Penske Media lawsuit over Google AI Overviews dismissed

A US judge dismissed the lawsuit Penske Media brought against Google over AI Overviews a year ago, saying there was no formal agreement between publishers and Google for the use of their content in exchange for traffic.

Judge Amit P. Mehta, the one who ruled Google’s search monopoly case, also ruled here saying he was not “unsympathetic” about the situation publishers are in but the court agreed with Google on the merits and legal findings of the case.

What the judge said. “They maintain that Plaintiffs have failed to plead any actual agreement whereby Defendants promised to “sell” Plaintiffs any specific amount of traffic—or any traffic whatsoever—in exchange for “buying” their content.” Mehta added, “The court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs have failed to allege plausible claims of reciprocal dealing.”

“The court does not treat Plaintiffs’ alleged harms lightly. Nor is it unsympathetic to the situation publishers now find themselves in, and the knock-on consequences to journalists, educators, and other online creators whose content Google takes and repurposes without compensation,” Mehta added.

The Press Gazette wrote, “US District Judge Amit Mehta found that no “formal bargain” had ever been struck between publishers and Google, which means they cannot prove a claim under antitrust law, specifically the Sherman Act.”

Judge Mehta dismissed the reciprocal-dealing argument because the publishers failed to prove an agreement, noting that “an expectation is not an agreement.” The court noted that the publishers failed to provide evidence of negotiated terms, mutual commitments, or communications indicating a shared understanding. Ultimately, the court determined that standard web crawling and the anticipation of search traffic are typical search engine functions, not a binding or forced contract.

You can see the full PDF ruling over here.

The original complaint. As a reminder, Penske Media’s lawsuit, year ago in D.C. federal court, claims Google forces publishers to accept the use of their content in AI summaries or risk being buried in search. The suit alleges:

• Google’s near-90% search dominance lets it avoid paying for content – unlike rival OpenAI, which has struck licensing deals with major publishers.
• AI Overviews appear on ~20% of searches linking to its sites and blames the feature for a one-third drop in affiliate revenue by late 2024.

Why we care. This is the first lawsuit by a major U.S. publisher targeting Google’s AI Overviews, which have negatively impacted traffic and revenue for various types of sites. Another publisher, MailOnline, reported that AI Overviews were responsible for a 56% CTR drop.

This is a major win for Google and a major loss for publishers. Ultimately, I don’t think publishers can sue their way into changing how AI will change the future. But now, with the judge dismissing this case, it is even more unlikely.