A US judge dismissed Penske Media and Chegg’s lawsuits over Google’s use of their content in AI search on September 30.
The companies alleged that Google used its search dominance to obtain their content for free, then republished it in products competing for readers. Judge Amit P. Mehta granted Google’s motions to dismiss.
The content-for-traffic argument failed
Their reciprocal dealing claims depended on an alleged exchange of content for search referrals. Mehta found insufficient facts establishing an agreement. Such an agreement can be unwritten, but the complaints failed to plausibly allege mutual assent.
The court also rejected Penske’s tying claim, found deficiencies in antitrust standing and market definitions, and declined to hear the remaining state-law unjust enrichment claims. A final, appealable order accompanied the opinion.
Publishers’ dependence on referrals leaves a legal gap
The decision exposes the difficulty of treating the web’s longstanding commercial expectations as an enforceable exchange. Publishers can invest in material partly because search sends readers, yet that reliance provides no negotiated commitment about future referrals. A claim built around that exchange needs more than evidence that the arrangement has become less attractive.
The court acknowledged the harm alleged by publishers and pointed to legislation as the route for addressing broader economic disruption.
Start the conversation by posting the first comment