Google Seeks Dismissal of AI Antitrust Claims from Major Publisher

In a motion filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Google and its parent company Alphabet systematically challenged the antitrust claims brought by Penske Media Corporation (PMC), which owns prominent titles like Rolling Stone, Variety, Billboard, and Deadline. The publisher’s lawsuit, filed last September, alleges that Google forces publishers to surrender content for AI training and republishing as a condition for appearing in search results. PMC contends that features like AI Overviews and Featured Snippets cannibalize website traffic, directly threatening advertising, affiliate, and subscription revenue models.

Google’s legal defense, articulated by its team at WilmerHale, frames the introduction of generative AI features as a core product improvement. The motion states that PMC “faults Google for introducing generative AI features on its search engine that more efficiently provide users with the information they seek.” The company insists that participation is voluntary, noting publishers allow Google to index their content and retain the ability to opt out entirely. This argument seeks to reframe the dispute from one about coercive, anti-competitive terms to one about a company’s right to innovate and set business terms.

Central to Google’s motion is the dismissal of PMC’s “reciprocal dealing” theory. The filing argues this allegation is “nothing more than a claim that Google is refusing to deal with PMC on PMC’s preferred terms.” It cites Supreme Court precedent granting firms “broad latitude to set the terms on which they will do business with others,” a legal shield Google has successfully used before. The company has already defeated similar claims from education company Chegg twice through dismissal motions, and the same legal team from Susman Godfrey represents both plaintiffs.

Beyond the conduct arguments, Google contests the very foundation of PMC’s antitrust case: its definition of the relevant market. The motion calls the alleged “online publishing market,” described as encompassing all text-based content online, “massively overbroad and implausible.” By challenging this definition, Google aims to undermine the monopolization claims essential to any antitrust action. A narrowly defined market is easier to monopolize; a broad, implausible one makes such claims far harder to prove.

Further undercutting the monopoly argument, Google points to the competitive landscape. The motion notes that rivals like Microsoft’s Bing and DuckDuckGo offer similar AI-powered search features. The existence of these alternatives, Google argues, demonstrates competition and choice for both users and publishers, negating claims of an illegal monopoly in search or AI-enhanced search services. This line of defense positions Google’s actions as part of a competitive, innovative industry standard rather than exclusionary conduct.

The outcome of this motion carries significant implications for the tech and publishing industries. As Ishita Sharma, managing partner at Fathom Legal, told Decrypt, “PMC’s case raises legitimate concerns about economic harm to publishers from AI integration in search, but its antitrust framework faces significant hurdles under current law.” If Google’s motion is granted, the case could still proceed in a “narrower form,” such as on licensing or copyright claims. If denied, however, it could expand into “antitrust litigation at the intersection of AI and platform power,” potentially inviting broader regulatory scrutiny of how tech giants integrate AI.

This lawsuit does not exist in a vacuum. Google is simultaneously defending its core business against other major antitrust actions. Last September, a federal judge ruled the company unlawfully monopolized U.S. search, imposing conduct remedies instead of forcing a divestiture of its Chrome browser. In November, in a separate U.S. Justice Department case focused on ad-tech, regulators pushed for the sale of Google’s AdX exchange after findings of illegal monopolies in key advertising markets. These cases remain under appeal or in the remedies phase, creating a multi-front legal war where Google must defend its search business, advertising stack, and now its generative AI features against claims they entrench monopoly power.

Google’s filing emphasizes that PMC has had “multiple opportunities to plead [its] best case” across four complaints, suggesting the publisher’s arguments have been fully aired and found wanting in prior dismissal motions. The legal battle thus becomes a test of whether current U.S. antitrust law, shaped by Supreme Court precedents emphasizing a company’s right to refuse dealings, can adapt to address novel harms alleged in the age of generative AI and dominant digital platforms. The court’s decision will signal whether publishers’ economic anxieties translate into viable legal claims or remain commercial disputes to be resolved outside antitrust statutes.