Penske Media Company this week filed a complete authorized opposition difficult Google’s try and dismiss a serious antitrust lawsuit, arguing the tech large has violated the “elementary truthful trade” that allowed the open web to exist. The 56-page submitting submitted February 12, 2026, within the U.S. District Court docket for the District of Columbia particulars how Google allegedly leverages its search monopoly to coerce publishers into offering content material for synthetic intelligence methods with out compensation.
The memorandum responds to Google’s movement to dismiss, presenting detailed arguments about coercive reciprocal dealing, monopoly upkeep, and illegal tying preparations. Decide Amit P. Mehta will take into account whether or not Penske Media’s amended grievance states believable claims below Sections 1 and a couple of of the Sherman Act.
The cut price Google allegedly broke
Earlier than AI Overviews reworked search outcomes, publishers and Google maintained what the submitting characterizes as an easy association. Publishers allowed Google to crawl their content material to construct the search index, whereas Google referred person visitors to writer web sites. Publishers obtained income when customers clicked by means of from search outcomes to their websites. Google generated billions in promoting income from searches constructed on writer knowledge.
The submitting argues that this trade not holds. Google now threatens to withhold visitors except publishers acquiesce to make use of of their content material for generative AI merchandise that compete straight with publishers for person consideration. “Google’s search monopoly leaves publishers with no selection: acquiesce – whilst Google cannibalizes the visitors publishers depend on – or perish,” based on the memorandum filed by Susman Godfrey attorneys representing Penske Media.
Writer reactions documented within the submitting illustrate mounting frustration throughout the business. Individuals Inc.’s CEO defined that Google “is utilizing their market energy to ensure we will not take again leverage.” The chief described how Google makes use of one crawler for each search and AI, making it unimaginable for publishers to dam AI utilization with out additionally blocking search. “If we block them, we then block search additionally. And even in a depleted state, search remains to be clearly materials to us,” the submitting quotes.
Microsoft just lately acknowledged this dynamic in public statements in regards to the internet’s future. The corporate defined that the open internet was constructed on an implicit worth trade the place publishers made content material accessible and distribution channels like search helped individuals discover it. “That mannequin doesn’t translate cleanly to an AI-first world, the place solutions are more and more delivered in a dialog,” based on Microsoft statements referenced within the submitting.
Technical arguments about market energy
The authorized memorandum presents intensive evaluation of related product markets and Google’s energy inside them. Penske Media defines a number of distinct markets affected by Google’s conduct: Search Referral Site visitors, Republishing Content material, GAI Coaching Content material, RAG Content material, and On-line Publishing.
The submitting explains that Search Referral Site visitors serves a specific operate connecting customers who submit search queries to internet publishers with data that may reply these queries. Publishers worth this visitors as a result of it captures customers actively trying to find particular content material. This “intentional” visitors can’t be delivered by sources like social media and direct web site navigation, based on arguments introduced.
Trade recognition of Search Referral Site visitors as distinct seems all through the memorandum. Publishing business leaders focus on its significance in quoted statements. Google itself acknowledges Search Referral Site visitors as separate, having commented on how its merchandise affect search referrals. One Google scientist famous that “direct solutions” to queries “cut back search referral visitors,” which “hurts [content providers’] capacity to monetize” from search.
The submitting addresses Google’s monopsony energy within the enter marketplace for search. Publishers contribute web site content material to Google’s search index so Google can use that content material to generate search outcomes. Google has “the facility to manage costs” for this Search Index Knowledge, as evidenced by acquiring content material from Penske Media and different on-line publishers for zero entry payment, based on the authorized arguments.
Separate markets exist for Republishing Content material, GAI Coaching Content material, and RAG Content material, the submitting contends. Republishing refers to copying and publishing present content material. GAI coaching content material teaches massive language fashions to take seed enter and iteratively predict the probably subsequent phrase primarily based on discovered patterns. RAG Content material “grounds” an LLM with exterior data sources to enhance output high quality.
Every use has unbiased worth and pricing in aggressive markets. Public reporting has acknowledged these AI content material markets whereas noting they continue to be “opaque” as a result of collaborating corporations usually don’t disclose licensing settlement particulars. Courts have acknowledged AI content-licensing markets in different litigation, the submitting notes.
Proof of coercion and hurt
Penske Media alleges that Google’s conduct provides it unfair benefit over AI opponents. Whereas rivals should win on innovation and improved productiveness, Google begins forward by exploiting its search monopoly to extract zero-cost inputs for GAI merchandise. This reduces productiveness, harms competitors, and chills innovation, based on the arguments introduced.
