Judge dismisses Chegg and Penske antitrust suits over Google AI Overviews
A US judge rejected the publishers' federal antitrust claims; their state unjust-enrichment claims were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
The claims and the court’s answer
US District Judge Amit Mehta dismissed antitrust lawsuits brought by education publisher Chegg and Penske Media, the owner of Rolling Stone and other publications, against Google. The companies alleged that Google used their material in AI Overviews while effectively requiring them to allow those summaries if they wanted to remain indexed in search. They said the summaries took traffic and revenue from their sites. These are the plaintiffs’ allegations, not findings that the alleged losses or conduct violated antitrust law.
In the September 30 opinion, the judge found that an expectation of search referrals did not amount to a contractual agreement with Google. He also rejected the pleaded market definitions and other elements needed for the federal antitrust theories. Reuters reported the dismissal on October 1 and linked to the court’s memorandum opinion. The judge acknowledged the publishers’ economic concerns but said antitrust law could not be used to substitute for a legislative response to technological change.
A narrower result than a verdict on AI summaries
The court declined to keep jurisdiction over the remaining state-law unjust-enrichment claims after dismissing the federal claims, so those counts were dismissed without a ruling on their underlying merits. The opinion says a final, appealable order accompanies it. This result is significant for these two antitrust cases; it is not a blanket ruling that AI Overviews are lawful in every context, nor does it settle separate copyright or licensing questions about publisher content.