Penske Media Company (PMC) filed a federal court docket memorandum opposing Google’s movement to dismiss its antitrust lawsuit. The corporate argues that Google has damaged the longstanding premise of an online ecosystem by which publishers allowed their content material to be crawled in alternate for receiving search site visitors in return.
PMC is the writer of twenty manufacturers like Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and Rolling Stone.
Internet Ecosystem
The PMC authorized submitting makes repeated references to the “elementary honest alternate” the place Google sends site visitors in alternate for permitting them to crawl and index web sites, explicitly quoting Google’s expressions of help for “the well being of the internet ecosystem.”
And but there are some business outsiders on social media who deny that there is any understanding between Google and internet publishers, an idea that even Google doesn’t deny.
This idea dates to just about the starting of Google and is generally understood by all internet employees. It’s embedded in Google’s Philosophy, expressed at the very least way back to 2004:
“Google could also be the solely firm in the world whose acknowledged aim is to have customers depart its web site as shortly as doable.”
In Might 2025 Google printed a blog post the place they affirmed that sending customers to web sites remained their core aim:
“…our core aim stays the similar: to assist individuals discover excellent, unique content material that provides distinctive worth.”
What’s related about that passage is that it’s framed inside the context of encouraging publishers to create top quality content material and in alternate they are going to be thought of for referral site visitors.
The idea of an online ecosystem the place each side profit was mentioned by Google CEO Sundar Pichai in a June 2025 podcast interview by Lex Fridman the place Pichai stated that sending individuals to the human created internet in AI Mode was “going to be a core design precept for us.”
In response to a follow-up query referring to journalists who are nervous about internet referrals, Sundar Pichai explicitly talked about the ecosystem and Google’s dedication to it.
Pichai responded:
“I feel information and journalism will play an essential function, you realize, in the future we’re fairly dedicated to it, proper? And so I feel ensuring that ecosystem… Actually, I feel we’ll give you the option to differentiate ourselves as an organization over time due to our dedication there. So it’s one thing I feel you realize I undoubtedly worth rather a lot and as we are designing we’ll proceed prioritizing approaches.”
This “elementary honest alternate” serves as the baseline aggressive situation for his or her claims of coercive reciprocal dealing and illegal monopoly upkeep.
That baseline helps PMC argue:
- That Google modified the understood phrases of participation in search in a approach publishers can not refuse.
- And that Google used its dominance in search to impose these new phrases.
And regardless of that Google’s personal CEO expressed that sending individuals to web sites is a core design principal and there are a number of situations in the previous and the current the place Google’s personal documentation refers to this reciprocity between publishers and Google, Google’s authorized response expressly denies that it exists.
The PMC doc states:
“Google …argues that no reciprocity settlement exists as a result of it has not “promised to ship” any search referral site visitors.”
Profound Penalties Of Google AI Search
PMC filed a federal court docket memorandum in February 2026 opposing Google’s movement to dismiss its antitrust grievance. The grievance details Google’s use of its search monopoly to “coerce” publishers into offering content material for AI coaching and AI Overviews with out compensation.
The go well with argues that Google has pivoted from being a search engine (that sends site visitors to web sites) to a solution engine that removes the incentive for customers to click on to go to a web site. The lawsuit claims that this alteration harms the financial viability of digital publishers.
The submitting explains the penalties of this alteration:
“Google has shattered the longstanding discount that enables the open web to exist. The results for on-line publishers—to say nothing of the public at giant—are profound.”
Google Is Utilizing Their Market Energy
The submitting claims that the collapse of the conventional search ecosystem positions Google’s AI search system as coercive slightly than progressive, arguing that publishers should both enable AI to reuse their content material or threat shedding search visibility.
The authorized submitting alleges that Google’s generative AI competes straight with on-line publishers for person’s consideration, describing Google as cannibalizing writer’s site visitors, particularly alleging that Google is utilizing their “market energy” to keep a scenario by which publishers can’t block the AI with out additionally negatively affecting what little search site visitors is left.
The memorandum portrays a bleak selection supplied by Google:
“Google’s search monopoly leaves publishers with no selection: acquiesce—at the same time as Google cannibalizes the site visitors publishers rely on—or perish.”
It additionally describes the function of AI grounding performs in cannibalizing writer site visitors for its sole profit:
“Via RAG, or “grounding,” Google makes use of, repackages, and republishes writer content material for show on Google’s SERP, cannibalizing the site visitors on which PMC relies upon.”
Growth Of Zero-Click on Search Outcomes And Visitors Loss
The submitting claims AI solutions divert customers away from writer websites and diminish monetizable viewers visits. A number of elements of the submitting straight confronts Google with the truth of lowered site visitors from search due to the cannibalization of their content material.
The submitting alleges:
“Google reduces click on‑throughs to writer websites, will increase zero‑click on conduct, and diverts site visitors that publishers want to help their promoting, affiliate, and subscription income.
…Google’s insinuation . . . that AI Overview is not getting in the approach of the ten blue hyperlinks and the site visitors going again to creators and publishers is simply 100% false . . . . [Users] are studying the overview and stopping there . . . . We see it.”
…The aim is not to facilitate click-throughs however to have customers eat PMC’s content material, repackaged by Google, straight on the SERP.”
Zero-click searches are described as a element of a multi-part course of by which publishers are injured by Google’s conduct. The submitting accuses Google of utilizing writer content material for coaching, grounding their AI on info, after which republishing it inside the zero-click AI search setting that both reduces or eliminates clicks again to PMC’s web sites.
Ought to Google Ship Extra Referral Visitors?
All the things that’s described in the PMC submitting is the form of factor that nearly all on-line companies have been complaining about by way of site visitors losses because of Google’s AI search surfaces. It’s the cause why Lex Fridman particularly challenged Google’s CEO on the quantity of site visitors Google is sending to web sites.
Disclaimer: This article is sourced from external platforms. OverBeta has not independently verified the information. Readers are advised to verify details before relying on them.
