Judge Dismisses Chegg, Penske Antitrust Suits Against Google AI Search

A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed antitrust lawsuits filed by Chegg and Penske Media against Google, ruling that the search engine’s AI‑powered content aggregation does not violate antitrust law.

Chegg claimed Google illegally scraped its educational content, feeding Gemini models and eroding traffic, while Penske argued that AI answers harvested its articles without an opt‑out option.

Key points

• Judge Amit Mehta dismissed 2025 filings by Chegg and Penske as lacking a formal agreement with Google.
• Chegg alleged Google scraped its content for Gemini, but the court said an expectation of traffic is not an agreement.
• Penske claimed AI answers harvested its articles without opt‑out, and the judge found no antitrust violation.
• The judge noted Google’s approach may be unfair to publishers, but it is not illegal under current law.
• Google has a pilot to pay sites for AI use, but publishers report limited enthusiasm.

What happened

The lawsuits were filed in 2025, after Chegg and Penske raised concerns that Google’s AI overviews siphoned traffic from their sites. Chegg said the company’s educational material was scraped and fed into Gemini models, causing a measurable drop in visitor counts. Penske, owner of Rolling Stone and Variety, alleged that the same AI harvesting eroded its organic traffic and that publishers had no mechanism to opt out.

Google moved for dismissal earlier this year, arguing that its search engine operates on publicly available content and that no formal agreement exists with the plaintiffs. Judge Amit Mehta agreed, noting that an expectation of traffic is not a contractual relationship. 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."

The judge also referenced the Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Google, which found violations but did not impose severe penalties. He acknowledged that Google’s AI search could be unfair to publishers, adding, "The court does not treat Plaintiffs’ alleged harms lightly... Nor is it unsympathetic to the situation publishers now find themselves in."

The backstory

Google’s shift to AI‑powered search began with the launch of Gemini, which aggregates snippets from indexed content to answer user queries. The move sparked industry debate over whether AI models ought to be allowed to reuse copyrighted text without compensation. Publishers raised concerns that their traffic would be cannibalized, prompting legal challenges.

Earlier this decade, the DOJ sued Google for monopolistic practices in search, a case that concluded with a settlement but left many questions about AI unaddressed. European regulators have taken a more skeptical stance, with the UK demanding an opt‑out mechanism for sites that wish to remain in organic results.

Legal implications

Mehta’s ruling clarifies that absent a direct contract, Google’s use of publicly available content does not trigger antitrust liability. The decision emphasizes that expectations of traffic are not enforceable agreements, a standard that may shield other tech firms from similar claims.

However, the judge’s comments signal that the court will not ignore the economic harm to publishers. The ruling could prompt legislators to craft new rules specifically targeting AI content reuse, a path that has yet to materialize in U.S. law.

Business implications

For publishers, the dismissal offers short‑term relief but also highlights the urgency of diversifying revenue streams. The pilot payment program Google is testing remains controversial, and the lack of a robust opt‑out option leaves many content owners exposed.

For technology vendors, the ruling confirms that building AI search tools on top of existing public data is currently defensible, though the evolving regulatory climate means companies must monitor European and UK developments closely.

What builders and businesses should do

• Monitor European Commission proposals on AI data use; the EU may impose stricter licensing rules.
• Consider implementing opt‑out or opt‑in mechanisms for your content if you distribute it through AI platforms.
• Explore revenue‑sharing models with AI providers to mitigate traffic loss.
• Stay informed about U.S. legislative efforts that could mandate compensation for AI‑derived content.
• Assess the feasibility of Google’s pilot payment program and engage with stakeholders to shape its terms.

The bottom line

Watch for the EU’s forthcoming AI data policy and any U.S. legislation; Google’s AI search will likely face further scrutiny as publishers seek compensation.