In a setback for publishers worried about the effects of AI search, a US federal judge has dismissed lawsuits filed by Chegg and Penske Media against Google. The companies accused Google of antitrust violations in products like AI overviews, which have led to decreasing traffic at numerous sites. However, US District Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that Google’s conduct is not illegal under antitrust law.

The lawsuits were filed in 2025, and Google requested a dismissal earlier this year. Chegg, an education and learning platform, claimed in its lawsuit that Google illegally scraped its educational content. This allowed Gemini models to essentially recreate that content and reduce the site’s traffic. Penske, which owns publications like Rolling Stone and Variety, filed a similar case that alleged lost traffic. Specifically, the publisher claimed it was unfair that sites indexed for organic search would also have their content harvested for AI answers, with no way to opt out.

These arguments did not sway the judge, who noted that Google’s implicit agreement with websites is not legally relevant. “Plaintiffs have pleaded only that they have an ‘expectation’ that Google will send them search ​traffic if they make their content available for free,” wrote Mehta. “But an expectation is not an agreement. It is simply how a general search engine works.”

Since Google never had a formal arrangement with either Chegg or Penske, antitrust law doesn’t apply. And Mehta is aware of the legal issues surrounding search. He also heard the DOJ’s long-running search antitrust case against Google, eventually finding that Google violated the law. However, the government didn’t get the harsh penalties it wanted in that case.

Not unsympathetic

While Google is getting the dismissal it wanted, it doesn’t come away looking particularly good. Mehta recognizes that Google’s approach to AI search may be unfair to web publishers even if it’s not illegal.

“The court does not treat Plaintiffs’ alleged harms lightly,” he wrote. “Nor is it unsympathetic to the situation publishers now find themselves in, and the knock-on consequences to journalists, educators, and other online creators whose content Google takes and repurposes without compensation.”

This case essentially comes down to the nature of innovation. Google is changing the way search operates, and that may come with economic harm. However, not all economic harm that may befall a company is the product of an illegal act. Mehta says that antitrust laws cannot be applied in place of legislative action just because something feels unfair: “The court is bound to apply the law only as it is written, not how the court or any party believes it ought to be.”

Google will undoubtedly face more legal challenges over AI search, but it’s going to be an uphill battle in US courts absent new legislation, and lawmakers have been slow to adapt to the AI era. Publishers may have more luck overseas. The European Commission is currently considering these same questions, and it tends to take a dimmer view of Big Tech’s conduct. The UK has also ordered Google to provide an AI opt-out for sites that want to remain in organic search results.

Google is exploring ways to pay sites directly for contributing to AI answers, but its pilot program is reportedly not going over well with publishers.