Penske Media Corporation, the parent company of publications including Rolling Stone and The Hollywood Reporter, has filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging that the company’s AI-generated search overviews harm publishers by reducing web traffic. The suit argues that Google uses publishers’ content without permission to produce summaries that appear in search results, limiting the incentive for users to click through to the original articles.
Publishers Claim Loss of Traffic and Revenue
At the center of the lawsuit is Google’s AI Overview feature, which places a machine-generated summary of information at the top of search results. Penske claims this practice has led to declines in site traffic, undermining the company’s ability to monetize its journalism through advertising and subscriptions. According to the complaint, the feature allows Google to extract value from publishers’ work while offering little in return.
The lawsuit also alleges that Google has tied participation in its search index to permission for using content in AI tools. In other words, publishers may feel pressured to allow their work to be used for summaries in order to remain visible in search results. Penske argues that this dynamic puts publishers in a difficult position, since not appearing on Google could result in even greater losses of visibility and readership.
These concerns echo broader industry frustration with how Google handles publisher content. Several media companies have raised alarms over traffic declines following the rollout of AI Overviews, pointing to significant decreases in click-through rates. The lawsuit marks one of the most direct challenges to date against Google’s use of AI in its core search product.
Google Pushes Back Against Allegations
Google has rejected the claims brought by Penske. In a statement to Reuters, spokesperson Jose Castaneda said, “With AI Overviews, people find Search more helpful and use it more, creating new opportunities for content to be discovered. We will defend against these meritless claims.” The company maintains that its tools are designed to benefit both users and publishers by improving the overall search experience.
In a recent blog post, Google argued that overall click volume from search to websites has remained “relatively stable year-over-year,” though the company did not provide a precise definition for this measure. It also claimed that the quality of traffic has improved, with users spending more time on the sites they visit after clicking through. This position directly counters publisher concerns that summaries replace the need to visit original sources.
Despite Google’s defense, industry reporting suggests a different picture. The Wall Street Journal has noted that outlets such as Business Insider, The Washington Post, and HuffPost have seen traffic declines. Pew Research data also indicates that users are far less likely to click through to articles when an AI summary is present compared to when search results display only headlines and links.
Industry-Wide Implications of the Case
The lawsuit highlights the growing tension between technology companies and news publishers as artificial intelligence becomes more deeply embedded in search platforms. For media organizations that rely heavily on digital advertising revenue, reduced visibility in search results could have long-term consequences for financial sustainability. Penske’s case is being closely watched as other publishers evaluate their own options.
Other media groups have already reported steep declines since the rollout of AI Overviews. DMG Media, owner of the Daily Mail, claimed its click-through rates had dropped by as much as 89 percent. Such figures add to pressure on regulators and policymakers to examine whether Google’s practices may disadvantage news organizations in an already fragile industry landscape.
For now, the dispute underscores the broader question of how journalism will coexist with artificial intelligence in search. If courts side with publishers, companies like Google may be forced to revisit how they source and present content in AI summaries. If Google prevails, publishers may need to adapt to an environment where fewer readers visit their sites directly. Either way, the outcome could reshape the relationship between tech platforms and the media industry for years to come.