The memorandum paperwork particular harms to publishers. Google has acknowledged that when it gives “direct solutions” on search outcomes pages, this “cut back[s] search referral visitors” and “damage[s] [content providers’] capacity to monetize” their content material. Research present AI Overviews have diminished search referral visitors. Analysis cited within the submitting predicts substantial promoting income loss and visitors decline starting from 20 to 60 %.
One research reveals AI Overviews cut back click-through charges by as a lot as 34.5 % for the highest natural search outcome. Bain & Firm concluded 60 % of Google searches terminate with out a click on. Similarweb stories an 83 % zero-click fee for searches with AI Overviews.
Penske Media has skilled declines in click-through charges as Google has elevated AI Overviews protection of content material from its publications. Customers who can receive content material by means of Google’s AI Overviews don’t have any incentive to navigate to Penske Media’s web sites, giving the writer fewer alternatives for promoting and different income.
USA Right this moment’s CEO put it straight, based on statements quoted within the submitting: “Google’s insinuation that AI Overview will not be getting in the best way of the ten blue hyperlinks and the visitors going again to creators and publishers is simply 100% false. [Users] are studying the overview and stopping there. We see it.”
Competing authorized frameworks
Google makes an attempt to recast the conduct as lawful “refusal to deal” below Supreme Court docket precedent, based on arguments addressed in Penske Media’s opposition. The memorandum rejects this characterization, explaining that the claims are primarily based on situations positioned by Google on dealings with publishers, not on refusal to deal.
The submitting distinguishes this case from conditions the place courts restrict antitrust legal responsibility for refusals to share aggressive benefits. Penske Media is an enter supplier to Google’s search, not a horizontal rival. The writer seeks solely to stop Google from leveraging its illegal monopoly energy over search to extract content material for AI merchandise with out compensation.
Even when the conduct might be characterised as refusal to deal, an exception exists the place a defendant beforehand engaged in voluntary dealing earlier than unilaterally revising phrases to its profit and others’ detriment. Penske Media alleges prolonged dealings by which Google solicited on-line publishers to supply content material for search indexing earlier than altering necessities.
The memorandum addresses Google’s product enchancment arguments. Adjustments in product design should not immune from antitrust scrutiny and in sure instances might represent illegal technique of sustaining a monopoly, the submitting argues. At most, Google’s contentions increase truth disputes inappropriate for decision on a movement to dismiss.
Monetary implications for journalism
The submitting explains how writer income fashions depend upon search referral visitors. Penske Media generates revenue by means of show promoting primarily based on complete advert impressions proven to customers, affiliate commissions when customers buy merchandise by means of linked retailers, and subscription charges for premium content material behind paywalls.
Extra guests imply extra adverts and better impression revenues. Fewer guests imply fewer adverts and decrease impression income. Google’s AI options cut back these income streams by preserving customers inside Google’s ecosystem relatively than directing them to writer web sites.
Content material creation requires substantial funding. Penske Media invests huge sources in human expertise, know-how, and infrastructure. The writer has practically 800 workers targeted on publishing, together with writers, reporters, and editors who contribute creativity, time, and labor to ship journalism, views, and storytelling.
The lowered financial incentives threaten content material high quality throughout the business. Why would any on-line writer spend money on growing new content material solely to face a selection between allowing Google to make use of that content material at no cost for all functions or disappearing from search outcomes? This dynamic “may put the way forward for the open Web at risk,” based on statements quoted within the memorandum.
A number of antitrust theories
Penske Media’s grievance contains six separate counts. The reciprocal dealing claims allege violations of each Part 1 and Part 2 of the Sherman Act. Extra counts cost illegal tying, monopoly leveraging, illegal monopolization, tried monopolization, and unjust enrichment.
The submitting argues these claims qualify for per se therapy below tying regulation. Coercive reciprocal dealing claims are analytically much like tying claims, which have usually obtained per se therapy from courts. Google has market energy within the tying product market and the association impacts substantial commerce provided that Penske Media expends a whole bunch of tens of millions of {dollars} creating content material that Google takes at no cost.
Below rule-of-reason evaluation, the conduct has substantial anticompetitive results together with imposition of sub-competitive costs in a number of markets, restricted competitors in on-line publishing, lowered high quality and amount of output, and elimination of selection amongst market individuals.
The monopoly upkeep declare builds on established findings. This Court docket beforehand decided that “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to keep up its monopoly” in Normal Search Companies. With “no true competitor” within the search market, Google has huge energy to coerce publishers.
Standing and damages arguments
The memorandum addresses Google’s challenges to Penske Media’s antitrust standing. Publishers who’re individuals in related markets and undergo harm in markets the place competitors is being restrained are correct events to carry personal antitrust actions, the submitting argues.
Penske Media suffers underpayment as a result of it’s compelled to forgo compensation it could in any other case obtain for licensing content material for AI functions. Google makes use of the unlawfully extracted content material to energy AI merchandise that compete with Penske Media by answering queries on search outcomes pages, leading to substantial misplaced income.
