In a setback for digital publishers, a US federal judge has dismissed antitrust lawsuits filed by Chegg and Penske Media against Google. The companies alleged that Google’s AI-driven search products, such as AI Overviews, illegally scraped their content to generate answers, thereby siphoning off critical web traffic. However, US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google’s conduct does not constitute a violation of existing antitrust statutes.
Expectation vs. Legal Agreement
The core of the ruling rested on the nature of the relationship between search engines and content providers. Judge Mehta noted that while publishers have an "expectation" that Google will direct traffic to them in exchange for free access to their content, this does not equate to a legal contract. "An expectation is not an agreement," Mehta wrote, clarifying that antitrust law cannot be applied to a relationship that lacks a formal arrangement.
Sympathy Without Legal Remedy
While the ruling favored Google, the court’s language was notably critical of the current situation. Mehta acknowledged the "knock-on consequences" for journalists, educators, and creators whose work is repurposed by Google without compensation. He emphasized that while the situation may feel unfair, the court is bound to apply the law as written, suggesting that any remedy for the economic harm caused by AI innovation must come from the legislature rather than the judiciary.
Global Regulatory Divergence
The dismissal highlights a growing divide between US judicial restraint and more aggressive regulatory approaches abroad. The European Commission is currently investigating similar concerns regarding Big Tech’s use of publisher data, and the UK has already mandated that Google provide an AI opt-out for sites wishing to remain in organic search. Meanwhile, Google’s internal efforts to compensate publishers through a pilot program have reportedly struggled to gain traction within the industry.
