Penske Media sues Google over AI summaries, says feature 'rips off' articles and crushes traffic

Penske Media Group, the parent company of Rolling Stone, Variety, Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter, has sued Google in federal court in Washington, D.C., alleging that the search giant’s “AI Overviews” feature copies publisher content without permission and has caused “millions of dollars of harm.” The complaint seeks a permanent injunction barring Google from the challenged conduct and demands damages, saying Google reaps “illegal profits” while publishers lose traffic and advertising revenue.

Penske says Google requires that publishers allow their content to be used to train the AI summary feature if they want their links included in search results, and that the resulting AI Overviews placed above standard searchable links have reduced publishers’ search impressions and referral traffic. "With every article it publishes on its websites, PMC is forced to provide Google with more training and grounding material for its [AI] systems to generate AI Overviews or refine its models, adding fuel to a fire that threatens PMC’s entire publishing business," the complaint says. The filing warns of an "increasingly unrecognizable Internet experience" in which users receive "only synthetic, error-ridden answers" and do not leave Google’s platform.

The suit is the latest in a wave of pushback from publishers and content owners against how large technology companies integrate generative AI into search and other products. Penske alleges that roughly 20% of Google search results now display an AI-generated summary above links to original reporting, a placement that the company says diverts readers away from publisher sites and undermines licensing and advertising revenue.

Google has defended the feature, saying it helps people find information and drives discovery. "With AI Overviews, people find Search more helpful and use it more, creating new opportunities for content to be discovered. We will defend against these meritless claims," Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said in a statement quoted in the complaint. The company has repeatedly argued that AI summaries increase overall traffic rather than reduce it.

Publishers and other content creators have raised additional concerns about factual accuracy and so-called "hallucinations" produced by AI systems. The complaint cites examples of erroneous AI-generated claims, including a recent false summary that said rapper Eminem performed at the funeral of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’s mother. Critics say such errors can damage trust in news and other authoritative content when AI summaries are presented at the top of search results without clear links to original sources.

Penske’s case follows other legal and commercial responses to major technology companies’ use of third-party content for AI. Education-technology firm Chegg sued Google earlier this year, alleging the company "unjustly retained traffic" historically directed to Chegg and harmed its revenue and customer acquisition. At the same time, some publishers have struck licensing deals with AI companies: OpenAI has reached agreements with News Corp, the Financial Times and The Atlantic for the use of their content.

The complaint also arrives against the backdrop of broader antitrust scrutiny of Google’s dominance in online search. Last month, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta found that Google had maintained an illegal monopoly in search but ordered remedies that critics said were limited in scope. Mehta required Google to share certain search data with rival search engines but stopped short of structural remedies such as divestiture of Chrome or ending default arrangements with device manufacturers and platform operators. The Justice Department had warned that without robust remedies, Google could leverage its search position to dominate in AI as well.

Penske’s filing frames the dispute as both an intellectual property and competition issue: it argues that Google’s combination of search placement, the use of publisher content to train AI models and the presentation of AI-generated answers at the top of results has deprived publishers of both the traffic and the option to negotiate licensing terms for their work. The complaint asks the court to enjoin Google from engaging in the conduct it characterizes as illegal and to award monetary damages for the alleged losses.

Legal experts and industry observers say the case could test how courts balance publishers’ rights and business models against the perceived public benefits of AI-enhanced search. If Penske obtains an injunction, it could force changes to how AI-generated content is sourced, displayed and attributed within search results. A decision against Penske could make it harder for publishers to curb the use of their content in training and composing AI summaries.

The outcome of the lawsuit could also influence ongoing negotiations and licensing arrangements between publishers and AI companies. Some media organizations have secured licensing fees from AI firms, while others have taken litigation routes to assert control over their content. In its complaint, Penske emphasizes the economic harm from diminished referral traffic and diminished advertising and subscription opportunities tied to web readership.

Penske asked the court to halt what it calls Google’s unlawful behavior and to award damages. Google said it will defend against the suit. The case adds to a growing legal and regulatory battleground over how generative AI intersects with copyrighted content, news ecosystems and dominant digital platforms, with implications for publishers, tech companies and the news-consuming public.

The litigation is likely to draw attention from other publishers and technology companies monitoring how courts interpret the use of copyrighted material in AI training and how search engines may present synthesized answers to users. Penske asked the court to hold Google accountable for the harms it describes and to restore publishers’ ability to negotiate terms for the use of their work in the AI era.