final, so Penske can appeal. Google, Penske and Chegg didn't immediately comment.

1. Google Is Using Its Monopoly to Gut Publishers (Digital Content Next, People Inc.)

Publishers say the ruling changes nothing about the damage, and Google's dominance is the cause.

Publishers say they're losing readers. In its 2025 complaint, Penske said about a fifth of Google searches that link to its sites showed AI Overviews. It said its affiliate revenue had fallen more than a third from its peak by the end of 2024. Chartbeat data shows Google Search referrals across its publisher network fell 40.2% from July 2025 to July 2026. A 2025 Pew study found people clicked a link on 8% of visits when an AI summary showed up, and on 15% when it didn't.

Publishers say the ruling fixes nothing. Jason Kint is CEO of Digital Content Next, a trade group for digital publishers. "Strip away all of the legal technicalities and antitrust mumbo jumbo and the real-world problem is still crystal clear," he said after the ruling. He said Google is "swallowing up all of the journalism of humanity to power its AI products, while sending less and less traffic and value back." Kint said publishers had raised this harm in the government's case against Google and then sued on their own. "Now that path has been dismissed, too," he said.

Publishers can't block Google's AI without leaving search. People Inc. CEO Neil Vogel said in June that Google uses the same crawler for search and for AI. He called that "an incredible abuse of market power." Penske made the same point in court.

2. But This Is Just How Search Works (Google, International Center for Law & Economics)

Google says AI Overviews make search better, and the court found Google never had a deal with publishers.

AI Overviews are part of search, the company says. When Penske sued, Google spokesperson José Castañeda said people "find Search more helpful and use it more, creating new opportunities for content to be discovered." He called the claims meritless. Mehta found Penske hadn't plausibly alleged that search and AI Overviews are separate products rather than "an integrated search experience."

Clicks haven't collapsed, Google says. Liz Reid, head of Google Search, wrote in 2025 that total clicks from Search to websites had been "relatively stable" year over year. She said reports of steep drops are "often based on flawed methodologies." A Google spokesperson said in 2025 that AI Overviews "send traffic to a greater diversity of sites."

Nobody promised publishers traffic. Google told the court that publishers were really complaining it won't deal with them on their "preferred terms." Mehta agreed there was no bargain. "An expectation is not an agreement," he wrote. "It is simply how a general search engine works." Giuseppe Colangelo is a senior scholar of competition policy at the International Center for Law & Economics, a think tank. He has argued that copyright law should decide whether AI companies can use publishers' work and on what terms.

3. Still, This Is a Question for Lawmakers and Regulators (Judge Mehta, News/Media Alliance, European Commission)

The judge says it's a question for Congress or regulators, and publisher groups want a U.S. opt-out like Britain's.

The judge said he takes the complaints seriously. Mehta wrote that he doesn't treat the publishers' alleged harms "lightly." He said he isn't "unsympathetic" to them or to "journalists, educators, and other online creators whose content Google takes and repurposes without compensation." Quoting a 2009 ruling, he wrote that any gaps in antitrust law are "an issue for Congress [or regulators] to consider."

Regulators abroad already moved. In June, Britain's competition regulator ordered Google to let publishers opt out of AI Overviews, with nine months to comply. The European Commission opened an antitrust probe into Google's AI Overviews last December. Teresa Ribera, a European Commission executive vice president, said Google "may be abusing its dominant position" by using publishers' content for its own AI services.

Publishers want the same opt-out here. Danielle Coffey, president and CEO of the News/Media Alliance, said in January that publishers "need and deserve the ability to opt out of Google's AI." In Congress, Senators Josh Hawley and Richard Blumenthal filed a bill in 2025 to let people sue over AI use of copyrighted work without consent.

Where This Lands

Publishers say Google is using its search monopoly to take their work and cut their traffic. They say the ruling doesn't change that. Google says AI Overviews are just a better search page, and the judge found nobody promised publishers traffic. Mehta wrote that any gaps in antitrust law are for Congress or regulators to consider. Publisher groups want the same opt-out in the U.S..

Sources