Judge Dismisses Penske’s Google AI Overviews Suit, Rejecting Content-for-Traffic Bargain

Penske Media’s claim that Google’s AI answers drain visits and revenue has hit a legal barrier: the publisher had not plausibly shown that Google ever promised those visits. US District Judge Amit Mehta dismissed its antitrust lawsuit over AI Overviews, acknowledging alleged harm to publishers but rejecting the legal arguments Penske used to challenge the search feature.

The answer can replace the visit

The dispute starts with what happens after a search. AI Overviews provide summaries that can satisfy a user without a click to the websites supplying the information. Penske argued that this reduced search impressions and referrals to its content, hurting advertising, affiliate and subscription revenue. It publishes titles including Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Rolling Stone.

Penske also said it could not block Google from using its material in AI Overviews while retaining normal visibility in search results. Losing that visibility would be devastating to revenue, it argued. Its complaint therefore challenged both the alleged exchange of content for traffic and the requirement to accept AI use to remain visible in search.

An expectation is not a contract

Mehta found no plausible formal or implied agreement under which Google bought publisher content by promising search traffic. There was no communication showing that the parties had mutually agreed to such a transaction. Google had not promised any specific number of visits—or any visits at all—in exchange for access to the material.

Penske tried to establish an implied agreement through the parties’ historical dealings. But Mehta said that argument still needed essential terms, such as price or quantity. Allowing Google to access content at a price of zero did not establish a negotiated bargain. He found it more plausible that publishers accepted free crawling because they independently wanted search traffic.

The judge also tested the reach of Penske’s theory. Accepting it would mean Google had contracts with every website it indexed, creating agreements with billions of web publishers. Encouraging higher-quality websites did not change that conclusion: Google made no promise that better content would receive traffic, or how much. Search incentives were not, in his reasoning, contractual commitments.

But an expectation is not an agreement. It is simply how a general search engine works.

US District Judge Amit Mehta, in the ruling

One search experience, not two products

Penske’s tying argument—that Google improperly linked participation in its AI features to visibility in general search—faced a different obstacle. Mehta found that Penske had not plausibly alleged two separate products. Instead, he viewed general search and AI Overviews as an integrated search experience.

Penske’s account of user behavior worked against that argument. It alleged that people satisfied by an Overview had little reason to continue to another website. Mehta reasoned that this suggested a general demand for information, rather than separate demand for traditional links and AI summaries. Both served the same purpose: answering a search query. The alleged loss of clicks did not establish separate products.

The financial allegations were substantial. Penske said organic affiliate revenue fell by more than a third from its peak to the end of 2024, after traffic to affiliate-linked content dropped dramatically. That was Penske’s allegation, not a court finding quantifying the damage. Google denied wrongdoing and argued that it had no obligation to index publishers’ content on their preferred terms.

Mehta did not dismiss the publishers’ predicament. He acknowledged consequences for journalists, educators and other creators whose work Google repurposes without compensation. But he said antitrust law does not replace legislators’ authority to address economic harm caused by innovation. His ruling drew a boundary between recognizing that harm and finding the legal elements needed for Penske’s claims to proceed.