In a setback for publishers worried about the effects of AI search, a US federal judge has dismissed lawsuits filed by Chegg and Penske Media against Google. The companies accused Google of antitrust violations in products like AI overviews, which have led to decreasing traffic at numerous sites. However, US District Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that Google's conduct is not illegal under antitrust law.

The lawsuits were filed in 2025, and Google requested a dismissal earlier this year. Chegg, an education and learning platform, claimed in its lawsuit that Google illegally scraped its educational content. This allowed Gemini models to essentially recreate that content and reduce the site's traffic. Penske, which owns publications like Rolling Stone and Variety, filed a similar case that alleged lost traffic. Specifically, the publisher claimed it was unfair that sites indexed for organic search would also have their content harvested for AI answers, with no way to opt out.

These arguments did not sway the judge, who noted that Google's implicit agreement with websites is not legally relevant. "Plaintiffs have pleaded only that they have an ‘expectation’ that Google will send them search ​traffic if they make their content available for free," wrote Mehta. "But an expectation is not an agreement. It is simply how a general search engine works."

Read full article

Comments

© Ryan Whitwam

Democrats capitulate to MAGA media mogul. California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) and 11 other states drop their lawsuit to block David Ellison's Paramount from acquiring Warner Bros. — and get little in return.

Extremely depressing news, so I've tried to include some pieces that emphasize the positive and re-commit to the fight. First, here's more coverage: The Ellisons Have Made This Movie Before In exchange for the plaintiffs (all Democratic attorneys general, sigh) removing one of the last remaining roadblocks to Paramount's $111 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount signed on to commitments with no real enforcement behind them. Even modest concessions — like $5 million a year for independent film — sunset within five years. There are no divestitures. And some terms are just laughable, like granting the conglomerate's owners oversight of the editorial independence of CNN and CBS News (which is probably why two of the attorneys general openly objected to this term). But with Paramount, you don't need a catalog of failed consent decrees to understand what is to come. You only need the record of the family making the promises: David Ellison, CEO of Paramount, and his father, tech billionaire and Trump ally Larry Ellison. And here's Matt Stoller looking for positives in this bleak situation: Happy Oligarch Day as Trump-Aligned Billionaires Take Over Hollywood So what does this whole collapse mean? Well, I'm in a strangely good mood. This acquisition, while certain to damage Hollywood and the media, required immense amounts of political capital to get through. Consider what it took: An aggressive President, a right-wing Congress, a deeply morose California Democratic establishment, California Governor Gavin Newsom and NJ Governor Mikie Sherrill, LA Mayor Karen Bass, stars like Tom Cruise and James Cameron, major movie theater chains like AMC, Regal, and Cinemark, unions like IATSE and the Director's Guild, JP Morgan's CEO Jamie Dimon, much of Wall Street, every global antitrust enforcer, plus a highly dishonest and corrupt press all had to put their thumb on the scale to beat what was essentially a group of frustrated artists led by Mark Ruffalo, the Writer's Guild, some outraged antitrust lawyers, and a surly public. They had to lie, cheat, and steal. And they did. That is not strength, it is weakness. It is very different than earlier mergers, like Disney-Fox, that went through without any meaningful opposition. In this case, everyone saw the deal could have been blocked, a judge had already ruled multiple times that the case was reasonable, and Bonta just flip-flopped. When the Paramount-Warner deal turns out badly, and it probably will, everyone will know who to blame. Monopoly Round-Up: Paramount-WB Isn't Just a Loss, It's a Prelude We learned two important things in this battle. The first is what happens when an elected leader tries to say no to an oligarch after 45 years of unfettered rule by capital. That is, they get extremely angry and vicious. As G.K. Chesterton once said, "The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all." Ellison threatened the entire state of California with moving Paramount out of the state, his legal team said they'd destroy antitrust law by appealing to a Supreme Court whose members they know personally, his allies controlled most of the media narrative about the case, and he engaged in an extreme version of corruption vis-a-vis the President.... The second level is about the Democrats, which is a political party few people really understand. The most important thing to get about the older generation of Democrats is they are fundamentally uninterested in the real world. They have a form of politics, but it is unrelated to governing.... Now, I've been careful to say that it's an older generation of Democrats who cosplay as substantive. This cycle is going to see a bunch of new people elected. Last year is when New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani won, and he definitely is perceived to have a different approach. How different is an important question. Abdul El-Sayed, who is probably the most important figure, is quite smart. We interviewed him for Organized Money. Melat Kiros and Angie Nixon both prevailed on campaigns that promised to break up big medicine and take on corporate concentration. So did Aisha Wahab in California. In Arkansas, Hallie Shoffner is campaigning against corporate concentration of farming. There will be more of this. They may show a different form of politics, taking the side of the anti-Ellison coalition, as it were. The point, though, is that what we just saw is not just a battle we lost. It is a prelude of the kind of tactics and coalitions to come. Right now, it's clear that billionaires don't have to follow the law. It's also clear there is now a serious challenge to that framework. It wasn't quite powerful enough to block the merger. But now we know how they are going to play the game.