The Pulse
Judge Dismisses Chegg and Penske Suits Over Google AI Overviews
A federal judge dismissed antitrust lawsuits from Chegg and Penske Media alleging Google used publishers’ content in AI Overviews while reducing traffic to their sites. The ruling said the companies had not adequately pleaded their antitrus
AI.info Team · Written with AI ·
On September 30, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta dismissed antitrust lawsuits brought by education technology company Chegg and Penske Media, the publisher of Rolling Stone, Billboard and Variety. The companies alleged that Google used publishers’ content in AI-generated summaries that draw readers away from their websites, and that publishers risk losing search visibility if they refuse to allow Google to use their material.
The ruling concerned the companies’ antitrust claims. Mehta said their allegations did not establish that Google had made an agreement to exchange search traffic for permission to crawl publishers’ sites. The decision does not establish that every use of publishers’ material by Google is lawful.
The alleged exchange of content for traffic
Chegg and Penske described a relationship in which publishers allowed Google to crawl and index their websites and expected search results to direct users back to their pages. They argued that Google’s AI Overviews changed that relationship by placing generated answers in search results, giving users less reason to click through to the original sites. The companies said publishers depended on referrals for revenue and were effectively pressured to permit Google’s use of their content if they wanted to remain indexed.
Mehta rejected the claim that this expectation amounted to an agreement sufficient to support the antitrust theory. In his ruling, he wrote:
“Plaintiffs have pleaded only that they have an ‘expectation’ that Google will send them search traffic if they make their content available for free. But an expectation is not an agreement. It is simply how a general search engine works.”
The plaintiffs argued that, in a competitive market, Google would pay to republish their work or use it to train AI systems. Google denied wrongdoing and argued it had no obligation to index publishers’ content on terms they chose.
What the companies said was at stake
Penske’s complaint described its content as the product of investment in journalists, editors and other resources. It alleged that the company relied on Google referrals to bring readers to its publications, where visits could generate advertising, affiliate-link and subscription revenue. Penske argued that AI summaries could provide answers directly on Google’s search-results page, reducing click-throughs to the sites whose material informed those answers.
Chegg brought a parallel case focused on educational content. The company alleged that Google’s summaries used educational material while competing with the publishers that created it. Both companies claimed the alleged reduction in referrals threatened revenue at their websites.
The plaintiffs’ proposed remedy was not simply a dispute over whether Google could operate a search engine. They said publishers should be able to withhold permission for uses such as republishing work or using it in AI systems without losing access to ordinary search indexing and referrals. Google countered that it was not required to index content on the publishers’ preferred terms.
The ruling and the broader concern
Mehta said he was not unsympathetic to publishers and other online creators whose content Google takes and repurposes without compensation. He also said antitrust law could not substitute for lawmakers’ authority to address economic harm caused by innovation. His ruling resolved the companies’ antitrust challenges; it did not decide the broader policy question of how publishers should be compensated for the use of their work in AI products.
The decision follows a March ruling by the same judge rejecting similar claims from another publisher. Chegg’s case is Chegg Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 25-cv-543, and Penske’s is Penske Media Corp. v. Google LLC, No. 25-cv-3192. Both were heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.