Word count: ~5500 words
Estimated reading time: ~20 minutes
Last updated: September 18, 2025
Core Structure
- Full Case Analysis: Deconstructing the legal battle and core allegations in Penske v. Google.
- Economic Shockwave: Quantifying AI Overviews’ devastating impact on the entire content publishing industry.
- Historical Battle: Reviewing Google’s decade-long conflicts with publishers.
- My Cold Reflection: Why I say content creators are destined to lose this lawsuit?
- Creator’s Action Manual: How to save ourselves in the inevitable paradigm shift.
My Opening Thoughts: Historical Necessity, Not Corporate Accident
Hey, I’m Mr. Guo. In September 2025, Penske Media sued Google, mainly over Google AI Overview causing significant traffic drops and revenue plunges for Penske’s websites. On the surface it’s about content infringement disputes, but this is actually the entire digital content ecosystem standing at a crossroads in collective confusion and struggle.
I’ve seen too many cycles of platforms and creators “loving and killing each other.” But this time, AI’s entry fundamentally changes this conflict’s nature. AI uses your content but doesn’t bring you traffic. This will become increasingly common.
Let me state my core view first: Regardless of this lawsuit’s legal outcome, traditional content creators have already “lost.” This isn’t pessimism — it’s rational deduction based on industry paradigm shift. Let’s dive into the case first, see this storm’s full picture, then discuss in detail why I call this a war with no winners.
Part 1: The Trigger — Full Analysis of Penske v. Google
On September 12, 2025, media giant Penske Media Corporation (PMC) filed a landmark lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia against Google and parent company Alphabet. This isn’t simple copyright dispute — it’s a carefully laid antitrust challenge aimed at shaking Google’s foundation in the digital content ecosystem. The lawsuit’s core: Google’s “AI Overviews” feature allegedly broke the “fundamental contract” that sustained the open internet — content publishers allow search engines to crawl their content in exchange for referral traffic.
1.1 Core Allegation: Breaking the Open Web’s “Fundamental Contract”
The lawsuit’s central argument: Google unilaterally tore up the “fundamental contract” supporting open web development. Publishers have long allowed Google’s crawlers to access website content; in exchange, Google directs users to these sites, forming mutual benefit. However, Penske argues Google now bundles access to this crucial traffic with an unpaid, unconsented transaction: licensing Google to use publishers’ content for its AI products.
This puts publishers in a “Hobson’s choice”: either allow Google to freely use their content for a product directly competing with them, or risk being demoted or “disappeared” in search results. This forced either-or, to publishers, is classic abuse of market dominance.
The complaint details three forms of forced content acquisition — this definition is crucial to the legal framework, as it breaks “content crawling” into multiple separate commercial “products”:
- Republishing in snippets: Traditional search result snippets.
- Training Large Language Models: Using crawled content as training data for Gemini, LaMDA, PaLM, and other models.
- Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): Real-time content retrieval to generate AI Overviews’ instant answers.
By defining these uses as different “products,” Penske attempts to legally argue that Google forced publishers to “trade” three valuable assets (snippet content, training data, RAG data) for a service they should already receive (search traffic) — constituting illegal tying.
1.2 The Antitrust Sword: Leveraging Established Monopoly Status
Penske’s legal strategy shows careful thought, setting the battlefield in antitrust law rather than uncertain copyright law. The court — US District Court for DC — is the same one that previously ruled in 2024 that Google illegally maintained its monopoly in general search. This strategic choice lets Penske treat “Google is a monopolist” as established fact, building core arguments about how Google abuses this monopoly position.
The lawsuit mainly raises these allegations under the Sherman Act:
-
Count 1: Reciprocal Dealing: The lawsuit’s core legal theory. Penske alleges Google uses its monopoly power in “general search services” to force publishers to “sell” content for other markets (like “generative AI training content” and “RAG content”), where Google lacks equivalent market power.
-
Count 2: Unlawful Monopoly Leveraging: The lawsuit argues Google uses its established search monopoly to gain unfair competitive advantages in independent emerging markets like online publishing and AI-generated answers.
-
Counts 3 & 4: Monopolization and Attempted Monopolization: These extend further, arguing Google’s actions aren’t just leveraging existing monopoly but actively seeking to monopolize the online publication output market itself.
This legal strategy’s brilliance: it avoids contentious “fair use” debates in the AI field. Proving AI-generated summaries constitute copyright infringement is complex and novel. By contrast, arguing abuse of market power based on judicially established monopoly provides Penske more solid legal foundation.
1.3 Unjust Enrichment and Content’s Value
Beyond antitrust allegations, Penske also raises common law “Unjust Enrichment” claims. This argues Google built its AI features using publishers’ “tens of millions of dollars annually” invested in high-quality journalism without fair compensation, gaining undeserved benefits.
