Judge tosses publisher antitrust suits over Google AI summaries

Here's the uncomfortable truth buried in this ruling: the thing you thought was a deal with Google was never a deal at all.

Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the antitrust lawsuits brought by Penske Media Corporation and education company Chegg on Wednesday, September 30. Both companies argued that AI Overviews — the AI-generated summaries sitting atop Google's search results — broke an unspoken bargain: you let Google index your pages for free, Google sends readers back. Mehta didn't buy it. "An expectation is not an agreement," he wrote. "It is simply how a general search engine works."

That line is the whole story. The publishers wanted the court to treat this as reciprocal dealing — a trade where each side owes the other something. Mehta said there was no contract requiring Google to send traffic anywhere, so there was nothing to enforce. He also rejected the idea that Google Search and AI Overviews are separate products that could support a tying claim under the Sherman Act, the core US antitrust law. In his view, they're one integrated search experience — not two products bundled together.

What makes this sting more is who's delivering the news. Mehta is the same judge who found in 2024 that Google runs an illegal monopoly in search. If anyone was going to be sympathetic to a publisher squeezed by Google's dominance, it was him — and he said as much, writing he's "not unsympathetic" to publishers, journalists, educators, and creators watching AI tools eat into the traffic they depend on. But sympathy isn't a legal theory, and he was clear that antitrust law isn't built to referee this fight. That's a job for a legislature, he said — meaning Congress, not a courtroom.

One thing to flag honestly: this isn't a final word for anyone beyond Penske and Chegg. Reports conflict on how permanent even this is — some describe Penske's dismissal as without prejudice, meaning the claims could come back in another form, while others call the order final and appealable. Mehta also left the state-law unjust enrichment claims undecided. So the door isn't fully shut, it's just not the door anyone wanted.

What to do this week: If you're watching this because you depend on search traffic, don't read this as a verdict on your own situation — it's a ruling on two companies' specific antitrust theory, not a blanket rule for every publisher or author. Track whether Penske or Chegg refile, and watch for any movement in Congress on this — Mehta explicitly punted the policy question there. If you've got a direct licensing conversation open with Google or any AI platform, that's still live. This ruling didn't close it.