Google is facing a new lawsuit from Penske Media Corporation over its use of AI Overviews in search. Penske Media, the owner of Rolling Stone, Billboard, and Variety, alleges that Google’s launched AI summaries unlawfully use its content without consent, causing a drop in traffic and revenue.

Google introduced AI Overviews earlier this year as part of its effort to compete with AI search tools and chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Perplexity. Instead of showing only traditional blue links, the feature generates contextual summaries at the top of the page. These AI summaries answer users’ queries without requiring them to click through to the original source, which has triggered concerns among publishers.

Publisher reports suggest that search traffic has dropped when AI Overviews appear. They claim that AI-generated summaries can shift users away from original reporting and undermine revenue models built on search referrals. For example, Monday.com reported a massive decline in SEO traffic due to Google AI Overviews.

Details about the Penske Media lawsuit

Filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Friday, the case marks the first time a major U.S. publisher has taken Google to court over AI-generated summaries. Penske’s lawsuit claims Google uses journalism without consent. The company alleges that the AI-powered summaries, which appear at the very top of search results, cut into referral traffic that publishers depend on. Penske argues this traffic loss translates directly into reduced ad revenue for its brands.

In a statement, Penske CEO Jay Penske said: “We have a responsibility to proactively fight for the future of digital media and preserve its integrity, all of which is threatened by Google’s current actions.”

Penske claims that about 20% of Google searches that link to its sites now show AI Overviews, a figure the company expects will rise. It says this shift has already had measurable consequences, noting that its affiliate revenue dropped by more than a third in 2024 due to the decline in referral traffic.

The lawsuit also alleges that Google’s system gives publishers little choice in the matter. Penske claims that Google only includes publishers’ websites in its search results if their articles can also be used in AI Overviews. Without this, the company argues, Google would have to pay publishers for the right to reuse their work or train its AI systems on it.

Google’s defense at the AI summit

At an AI summit in New York yesterday, Markham Erickson, Google’s VP of government affairs and public policy, was asked about the lawsuit. He avoided commenting on the legal claims directly but explained the company’s broader position.

Erickson said, “We want a healthy ecosystem. The 10 blue links serve the ecosystem very well… We’re not going to abandon that model.” He pointed out that user preferences are changing. Instead of factual answers with blue links, more people now want “contextual answers and summaries.”

According to Erickson, Google’s approach is to provide both AI-generated answers and links back to websites, though critics argue that the summaries dominate the page and reduce the need to click through. Google spokesperson José Castañeda had also defended the claims, saying, “With AI Overviews, people find search more helpful and use it more.”

How publishers and AI firms are responding

The lawsuit builds on a growing conversation in the publishing industry. Media companies have long depended on search visibility for traffic, and they see AI-generated summaries as a direct threat to that model.

Other AI companies have already faced similar criticism. Perplexity AI, for example, has introduced a $42.5M revenue-sharing program to address publisher concerns and give media outlets a share of ad revenue tied to their content.

OpenAI has also signed multiple licensing deals with news outlets like Condé Nast, the Financial Times, and Axel Springer, giving it the right to use their content to train its AI models and generate outputs. Still, the company faces a copyright infringement dispute with The New York Times.

Despite these efforts, publisher concerns remain, especially about Google, which has yet to adopt a revenue-sharing formula or licensing deal.

‍

‍