AI-rewritten: This is a summary of an article from Ars Technica, rewritten by AI (Qwen, running locally) to make it easier to read. The facts come from the original article – read it for the full story.

---

A US federal judge dismissed antitrust lawsuits filed by Chegg and Penske Media against Google regarding its AI search features. The companies argued that Google illegally scraped their content to train models like Gemini, causing a decline in traffic for their websites. Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google’s actions do not violate antitrust law because there was no formal agreement between the tech giant and the publishers. He noted that while publishers expected free traffic in exchange for hosting content, this expectation does not constitute a legal contract.

Although the judge acknowledged that Google’s practices cause significant harm to journalists, educators, and creators without compensation, he stated that antitrust laws cannot be applied based on what feels unfair or how the law ought to be written. The court emphasized that economic harm resulting from innovation is not necessarily illegal. While the US government previously found Google guilty in a separate search antitrust case, it did not impose harsh penalties. Judge Mehta indicated that without new legislation, publishers will face an uphill battle in US courts to challenge Google’s methods.

Looking beyond the United States, other regions are taking different stances on these issues. The European Commission is currently examining similar questions and tends to view Big Tech conduct more critically. Additionally, the UK has ordered Google to provide an opt-out mechanism for sites wishing to remain in organic search results. Meanwhile, Google is testing a program to pay content contributors directly, but this pilot has reportedly faced resistance from publishers who are not satisfied with the compensation model.