Google Moves to Dismiss Publisher Antitrust Lawsuit Over AI Search Features

Google and its parent company Alphabet have filed a motion to dismiss antitrust claims brought by Penske Media Corporation and its subsidiaries, arguing that displaying AI-generated summaries in search results is a lawful product enhancement rather than anti-competitive conduct.

Third Attempt to End the Case in Federal Court

Filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the motion marks Google’s third attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed. The publishers amended their complaint twice after earlier dismissal efforts, but Google says the revised claims still fail under antitrust law.

Penske Media Accuses Google of Forcing Content Surrender

Penske Media, which owns Rolling Stone, Variety, Billboard, and Deadline, sued Google last September. The publisher alleges that Google forces media companies to allow their content to be used for AI training and republished in AI Overviews and Featured Snippets as a condition for appearing in search results.

Publishers Say AI Overviews Drain Traffic and Revenue

According to the complaint, Google’s AI-powered features divert traffic away from publisher websites, undermining advertising, affiliate, and subscription revenue. Penske Media argues that this practice threatens the economic viability of online journalism.

Google Rejects Claims of Coercion and Monopoly Power

In its filing, Google contends that publishers voluntarily allow their content to be indexed and can opt out entirely if they choose. The company argues that what Penske Media describes as “reciprocal dealing” is merely a disagreement over business terms, which antitrust law does not prohibit.

Supreme Court Precedent Backs Google’s Position

Google’s motion cites Supreme Court precedent affirming that companies have broad discretion to set the terms on which they do business. The filing argues that antitrust law does not require Google to structure its products or partnerships according to publishers’ preferred conditions.

Market Definition at the Center of the Dispute

Google also challenges Penske Media’s definition of an “online publishing market,” calling it implausibly broad. The company notes that rival search engines such as Microsoft’s Bing and DuckDuckGo offer similar AI-powered search features, weakening claims that Google is unlawfully monopolizing the space.

Similar Claims Already Defeated

Google points out that it has successfully defeated comparable lawsuits from education company Chegg through dismissal motions. The same legal team represents both Chegg and Penske Media, and Google argues the plaintiffs have already had multiple chances to present their strongest case.

Legal Experts See High Bar for Antitrust Claims

Legal analysts note that while the lawsuit raises genuine concerns about the economic impact of AI on publishers, it faces significant challenges under existing antitrust standards. Experts suggest the claims may struggle to meet the legal threshold required to show unlawful monopolization.

Case Could Continue Under Narrower Legal Theories

If Google’s motion is granted, the case could still proceed in a more limited form, potentially focusing on licensing or copyright issues rather than antitrust law. If denied, the lawsuit could evolve into a broader test case examining the intersection of AI, platform dominance, and competition law.

Google Fights on Multiple Antitrust Fronts

The lawsuit adds to Google’s growing legal battles in the United States. While a federal judge recently ruled that Google unlawfully monopolized U.S. search, the court stopped short of forcing the company to divest Chrome, opting instead for behavioral remedies. Separate ad-tech cases remain ongoing, leaving Google simultaneously defending its search business, advertising stack, and AI-driven features.

Broader Implications for AI and Publishing

As courts and regulators scrutinize how generative AI reshapes online ecosystems, the outcome of this case could influence how search engines integrate AI summaries and how publishers protect their content in an increasingly automated information economy.