These accidents move straight from anticompetitive results of Google’s coercive conduct. Penske Media adequately alleges that it suffers hurt as each a provider of content material for search and as a purchaser of Search Referral Site visitors.
The Related Normal Contractors components help standing. Penske Media’s accidents are direct and non-speculative. There are not any intermediate steps between Google’s coercion and its failure to pay for content material. A direct causal chain connects Google’s use of content material for AI merchandise, deprecation in search outcomes engagement by means of AI Overviews, and lowered promoting income resulting from lack of search referrals.
The broader ecosystem in danger
Court docket paperwork from the continued search treatments proceedings acknowledge “more and more existential downside confronted by publishers and digital creators.” Publishers are caught between reliance on Google to drive visitors and incapability to stop Google from utilizing content material to coach and show in AI choices with out compensation.
Publishers can’t choose out of Google’s use of their content material for AI Overviews. Blocking content material utilization altogether would imply absence from Google’s search index and non-appearance on search outcomes pages, which is crucial to directing person visitors. “That’s not a tenable selection,” based on statements from the search treatments proceedings quoted in at present’s submitting.
The memorandum notes that licensing markets exist the place law-abiding corporations compete to pay for rights to writer content material. Google, against this, depends on its illegal monopoly to coerce publishers into offering the identical content material at no cost. This represents coercive abuse of monopoly energy, not competitors on deserves.
Different know-how corporations acknowledge these dynamics. OpenAI’s Head of Product for ChatGPT confirmed throughout search treatments proceedings that Google’s “leverage” over the online ecosystem stems from “visitors” it sends to publishers. This underscores Search Referral Site visitors’s distinct function within the digital economic system.
What occurs subsequent
Decide Mehta will evaluation Google’s movement to dismiss and Penske Media’s opposition arguments. The court docket should decide whether or not the amended grievance states believable claims below relevant antitrust regulation.
If the court docket denies Google’s movement, the case proceeds to discovery the place Penske Media would collect proof supporting its allegations. This might embrace inside Google paperwork about AI improvement, writer relations, and search visitors impacts.
To the extent the court docket is inclined to dismiss any claims, Penske Media respectfully requests depart to amend. New data concerning AI affect on publishers continues to floor. Content material licensing markets proceed maturing as AI corporations signal offers with publishers. Firms like Microsoft are introducing alternatives for publishers to monetize content material for AI-related makes use of.
The case represents one among a number of authorized challenges Google faces concerning its therapy of writer content material. The Atlantic filed a federal antitrust lawsuit in January 2026 alleging comparable conduct. Dotdash Meredith sued Google in August 2025 looking for damages for promoting know-how monopolization.
The European Commission opened a formal investigation in December 2025 inspecting whether or not Google violated EU competitors guidelines through the use of writer content material for AI functions with out applicable compensation or viable opt-out mechanisms.
Timeline
Abstract
Who: Penske Media Company, mum or dad firm of Rolling Stone, Selection, Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, and different main media manufacturers, filed opposition to Google’s movement to dismiss in federal court docket for the District of Columbia.
What: A 56-page authorized memorandum arguing that Google violated antitrust legal guidelines by means of coercive reciprocal dealing, monopoly upkeep, illegal tying, monopoly leveraging, and tried monopolization. The submitting alleges Google leverages its search monopoly to drive publishers into offering content material for AI coaching, republishing, and retrieval-augmented era with out truthful compensation whereas decreasing web site visitors publishers depend upon for income.
When: Filed February 12, 2026, responding to Google’s movement to dismiss the amended grievance. The alleged anticompetitive conduct spans from Google’s introduction of Google-Prolonged controls in September 2023 by means of ongoing practices that hurt writer revenues by means of visitors diversion and content material extraction for AI methods.
The place: United States District Court docket for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:25-cv-03192-APM, earlier than Decide Amit P. Mehta.
Why: This issues for advertising and marketing professionals as a result of it exposes elementary energy imbalances in content material distribution affecting all the digital promoting ecosystem. Google controls 89.2 % market share basically search providers, rising to 94.9 % on cell gadgets, based on federal court docket findings. This dominance creates what Penske Media characterizes as a “monopsony” place the place Google controls writer entry to go looking referral visitors whereas concurrently extracting content material for AI coaching with out truthful compensation. Research shows AI Overviews reduce organic clicks by 34.5 percent when current in search outcomes, threatening promoting income that sustains journalism and high quality content material creation. The case may decide whether or not dominant platforms can leverage monopoly energy to extract content material for AI methods or whether or not publishers retain significant management over how their work is used and compensated.
Share this text
