A U.S. judge has prevented two cases brought against Google over its AI summaries from going to trial, but it’s far from the win the tech giant needs in this highly contentious publishing space.

Here are the interesting take-outs for publishers:

• Specialist media house Penske and education publisher Chegg put a spotlight on the devastation caused by AI summaries.

• The ruling does not amount to a legal vindication for Google using content it scrapes for Search to create its Gemini-created summaries.

• Judge Amit Mehta found that Penske had failed to prove Search and AI Overviews should be considered as separate products for its argument that Google forces publishers to participate in both.

• The judge expressed sympathy for publishers whose content is taken and repurposed this way without compensation. He ruled, however, that the core complaints did not amount to breaches of federal anti-trust law.

• On the central claim dubbed as “reciprocal dealing,” the problem was simple: There was no agreement between Google and the publishers to exchange content for traffic.

• He declined to rule on the separate claims under California’s state law, where all parties agreed the question resides of whether Google had been “unjustly enriched” by the process.

INMA’s Digital Platforms Initiative has had these twin cases on its watchlist since they arose, and here’s a rapid-fire backgrounder on what to know.

1. The findings. Judge Amit Mehta in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Chegg and Penske Media’s claims after a pre-trial hearing on Google’s motions to dismiss the cases. The companies had alleged Google used its search monopoly to obtain their content for free for its AI summaries.

2. Key claims. Penske Media, publisher of Rolling Stone, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, The Verge and others, claimed Google broke anti-trust law by forcing publishers to allow their content to be used in AI Overviews if they wanted to remain indexed in Google’s search results.

3. Highlighting audience loss. The publishers claimed AI summaries had robbed them of traffic, with Penske citing research showing clicks could fall by as much as 90%. Chegg, a specialist education provider, claimed Google was using its content to create rival learning and training products via AI. 

Eight months after lodging its anti-trust lawsuit, Chegg announced it would lay off roughly 45% of its staff, citing the impact of AI and reduced Google-driven traffic. Both companies said publishers depend on Google for referral traffic while Google increasingly keeps users on its own pages by reusing publisher content in snippets and AI-generated answers.

4. The theory. Publishers supply crawlable content, Google supplies traffic. Chegg and Penske noted that as “coercive reciprocal dealing.” Their argument was that Google is now turning that crawled content into its own content without payment while also reducing the traffic publishers receive in return.

5. The reply. Google argued it was under no obligation to index publishers’ content on the terms they sought.

6. The main ruling hinged on this. There is no agreement between publishers and Google about providing content in return for traffic. No terms negotiated, no traffic promised, and no commitment from publishers to supply content in return. An anti-trust agreement can be understood rather than written, but Mehta found the publishers had not alleged even that to back their claim of coercive reciprocal dealing. 

“An expectation is not an agreement,” he ruled.

7. The consolation prize. In a line that will be often quoted, Mehta acknowledged the predicament facing publishers and the knock-on consequences for journalists, educators, and other creators whose work Google “takes and repurposes without compensation.” 

It was a situation which he said the court was “not unsympathetic” to. His view, however, was that stretching anti-trust laws to address economic disruption from new technology was a job for Congress and regulators, not the court.

8. The immediate result. These cases have increased the barrier to using these particular federal anti-trust laws to attack AI summaries in the United States, but the lawsuit dismissal has to do with how it used anti-trust.

9. The surprise. Penske failed in its argument that Google had illegally tied Search and AI Overviews together by preventing media business from participating in one without the other. Mehta found Penske had not established that Search and AI Overviews were in fact two separate products. Without two separate products, there could be no arrangement that Google had tied both products together. 

10. The no-surprise. Judge Mehta knows this space backwards. He already dismissed a similar case during the pleading stage this year, brought by small U.S. regional publishers, Helena World Chronicle and Emmerich Newspapers. He relied on that earlier decision in rejecting parts of the Penske and Chegg cases and expressly left open the possibility that these latest cases be refiled or his dismissal appealed.

11. The bigger pattern. Google has lost major U.S. anti-trust cases involving Search, Ad Tech, and Google Play. None, however, has resulted in a break-up or major divestiture. All cases led only to behavioural remedies and restrictions. 

12. Where next. In the United States, the main legal battlefield over the use of publisher content doubles-down on copyright. In Europe, however, the front is much wider. The European Commission is investigating Google’s use of publisher content for AI under both competition law and the Digital Markets Act. In the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority has already imposed requirements giving publishers an effective AI opt-out and requiring fair treatment in Search, including AI Overviews. Licensing and compensation are very much in play.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .