On Sept. 30, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta dismissed antitrust suits brought by education company Chegg and Penske Media, whose publications include Rolling Stone, Billboard, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline. The suits alleged Google used its search dominance to force publishers to provide content for AI Overviews, Gemini and related generative AI features without payment, while diverting traffic that publishers depend on for advertising, subscriptions and affiliate revenue.
The court rejected the antitrust theory, not the traffic concern
The Sept. 30 memorandum opinion, made available through Justia and GovInfo, covers both Chegg v. Google and Penske Media v. Google. Because the cases were at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court treated well-pleaded factual allegations as true for the analysis. Even under that standard, Judge Mehta concluded the amended complaints failed.
On reciprocal dealing, the plaintiffs argued that Google had changed the old web bargain. Publishers allowed Google to crawl and index their content expecting referral traffic in return. Google then allegedly used that content for AI products that answered queries directly and reduced clicks to source sites.
The court found that theory lacked a necessary element for the antitrust claims: an agreement. The opinion put it plainly: an expectation is not an agreement. In the court’s view, publishers had alleged a reliance on how general search works, not a commercial deal in which Google promised a specific amount of traffic in exchange for content.
Only Penske brought a tying claim, arguing that Google unlawfully tied AI Overviews to its general search product. The court dismissed that claim too, finding that Penske had not plausibly alleged the necessary separate products or that users were forced to take a tied product from Google.
The monopoly-maintenance claims failed on antitrust standing. The court said the alleged harms, including lost subscriptions, lost revenue and inadequate compensation for content used to train or ground large language models, were experienced outside the general search services market. The attempted-monopolization and monopoly-leveraging claims also failed. For Penske, the proposed online publishing market was too broad. For Chegg, the court said the complaint did not plausibly allege that Google had a dangerous probability of monopolizing the online educational publishing market.
After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the California unjust enrichment claims. The opinion said a final, appealable order would accompany the ruling.
Why the payment pilot now looks more significant
Separate from the court fight, Google has confirmed it is experimenting with new partnership and value-exchange models. In a June public-policy post, the company said it is piloting a way to work with websites whose content contributes to the freshness and factuality of generative AI responses through grounding.
Digiday reported on Sept. 14 that Google is testing an AI contribution pilot that pays participating publishers when their content significantly contributes to AI-generated responses across Gemini, AI Overviews and AI Mode. According to Digiday, participating publishers see an AI earnings widget in Search Console, but the dashboard does not show detailed payout logic. The publication reported that publishers can opt out at any time.
The Information later reported Google had admitted about 100 publishers to the pilot, and Ars Technica summarized reported payments ranging from less than $1,000 for some sites over several months to one early participant on track for more than $1 million per year. Those figures have not been published by Google, and they should be treated as reported ranges from participating or informed sources rather than standard program pricing.
The new bargain is still defined by Google
The payment pilot offers compensation, but the terms appear to be set by Google: which publishers participate, what counts as contribution, how value is measured and how much detail appears in Search Console.
For publishers, that makes the most useful distinction operational rather than legal. A citation is not the same as a contribution. A contribution is not the same as a click. A click is not the same as revenue. A payment is not the same as a license with negotiated usage terms. Treating those as separate metrics is now essential for any publisher trying to measure AI search impact.
Google has said its generative AI Search features are designed to highlight the web and send users to sites, and the company says AI Overviews has more than 2.5 billion monthly active users while AI Mode has surpassed 1 billion monthly users. For publishers, that scale cuts both ways. A prominent AI answer can create visibility, but it can also satisfy the searcher before a visit occurs, especially when the answer contains enough information to complete the task.
Controls have improved, but compensation is the harder question
Google also says it has rolled out controls that let site owners decide whether their sites appear in and help ground generative AI Search features such as AI Overviews and AI Mode. The same Google post says sites that opt out will not receive traffic or impressions from those generative AI features, and that the control is not used as a ranking signal for search results outside those AI features. Google updated the post to say the features had rolled out worldwide as of Aug. 31, 2026.
That control changes the choice publishers face, but it does not answer pricing. A publisher can choose exposure in AI answers, avoid that surface, pursue direct licensing where possible, or join a pilot if invited. Smaller publishers may have fewer negotiating options than national brands, which is one reason a standardized Search Console-based payout could appeal even if payments are modest.
What this means for AI search
The dismissals do not create a broad rule that all AI answer uses of publisher content are lawful in every context. The ruling was a pleading-stage decision about specific Sherman Act theories. Copyright, contract, competition, publisher-control and regulatory fights remain separate tracks.
For the web, the more immediate shift is commercial. AI search is no longer only a question of whether search engines send referral traffic. As more activity moves into Google-controlled search sessions, it is becoming a question of whether platforms can measure content contribution, share enough data for publishers to audit that measurement, and pay amounts that make publishing original work sustainable.
I can suggest related Tech Help Canada articles based on the topic you’re reading now.
Tech Help Canada Staff researches, writes, and reviews practical content for business owners and professionals. Our coverage spans business, marketing, SEO, technology, and the tools and systems people use to grow and operate online. We focus on clear, useful information backed by research, hands-on experience, and editorial review. Learn more about our team and editorial standards. Need help with something? Contact Us
