In a recent decision, a US federal judge dismissed lawsuits from Chegg and Penske Media, both of which accused Google of antitrust violations. The cases, filed in 2025, revolved around Google's AI search features allegedly scraping content and reducing site traffic. However, US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google’s practices did not violate antitrust laws.

Chegg, an education platform, argued that Google’s Gemini models were illegally copying its content, thereby diminishing its traffic. Penske, which owns publications like Rolling Stone and Variety, claimed unfair treatment in organic search results. Yet, Judge Mehta highlighted that Google's implicit agreement with websites is not legally binding. He noted, 'Plaintiffs have pleaded only that they have an “expectation” that Google will send them search traffic if they make their content available for free. But an expectation is not an agreement.'

This ruling leaves publishers questioning the future of their content visibility in search engines. As Judge Mehta acknowledged the legal complexities surrounding search, he also alluded to the Department of Justice’s ongoing case against Google, which previously found Google had violated antitrust laws. However, the penalties were less severe than initially sought.

The outcome of this case could influence similar legal challenges against tech giants. It’s a reminder that while AI innovation may seem like a threat, legal frameworks are adapting to address these challenges.