The complaint contrasts Google with competitor OpenAI. OpenAI has reached multi-million-dollar content licensing agreements with major publishers like News Corp and Axel Springer. This proves a commercial market exists for AI training and generation content — Google deliberately bypassed this market using its monopoly power.
1.4 Google’s Defense: The “Useful” Innovation Narrative
Facing allegations, Google’s spokesperson offered unified defense logic around three points: improving user experience, increasing content discovery opportunities, and baseless accusations. Additionally, Google claims it brings “billions of clicks” to global websites daily, and AI Overviews clicks are “higher quality clicks.” However, this claim will face stern challenge in the economic data analysis below.
Part 2: Economic Shockwave — Quantifying AI Overview Impact
Penske’s lawsuit isn’t unfounded — behind it is severe economic upheaval across the news publishing industry. AI Overviews’ launch directly and quantifiably impacted publishers’ business models, serving both as “market harm” evidence in legal arguments and directly refuting Google’s benign innovation narrative.
2.1 Traffic Avalanche: Data-Driven Reality
AI Overviews’ core design logic is satisfying user information needs directly on search result pages (SERPs), inevitably causing steep drops in clicks to publisher websites. Penske’s complaint specifies that about 20% of searches related to its websites show AI Overviews, and this proportion keeps rising. Multiple independent studies and industry reports paint an even grimmer picture.
2.2 Revenue Plunge: From Clicks to Cents Evaporating
Traffic reduction directly translates to revenue evaporation. Penske’s lawsuit directly attributes its affiliate marketing revenue drop of “over one-third” since late 2024 to decreased Google traffic. Industry analysis estimates AI summaries cause 20-60% traffic reduction on average, equivalent to about $2 billion annually in industry-wide advertising revenue loss. Against these numbers, Google’s “higher quality clicks” defense looks pale.
2.3 Ecosystem Crisis: The Internet’s “Plankton”
Penske’s lawsuit elevates this to systemic risk, warning Google’s actions will have “profound destructive impact on the overall quality and quantity of information available on the internet.” Industry experts describe the situation as an “existential crisis.” Publishers are “the plankton of the digital media ecosystem” — their disappearance threatens the entire information food chain.
Part 3: History Repeating — Prior Conflicts Between Google and Publishers
Current AI Overview conflicts aren’t isolated — they’re the latest escalation in over a decade of tense relations between Google and content publishers. Historical review reveals Google has repeatedly used its market dominance to push technologies and standards prioritizing its platform interests at publishers’ expense.
3.1 Case Study: Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) Controversy
In 2015, Google launched the “Accelerated Mobile Pages” (AMP) project, with rollout methods and consequences remarkably similar to today’s AI Overviews controversy: forcing publisher adoption by tying to priority search result placement. End result: publishers lost control and monetization capabilities while Google’s ecosystem strengthened. AMP’s history provides powerful precedent for Penske’s lawsuit.
3.2 From “Pointer” to “Publisher”: Original Contract Erosion
The evolution of Google’s relationship with publishers traces back to fundamental transformation of its legal status. In earlier precedents, search engines were viewed as non-substitutive “pointers.” However, over the following decade-plus, Google systematically deviated from the “pointer” role through continuous feature launches like knowledge panels and featured snippets. From this perspective, AI Overviews isn’t a mutation but the logical apex and most extreme manifestation of this long-term evolutionary trend. It completely transforms Google from a search engine into a “super-publisher” directly competing with its content sources.
Part 4: Legal Dilemma — Copyright and Fair Use in the AI Era
Though Penske’s lawsuit strategically focuses on antitrust law, the underlying fundamental contradiction stems from copyright law’s applicability crisis in the AI era. The entire AI industry is shrouded in legal fog regarding “Fair Use.”
4.1 Reexamining Fair Use’s Four Factors in AI Context
US copyright law specifies four factors for determining “fair use.” In AI’s context, interpreting these four factors becomes extraordinarily complex, with debate ultimately focusing on “transformative” versus “substitutive.”
AI developers argue model training is “transformative use.” Publishers argue that when an AI model’s output directly competes with originals — i.e., substitutes for them (for example, a news summary eliminating need to read the original) — such use’s transformativeness is very limited. On the crucial “market harm” factor, publishers have their strongest arguments.
4.2 Emerging Precedents and Regulatory Prospects
Legal and regulatory environments are rapidly evolving. Lawsuits like The New York Times v. OpenAI are shaping this field’s legal boundaries. The US Copyright Office has also expressed skepticism about claims that “AI training is inherently transformative.” Legislators worldwide are actively moving, indicating regulatory scales are tilting toward rights holders.
My Reflection: Why Content Creators Are Destined to Lose
After analyzing all legal and economic details, we must face a grander, crueler reality. I tend to believe that regardless of legal outcome, long-term, content creators relying on traditional traffic models have already lost.
First, Google probably won’t lose. It might face massive fines, might be forced into some business adjustments, but making it completely abandon AI Overviews is like making it abandon the future. More likely: a massive out-of-court settlement appeasing major media giants like Penske, but this doesn’t solve fundamental problems for the vast majority of small and medium creators.
