Judge Mehta dismisses publisher antitrust lawsuits against Google AI Overviews

What happened

On 30 September 2026, US District Judge Amit P. Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed two antitrust lawsuits against Google LLC: Chegg, Inc. v. Google LLC (No. 25-cv-00543, filed February 2025) and Penske Media Corporation and affiliates v. Google LLC (No. 25-cv-03192). The suits alleged Google used its dominance in general search to coerce publishers into supplying content free of charge to feed AI Overviews and model training, with no way to opt out without losing search visibility. The court granted Google's motions to dismiss: publishers had alleged only an 'expectation' of referral traffic, not an agreement; AI Overviews and Search are not separate products under Sherman Act tying doctrine; and the publishers lacked antitrust standing since their losses occurred in downstream publishing, not search. Federal claims were dismissed with prejudice; the judge declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining California-law unjust-enrichment counts. The order is final and appealable.

Why it matters to creators

This closes the main judicial route publishers tried for AI-summary content extraction: US courts will not convert lost referral traffic into an antitrust claim. Judge Mehta said he was not 'unsympathetic' to publishers and creators whose content Google 'takes and repurposes without compensation,' but held antitrust statutes are not a substitute for legislation. For creators, relief now turns on licensing (Google's ongoing ~100-publisher AI contribution pilot), copyright claims — which this ruling explicitly does not decide — or new legislation.

What is not yet known

Whether Chegg or Penske will appeal; how copyright (rather than antitrust) theories fare against AI Overviews.