The War Over Google’s AI Summaries

Earlier this week, Penske Media Corporation (PMC), the owner of Rolling Stone, Billboard and Variety, filed a lawsuit against Google over the search giant’s use of AI-generated summaries in search results.

While it would be easy to dismiss this case as just another AI lawsuit, this one is different. The focus isn’t on the use of their material for training data or an AI republishing their work; instead, it’s about Google’s alleged search monopoly and how AI summaries are impacting their traffic.

The 101-page complaint (PDF) does not allege copyright infringement; instead, it alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, claiming that Google is misusing its monopoly power to force companies like PMC to accept AI-generated summaries, even though these summaries harm traffic and revenue.

To be clear, PMC is not the first to file such a lawsuit. Back in February, the “homework help” site Chegg filed a similar lawsuit against Google, making many of the same claims. In fact, the two lawsuits were filed by the same law firm, Susman Godfrey LLP, and use much of the same language.

(Note: This is not an accusation of unethical behavior. Reusing text when cases present similar facts is common practice for law firms. I discussed this previously when discussing the various standards of plagiarism.)

However, in an era when dozens of major lawsuits involving AI are being filed, these cases stand out. Not only are they not addressing copyright issues, but they are also looking at how Google presents its results and whether the current arrangement is fair to publishers.

But this is not a new debate. It has been going on for years. AI has just brought this question to a boiling point.

Reaching the Tipping Point

Back in February, I wrote an article entitled “Google: From Symbiote to Parasite,” which examined the evolution of Google Search Results pages and how they had become increasingly less focused on directing traffic to organic links.

What started as a handful of clearly marked ads that did little to distract from organic results evolved and grew. The ads became more plentiful, less distinguishable from organic content and other elements were added, including Wikipedia-fed sidebars, definitions and other quick answers.

Still, webmasters didn’t complain, at least not much. While these decisions may have bolstered Google’s bottom line, they weren’t harming most publishers. Those who were impacted were, most likely, publishing low-quality sites that addressed simple questions or queries.

However, in mid-to-late 2023, webmasters began to complain about a decline in traffic from Google. The reason was a one-two punch from AI. The first was AI-generated sites taking up precious space in Google search results, and the second was the introduction of AI summaries.

While both are problems for publishers, it’s the AI summaries these lawsuits focus on. The reason is simple enough. They allege that Google is using its monopoly on search to force publishers to allow it to generate AI summaries. They allege that there is no practical way to opt out of the summaries without removing yourself from Google.

According to both lawsuits, this action violates the Sherman Antitrust Act, prompting the filing of the two lawsuits.

But why were AI summaries the tipping point?

The Ultimate Betrayal

As I mentioned in the previous article, there has always been an unspoken agreement between publishers and Google. Webmasters allow and even aid Google in scraping their site, and Google returns the favor by directing traffic to publishers. It should be a win-win.

But, as bad as other changes have been, AI summaries break that agreement in a very direct way.

Users perform Google searches because they want or need information. When Google first launched, it provided users with almost no information, just links. If you wanted information, you had to click a link and go elsewhere.

Over time, Google has included more and more information on the search page. Although it initially provided basic information, you can now access summaries of lengthy, detailed, and complex stories directly on the Google result page. It has evolved from harming a handful of “low-quality” sites to sandbagging virtually all publishers.

Though Google would argue that these summaries shouldn’t hurt publishers, they clearly do, and data backs that up.  

Google has long argued that the best thing you can do for search engine performance is create high-quality, engaging and people-first content. But now, that’s the exact content being summarized. There is no motivation to create that content if most visitors are going to read a summary and move on without ever visiting the page.

This is, without a doubt, the ultimate betrayal by Google. Those who have followed its instructions and worked tirelessly on content are the ones being most harmed.

It is those who tried to work collaboratively with Google who are suffering. Google is no longer punishing “low quality” sites that rely on visitors seeking quick answers; it’s punishing those that work hard to cover news, provide analysis or other high-level content.

The exact content that Google said it wanted.

Bottom Line

When Chegg filed its lawsuit in February, it was (and still is) largely easy to dismiss. Chegg is a struggling company and has been for some time. The lawsuit feels like a Hail Mary for a company whose business model is on life support.

But PMC is different. It is a major internet publisher with significant influence, particularly in the entertainment industry. Sometimes a lawsuit hits differently simply because of who is filing it.

What remains to be seen is whether these are the first such lawsuits or if there will be more. I suspect that others are feeling the pinch too and may want to take action.

Still, it’s essential to remember that these are not AI cases, at least not in the traditional sense. Though they are targeting AI summaries, the core issue is really Google’s behavior over the past 20 years and how it has become increasingly hostile toward publishers.

As Google has sought to retain more and more traffic for itself, publishers are finding themselves fighting for the scraps left over.

But one thing is clear: we’ve reached a tipping point. Google will not go unchallenged on these issues. While I’m not an expert on antitrust law and can’t comment on the odds of either case, I know that Google will have to answer some difficult questions.

That, in turn, may be the most important thing of all.