Google seeks dismissal of antitrust lawsuit over AI search summaries from Rolling Stone publisher

Google defends AI search summaries in Rolling Stone publisher's lawsuit

WASHINGTON, Jan 13 (Reuters) - Google has asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit by the publisher of Rolling Stone, Billboard and Variety magazines that accuses the tech giant of eroding traffic to media companies' websites by adding AI-generated summaries to search results. In a filing, opens new tab on Monday in Washington's federal district court, Google and its parent Alphabet (GOOGL.O), opens new tab called Penske Media Corp's (PMC) lawsuit "legally defective in every way." Penske sued last year, claiming Google broke antitrust law by forcing publishers to allow AI overviews of their content if they want to remain indexed in Google search. Online education company Chegg is separately suing Google over its AI overviews. Google said its AI overviews are not a separate product from its search engine and that users can still directly access the publishers' pages through its search results. Google and Penske did not immediately respond to requests for comment. PMC said in its lawsuit, opens new tab that it relies heavily on Google search referrals to drive traffic and revenue that help to fund content across more than 25 print and digital brands. The publisher said that in a competitive market Google would pay publishers for republishing their work or using their content to train its AI systems. Google countered that it has no obligation to index publishers' content on their preferred terms. Publishers can block indexing entirely, the filing said, and Google does not make any referral traffic guarantees for indexed sites. "In PMC's preferred world, Google Search must be frozen in time, requiring users to speculatively visit websites like PMC's to access their desired information -- if it is found there at all," Google told the court. Google separately faces a pair of antitrust lawsuits by the U.S. government over the company's search and advertising practices. Media publishers including PMC and others also are suing over Google's advertising business. The case is Penske Media Corp et al v. Google and Alphabet, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:25-cv-03192-APM. For plaintiffs: Ian Crosby, Davida Brook and Geng Chen of Susman Godfrey For defendants: Sonal Mehta and David Gringer of WilmerHale Judge in Google ad tech case seeks quick fix for web giant's monopolies Google ruling shows how tech can outpace antitrust enforcement What comes next in Google's antitrust case over search? Google taps top Obama Supreme Court lawyer for search antitrust appeal Reporting by Mike Scarcella Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Google Seeks Dismissal of Publisher Lawsuit Over AI Search Summaries - Decrypt

The motion dismisses PMC's "reciprocal dealing" theory as simply a refusal to deal on the publisher's preferred terms, conduct protected under Supreme Court precedent. Google and its parent company Alphabet have filed a motion to dismiss antitrust claims from Penske Media Corporation and its subsidiaries, saying that displaying AI-generated summaries on its search engine constitutes lawful product improvement rather than anti-competitive behavior. Filed on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, this marks Google's third attempt to kill the lawsuit after publishers amended their complaints twice following earlier dismissal motions. Penske Media, which owns Rolling Stone, Variety, Billboard, and Deadline, sued Google last September, alleging the search giant forces publishers to surrender content for AI training and republishing as a condition of appearing in search results. The publisher claims that Google's AI Overviews and Featured Snippets cannibalize traffic that would otherwise flow to their websites, threatening their advertising, affiliate, and subscription revenue models. Google's motion systematically attacks each claim, saying that PMC "faults Google for introducing generative AI features on its search engine that more efficiently provide users with the information they seek." The company insists that publishers voluntarily allow Google to index their content and are able to opt out entirely. "What the Amended Complaint calls 'reciprocal dealing' is nothing more than a claim that Google is refusing to deal with PMC on PMC's preferred terms," the filing reads, citing Supreme Court precedent that firms have "broad latitude to set the terms on which they will do business with others." Google contests PMC's market definitions, calling the alleged "online publishing market," encompassing all text-based content online, "massively overbroad and implausible." The company notes that competitors like Microsoft's Bing and DuckDuckGo offer similar AI-powered search features, undercutting monopolization claims. Google has already defeated similar claims from education company Chegg twice through dismissal motions. The same legal team represents both plaintiffs, and Google says they've had "multiple opportunities to plead [their] best case" across four complaints. "PMC's case raises legitimate concerns about economic harm to publishers from AI integration in search, but its antitrust framework faces significant hurdles under current law," Ishita Sharma, managing partner at Fathom Legal, told Decrypt. If Google's motion is granted, the case could still move forward in a "narrower form," such as licensing or copyright claims; if it is denied, the fight may expand into "antitrust litigation at the intersection of AI and platform power," potentially inviting broader regulatory scrutiny, she added. Last September, a federal judge declined to force Google to divest its Chrome browser despite ruling the company unlawfully monopolized U.S. search, instead imposing conduct remedies aimed at loosening Google's grip on search and advertising markets. In November, a separate U.S. judge signaled urgency in the Justice Department's ad-tech case, questioning how quickly a forced breakup of Google's advertising business could be implemented as regulators pushed for the sale of its AdX exchange following findings that the company held illegal monopolies in key ad-tech markets. Those cases remain under appeal or in the remedies phase, leaving Google simultaneously defending its core search business, advertising stack, and now its use of generative AI features against claims that they entrench monopoly power at publishers' expense. Decrypt has requested comment from Google, its legal team at WilmerHale, Penske Media Corporation, and the publishers' attorneys at Susman Godfrey.

Google defends AI search summaries in Rolling Stone publisher's lawsuit

In a on Monday in Washington's federal district court, Google and its parent Alphabet called Penske Media Corp's (PMC) lawsuit "legally defective in every way." Google has asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit by the publisher of Rolling Stone, Billboard and Variety magazines that accuses the tech giant of ⁠eroding traffic to media companies' websites by adding AI-generated summaries to search results. In a on Monday in Washington's federal district court, Google and its parent Alphabet called Penske Media Corp's (PMC) lawsuit "legally defective in every way." Penske sued last year, claiming Google broke antitrust law by forcing publishers to allow AI overviews of their content if they want to remain indexed in Google search. Online education company Chegg is separately suing Google over its AI overviews. Google said its AI overviews from its search engine and that users can still directly access the publishers' pages through its search results. Google and Penske did not immediately respond to requests for comment. PMC said in its that it relies heavily on Google search referrals to drive traffic and revenue that help to fund content across more than 25 print and digital brands. The publisher said that in a competitive market Google would pay publishers for republishing their work or using their content to train its AI systems. Google countered that it has no obligation to index publishers' content on their preferred terms. Publishers can block indexing entirely, the filing said, and Google does not make any referral traffic guarantees for indexed sites. "In PMC's preferred world, Google Search must be frozen in time, requiring users to speculatively visit websites like PMC's to access their desired information - if it is found there at all," Google told the court. Google separately faces a pair of antitrust lawsuits by the U.S. government over the ⁠company's search and advertising practices. Media publishers ⁠including PMC and others also are suing over Google's advertising business. The case is Penske Media Corp et al v. Google and Alphabet, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:25-cv-03192-APM.