Judge Says Google/Publisher AI Situation “Seems Really Unfair”

Google discovered itself pressed by Decide Amit Mehta about whether or not their monopoly place in Search enabled them to take writer content material and use it for AI solutions. The alternate occurred on Tuesday in a listening to to find out whether or not to grant Google’s request to dismiss Penske Media’s antitrust lawsuit over Google’s AI Overview characteristic.

Decide Mehta is identical choose that beforehand discovered Google to have an unlawful monopoly in Search. The Tuesday listening to centered on whether or not that monopoly discovering provides Penske a viable declare. Penske alleges that Google is utilizing it’s monopoly place to pressure publishers to make their content material out there to Google for AI coaching and solutions.

Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content material Subsequent (DCN), a commerce affiliation that represents digital content material creators, attended the listening to and detailed what occurred in a collection of tweets.

What Google Argued

Based on Kint, Google’s attorneys defined that AI Overviews is a “product enchancment” and described the standard association wherein publishers let Google crawl their content material in alternate for search site visitors as a “imprecise historic course of dealing.”

Google’s written filings within the case have argued that AI Overviews isn’t a separate product from search and that publishers can all the time decide out of indexing, arguing that Penske’s claims are a requirement for Google to cease the pure evolution of search.

Based on Kint, the Decide Mehta didn’t appear receptive to the best way Google noticed it.

Kint tweeted:

“Google attorneys repeatedly characterised AI Overviews as a “product enchancment” and referred to as the historic traffic-for-crawling cut price with publishers a “imprecise historic course of dealing.”!!! GTFO. Mehta pushed again: the scenario “all appears actually unfair.””

He additional defined:

“Mehta famous publishers lack management over how Google makes use of their content material and described Google’s “product enchancment” as being constructed “on the backs of the publishers.” Importantly, he stated product enhancements “are usually not immune from antitrust scrutiny.””

Google’s Use Of Writer Content material

The choose famous that different AI firms are paying for content material whereas Google is utilizing their search monopoly to ingest all the web and never pay a single dime for it. This was very attention-grabbing as a result of it provides an thought of the place the choose was leaning.

Kint tweeted:

“Mehta additionally noticed {that a} market is clearly forming for GenAI inputs. Penske pointed to OpenAI and Perplexity as G opponents paying for content material whereas arguing Google makes use of its search monopoly to acquire the identical inputs at zero – elevating rivals’ prices and boundaries to entry. 4/5”

Why Publishers Can’t Say No To Google

Google honestly insists that publishers can decide out of giving their content material to Google for AI coaching. They’ll now additionally decide out of AI Mode and AI Overviews. But when Google solely exhibits AI Overviews then which means a writer might lose out of no matter crumbs of site visitors AIO sends, which is much lower than the ten blue hyperlinks despatched.

Not Trying Good For Google

The listening to is one spherical in a case that has been ongoing since September 2025. Mehta has not but dominated on the movement to dismiss. His questions and feedback at Tuesday’s listening to point out that he could also be contemplating whether or not the identical monopoly energy recognized within the 2024 United States v. Google antitrust case may be at play in how Google can use that dominance to dictate the unfavorable writer/Search relationship phrases.

Takeaways

Decide Amit Mehta’s questions and statements appear to point that he could also be skeptical of Google’s argument that AI Overviews are only a product enchancment. He raised the query of whether or not Google’s search monopoly provides it an unfair benefit in having the ability to use writer’s content material for coaching AI and for basing their AI Overviews solutions with them, whereas opponents need to pay hundreds of thousands for content material. His feedback about publishers missing management, Google’s AI options being constructed “on the backs of the publishers,” and product enhancements remaining topic to antitrust scrutiny appears to point that Penske’s case might survive Google’s movement to dismiss.

It’s no secret that publishers and SEOs discover that site visitors to web sites have steadily cratered as Google transforms the standard search field into, first a solution engine and subsequent into agentic activity completion.

• Mehta appeared skeptical of Google’s protection. He reportedly referred to as the scenario “actually unfair” after Google characterised AI Overviews as a product enchancment.
• Google’s product-improvement argument might not protect AI Overviews. Mehta reportedly stated product enhancements “are usually not immune from antitrust scrutiny.”
• The choose targeted on Google’s benefit in acquiring writer content material. Mehta famous {that a} market is forming wherein competing AI firms pay for content material that Google can get hold of without charge.
• Publishers technically have methods to decide out. They’ll exclude content material from AI coaching and now from AI Mode and AI Overviews, however opting out of Google’s AI search options additionally means giving up site visitors from them.
• The monopoly discovering hangs over the case. The central query is whether or not Google’s established search monopoly additionally permits it to dictate unfavorable phrases for publishers whose content material powers its AI options.
• Google has not misplaced this spherical but. Mehta has not dominated on the movement to dismiss, however his questions point out that Penske’s antitrust principle is receiving severe consideration.

Featured Picture by Shutterstock/beast01