Second, even if content creators “win” in court, they can’t truly win in the market. The root problem isn’t one company Google — it’s the paradigm shift brought by AI technology itself. Even if courts prohibit Google from crawling content, creators can’t stop Perplexity, Arc Search, and countless emerging AI search products from doing so. This is a technology-driven, irreversible trend. When users get used to receiving answers directly rather than browsing links, any attempt to return to the “10 blue links” era is fighting against the tide.
Finally, we must also understand Google’s position. Putting ourselves in their shoes, they’re not leisurely “being evil” in a competition-free environment. Quite the opposite — Google faces enormous challenges from emerging AI search companies like Perplexity, caught in its own disruption anxiety. AI Overviews is less proactive attack than hurried but necessary defense. They must do this to keep their throne in the new search paradigm.
So this fundamentally isn’t a moral question of right versus wrong — it’s an unavoidable business logic transformation the entire industry must face. The old contract based on “traffic intermediation” is crumbling; new value distribution systems haven’t been established. In this chaotic transition, trying to maintain old order through legal means is like a mantis trying to stop a chariot.
Part 5: Creator’s Action Manual — Strategic Response to AI Revolution
Facing AI’s disruptive changes, content creators and publishers can’t sit idle. This section synthesizes previous analysis to provide creators with a forward-looking action guide covering three levels: adaptation, protection, and diversification — aimed at helping them protect their interests and seek development in the new ecosystem.
5.1 Adaptation: Mastering Generative Engine Optimization (GEO)
The new reality: optimization goals are no longer just getting clicks, but being cited by AI and used as information sources. This requires fundamental content strategy shifts — so-called “Generative Engine Optimization” (GEO). This includes creating “citable” content, optimizing structure for machines, building entity depth, and capturing comparison content. However, creators adopting GEO strategies must recognize an inherent contradiction: optimization aimed at getting content adopted by AI Overviews may inadvertently strengthen the system weakening their website traffic. And if you want to profit through this strategy, traffic actually becomes relatively less important — the core for achieving commercial closure becomes your website’s service and product monetization capability itself.
5.2 Protection: Reclaiming Control and Value
Besides adaptation, actively protecting content and value is equally crucial. This includes using technical barriers like robots.txt and emerging Simple Licensing Standards (RSL), but think carefully — limiting AI crawling through technical means might be a double-edged sword turning yourself into an island. Unless you have sufficient user influence, I don’t recommend this. Additionally, perhaps seek commercial compensation through licensing and collective action — though of course, to participate in copyright protection and negotiate prices with giants, you first need to become a relatively large ant yourself.
5.3 Diversification: Building Resilience Beyond Search
All strategies ultimately point toward reducing dependence on Google as a single traffic source. In the AI era, publishers’ core strategic task is establishing direct, stable relationships with audiences. This means heavily developing owned channels like email newsletters, paid subscription walls, online community platforms. This transformation’s core: shifting KPIs from “clicks” to controllable “high-quality attention” and “direct reader revenue.”
The AI era is accelerating content business model polarization. Large media groups are pivoting toward B2B large-scale licensing models. For the vast majority of small and medium publishers and independent creators, the only path is deep vertical niche cultivation, pivoting toward B2C direct audience payment models. The traditional “middle ground” relying on advertising and third-party traffic is rapidly shrinking.
Part 6: Conclusion — Seeking New Balance for the Open Web
Penske Media v. Google isn’t just a lawsuit — it’s more like a referendum on the internet’s future economic model. This conflict’s core: whether the tremendous value created by high-quality content should belong to its creators or to AI platforms that aggregate and refine this content.
Potential Case Outcomes and Chain Reactions
Whether Penske wins, Google wins, or both settle — all will have profound market impacts. But the most likely outcome — major publishers receiving compensation through settlement — doesn’t solve fundamental problems for the vast majority of small and medium creators.
Call for Multi-Stakeholder Solutions
A single lawsuit can’t solve everything once and for all. Building a sustainable future for the open web requires comprehensive multi-stakeholder solutions. This includes: robust legal frameworks, new technical standards, active regulatory oversight, and publishers’ own strategic transformation.
The ultimate goal isn’t stifling AI innovation but ensuring technological innovation proceeds within economic and legal frameworks that can sustainably nourish information creation. After all, high-quality, trustworthy human creation is not only civilization’s cornerstone but also the foundation AI relies on for learning and development. If the source dries up, even the most powerful algorithms will have nothing to work with. This battle’s final outcome will determine digital information ecology’s shape for decades to come.
If this article gave you clearer understanding of AI era waves, drop a 👍 and share — follow Mr. Guo through AI, don’t wander in the new era!
🌌 You can’t stop the next era’s arrival, but you can choose to be a surfer, not someone who drowns.