While Google may dominate the search engine market, recent lawsuits did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the company exploited its position.
A federal judge has thrown out lawsuits filed by Penske Media Corporation (PMC) and Chegg, which claimed that Google’s AI Overviews unlawfully diverted readers by reformatting their online materials. Judge Amit Mehta, who previously concluded in 2024 that Google held a monopoly in online search, determined that the plaintiffs had not adequately demonstrated that Google violated antitrust laws.
PMC and Chegg argued that Google’s use of AI Overviews and its extensive web indexing was damaging their digital advertising revenues by drawing traffic away from their platforms. Chegg further contended that Google was effectively coercing websites into making their content available for AI usage, warning that those who refused risked being removed from search results.
The judge dismissed these claims on various grounds, stating that neither company successfully proved that Google was exploiting its monopoly to access their content for free or that it was seeking an unfair edge in digital publishing. “The plaintiffs have only asserted an ‘expectation’ of receiving search traffic from Google if they offer their content for free,” Mehta explained. “However, an expectation does not equate to an agreement; it simply reflects the nature of general search engines.”
Engadget has reached out to PMC and Chegg for their thoughts on the judge’s opinion and will provide updates if a response is received.
Other publishers have expressed worries about how their content contributes to Google’s AI features, although the issue remains complex. Publishers can choose to exclude certain webpages from being utilized for AI Overviews, yet those pages will still appear in standard search results. Given that increasing sections of search result pages are filled with AI-generated content, many publishers may find this arrangement unsatisfactory.
