Skip to content
Bramble

Technology

Judge Mehta dismisses Chegg and Penske Media antitrust suits over Google AI Overviews

US District Judge Amit Mehta dismissed antitrust suits by Chegg and Penske Media that accused Google of using its search monopoly to take publisher content for AI Overviews. He said lawmakers, not antitrust law, should address the economic effects on publishers.

4 outlets · 4L · 0C · 0R First reported Account updated

Updated (version 2). New coverage since the last version from Ars Technica, The A.V. Club.

Image: The Verge
Image: The A.V. Club
Image: Ars Technica
Image: The Hollywood Reporter

1 / 4

The story, neutrally told

US District Judge Amit Mehta dismissed antitrust lawsuits brought by Chegg and Penske Media Corporation (PMC), which accused Google of driving away web traffic with its AI-powered search features, in a ruling on Wednesday 30 September. Mehta, of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Google's motions to dismiss in a 41-page memorandum, according to the A.V. Club, citing Forbes. The suits, filed last year, alleged that Google abused its search monopoly by coercing publishers into supplying content for AI Overviews for free or risking disappearing from search results, diverting traffic and hurting revenue.

Ars Technica reported that Chegg claimed Google illegally scraped its educational content, allowing Gemini models to recreate it and reduce its traffic, while Penske said it was unfair that sites indexed for organic search also have their content harvested for AI answers with no way to opt out. Mehta wrote that the plaintiffs had pleaded only an 'expectation' that Google would send them search traffic if they made content available for free, and that 'an expectation is not an agreement. It is simply how a general search engine works.' According to the Hollywood Reporter, the court said accepting PMC's theory of a contract with Google would mean Google has agreements with billions of other websites, and found that search results and AI Overviews are not meaningfully different offerings because they share the same core purpose.

The Hollywood Reporter also reported that the court held PMC operates downstream of Google and so cannot bring antitrust claims in the general search market, with lost referral traffic and ad revenue not being direct antitrust injuries. Mehta said the court is not 'unsympathetic to the situation publishers now find themselves in', but that antitrust rules cannot replace a legislative body's decision on the economic impact of new technology. Mehta wrote that the court 'does not treat Plaintiffs' alleged harms lightly' and is bound 'to apply the law only as it is written, not how the court or any party believes it ought to be'; the A.V. Club quoted him saying 'That is an issue for Congress [or regulators] to consider.'

The Hollywood Reporter said the claims might suit an unjust enrichment claim, which the court did not decide, and that the dismissal was without prejudice, so PMC can refile; PMC declined to comment. Publishers have continued to see traffic fall since AI Overviews launched: Chartbeat reported a 40 percent year-over-year decline for Google search across its publisher network, and The Information reported this week that Google is paying around 100 publishers in a pilot program for contributions to AI Overviews, AI Mode and Gemini. Ars Technica noted that the European Commission is considering the same questions, that the UK has ordered Google to provide an AI opt-out for sites that want to stay in organic search results, and that publishers reportedly dislike Google's pilot payment program.

Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on.

Left4 outlets

Framing
All four outlets report the dismissal as a Google win while stressing the judge's sympathy for publishers and the traffic losses they face. The Verge and The Hollywood Reporter belong to Penske Media, the plaintiff, which the Verge discloses. Ars Technica frames it as a setback for publishers that leaves Google not looking 'particularly good', and the A.V. Club writes in a sardonic voice openly sympathetic to publishers.
Emphasis
The judge's reasoning that an expectation is not an agreement, the push for Congress or legislators to act, and publishers' falling traffic; the Hollywood Reporter adds the without-prejudice detail and Chartbeat data, Ars Technica adds Chegg's Gemini claim and European and UK context.
Leaves out or plays down
None includes a Google statement or a Chegg response. The Hollywood Reporter does not mention Chegg; The Verge omits the downstream-injury reasoning and the right to refile; the A.V. Club and Ars Technica do not mention that the dismissal was without prejudice.
Charged language
“tyrant tech giant”“Hoover up content”“In a setback for publishers”
For example
“tyrant tech giant” — The A.V. Club
“In a setback for publishers worried about the effects of AI search” — Ars Technica
“Disclosure: The Verge is part of Penske Media.” — The Verge

Centre0 outlets

No centre outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.

Right0 outlets

No right outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.