Penske Media Sues Google Over AI Search Summaries

Penske, the parent company of well-known outlets like Rolling Stone, Billboard, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter, claims Google is using its search dominance to strong-arm publishers. According to the lawsuit, Google requires publishers to allow their content to be used in AI Overviews if they want to remain visible in search results. Penske believes this puts publishers in an impossible position: either give up control of their work or risk losing valuable search visibility.

The lawsuit highlights how widespread these AI summaries have become. Penske says around 20 percent of Google search results that link to its websites now include an AI Overview, and that number is quickly increasing. At the same time, the company has seen its affiliate revenue drop by more than a third from its peak, largely due to declining traffic. Penske warns this trend is not just a financial hit for its business but a threat to independent journalism as a whole. When audiences no longer visit publisher sites, there’s less revenue to fund original reporting, investigations, and the kind of journalism that holds institutions accountable.

Google has pushed back, calling Penske’s claims “meritless.” The company argues that AI Overviews are designed to make search results more useful and actually send users to a wider range of sites than traditional search alone. Google says these summaries complement links rather than replace them, giving users quick answers while still encouraging them to explore the sources behind the information.

Penske sees it differently, pointing to Google’s near-total control of the search market. The company says Google’s roughly 90 percent market share gives it the power to dictate terms to publishers, leaving them little choice but to comply. Without this dominance, Penske argues, Google would need to pay for licenses to use publisher content or find other ways to train its AI tools without relying on copyrighted material.

At the heart of the complaint is the economic toll. When Google’s AI provides detailed summaries directly in search results, users are less likely to click through to the original articles. That means fewer ad impressions, lower affiliate earnings, and reduced subscription growth for publishers. Penske believes that if this trend continues, the business models that support quality journalism could collapse.

This isn’t the first time Google’s AI Overviews have faced criticism. Earlier this year, education company Chegg filed a similar lawsuit, claiming that the feature undercuts the need for students to visit its site. Across the publishing industry, there’s a growing fear that AI could disincentivize the creation of original content by stripping away the rewards for producing it.

Penske’s lawsuit seeks to stop Google from using its content in AI Overviews unless there’s explicit permission or payment involved. The company is also accusing Google of violating antitrust laws by using its overwhelming market power to impose unfair conditions on publishers.

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences. A win for Penske might push tech companies to negotiate licensing agreements or create new revenue-sharing models for publishers. It could also force search engines to rethink how they display information, possibly giving more space to links and less to AI-generated answers. Regulators and lawmakers will be watching closely, as the case plays into broader debates about big tech’s influence on media and competition.

For more articles like this, visit our B2B news page!