Google's third request to dismiss the AI search summary antitrust lawsuit—what's really behind it

Google recently filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss Penske Media’s antitrust lawsuit against its AI Overviews (AI Search Summaries) feature. This marks Google’s third attempt to withdraw the case, reflecting the complexity and high stakes of this legal dispute. According to the latest updates, if this dismissal request is denied, the case will proceed to a broader antitrust review of AI and platform dominance.

Google’s Legal Defense Strategy

Google’s main arguments in the motion center around two key points:

AI Overviews constitute legitimate product improvements

Google claims that AI Overviews are not monopolistic behavior but a normal iteration and upgrade of its search product. The logic is: as a search engine, enhancing the presentation of search results is a fundamental right of the platform.

Media have the choice not to be indexed, and this does not constitute coercion

Google emphasizes that media publishers can opt out of being indexed, so there is no coercive action. This means that if media believe AI Overviews infringe on their rights, they can prevent Google from crawling their content via robots.txt or other methods.

Why the third withdrawal request is noteworthy

This is not Google’s first defense of AI Overviews. Three consecutive withdrawal requests highlight several issues:

• Ongoing legal risks: If the first two requests were rejected, submitting a third indicates that Google is not optimistic about the legal outlook but is still trying to defend itself.
• Substantial claims from opponents: Antitrust allegations from media outlets like Penske Media are substantial enough to bring the case this far.
• Increased likelihood of case escalation: If this dismissal request is again denied, Google will face a substantive trial, which could lead to deeper antitrust investigations and broader scrutiny of AI platform power.

Core controversy: Conflict between AI summaries and media rights

The fundamental issue in this lawsuit concerns the operational logic of AI Overviews. When users search on Google, AI directly generates summary-style answers, which may reduce the likelihood of users clicking through to the original media sites. For news publishers relying on search traffic, this is akin to Google “cutting off” their traffic.

Penske Media’s antitrust allegations essentially ask: as the dominant player in the search market, is Google leveraging its monopoly position to promote its own AI products, thereby harming competitors and content creators?

Broader context: Platform power in the AI era

This case is not isolated. Recent developments show Google has been active in AI—ranging from collaborating with Apple to improve Siri, launching the Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP), and integrating AI features across various fields. These initiatives reflect Google’s efforts to strengthen its platform position through AI.

In this context, Penske Media’s lawsuit can be seen as a judicial inquiry into whether “platform power in the AI era is getting out of control.”

Summary

Google’s third motion to dismiss is a passive legal defense. While Google claims that AI Overviews are legitimate product improvements and that media can choose not to be indexed, whether this argument will persuade the court remains uncertain. If the motion is denied, the case will proceed to a substantive trial, expanding the issues from “Is this feature legal?” to “How can AI platforms balance innovation and fair competition in the AI era?”

This is not only Google’s challenge but also a broader issue facing the tech industry: as AI becomes a core competitive advantage, how can large platforms prevent abuse of monopoly power? The outcome of this case could lay important groundwork for future AI regulation.