Google is working to dismiss the overlooked modular domain of the antitrust lawsuit against publishers regarding AI search features

Antitrust allegations filed by its subsidiaries argue that displaying AI-generated summaries in search results is a legitimate product enhancement rather than anti-competitive behavior. The motion to end this case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was filed on Monday, marking Google’s third attempt to dismiss the lawsuit. Publishers have twice amended their complaint after early dismissal efforts, but Google states that the revised allegations still do not meet the requirements of antitrust law. Penske Media accuses Google of forcing content transfer agreements that give Penske Media ownership of Rolling Stone, Variety, Billboard, and Deadline, suing Google last September. The publisher claims that Google forces media companies to allow their content to be used for AI training and to be reposted in AI overviews and featured summaries as a condition for appearing in search results. Publishers state that AI overviews divert traffic and revenue; according to the complaint, Google’s AI features shift traffic away from publisher websites, undermining advertising, affiliate, and subscription income. Penske Media believes this practice threatens the economic viability of the online news industry. Google denies allegations of coercion and monopoly power. In its filings, Google argues that publishers voluntarily allow their content to be indexed and can opt out entirely. The company considers the “reciprocal transaction” described by Penske Media merely a business terms disagreement, which antitrust law does not prohibit. Supreme Court precedents support Google’s position. Google’s motion cites Supreme Court cases confirming that the company has broad discretion in setting business terms. The document states that antitrust law does not require Google to structure its products or partnerships according to publishers’ preferences. Market definition is a point of contention. Google also questions Penske Media’s definition of the “online publishing market,” claiming it is too broad. The company notes that competing search engines like Microsoft’s Bing and DuckDuckGo also offer similar AI search features, weakening Google’s claim of illegal monopoly in this area. Similar allegations have been dismissed before. Google points out that it has successfully dismissed a similar lawsuit brought by education company Chegg through a motion to dismiss. Chegg and Penske Media are represented by the same legal team, and Google believes the plaintiffs have had multiple opportunities to present the strongest evidence. Legal experts say the antitrust threshold is high. Legal analysts note that while the lawsuit indeed reflects concerns about AI’s economic impact on publishers, it still faces significant challenges under current antitrust standards. Experts suggest these claims may be difficult to meet the legal threshold for proving illegal monopoly. The case may continue under a narrower legal theory. If Google’s motion is granted, the case could proceed in a more limited form, possibly focusing on licensing or copyright issues rather than antitrust law. If dismissed, the lawsuit could evolve into a broader test case exploring the intersection of AI, platform monopolies, and competition law. Google is fighting on multiple antitrust fronts. This lawsuit is part of Google’s growing legal battles in the U.S. Despite a recent federal judge ruling that Google illegally monopolized the U.S. search market, the court did not order the company to divest Chrome but instead adopted behavioral remedies. Other ad tech cases are ongoing, with Google defending its search business, ad stack, and AI-driven features. As courts and regulators examine how generative AI is reshaping the online ecosystem, 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.