Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
A federal judge in Washington granted Google's motions to dismiss the Penske Media and Chegg antitrust suits over AI Overviews and content scraping, holding at the pleading stage that the amended complaints did not plausibly state Sherman Act claims
This is a pleading-stage ruling, not a verdict on AI Overviews. The publishers lost because the court found no plausible agreement, no separate product and no plausible market, and the opinion says the policy question belongs to Congress or regulators.
Bottom line: A court decision, binding on the parties, made at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Judge Amit P. Mehta granted both of Google's motions and held that the amended complaints did not plausibly plead the antitrust claims. He made no merits finding that AI Overviews are lawful, and he declined jurisdiction over the state-law unjust enrichment claims rather than deciding them. The opinion says a final, appealable order accompanies it.
Who this affects: Antitrust and competition counsel advising publishers or search platforms, media and publishing executives weighing litigation over AI summaries and content scraping, education technology companies, and in-house search and platform counsel at Google's competitors.
Issue date: Memorandum opinion dated September 30, 2026. The opinion does not state an appeal deadline, and it does not say whether the dismissal of the federal claims is with or without prejudice.
What changed: Every Sherman Act count in both cases was dismissed at the pleading stage: reciprocal dealing under Sections 1 and 2, the Penske Media tying claim over AI Overviews, monopoly maintenance, monopoly leveraging and attempted monopolization. The unjust enrichment counts were dismissed after the court declined supplemental jurisdiction.
Analysis: On our reading, the publishers' central difficulty was the absence of a deal. The court treated letting Googlebot crawl a site as publishers acting in their own interest, not as a sale of content for traffic, and it relied repeatedly on its March 2026 Helena World Chronicle ruling against news publishers.
Primary sources: Memorandum Opinion, Chegg v. Google (25-cv-00543) and Penske Media v. Google (25-cv-03192), D.D.C., September 30, 2026 (PDF)
- Instrument (EN)
- Memorandum Opinion in Chegg, Inc. v. Google LLC, et al., No. 25-cv-00543 (APM), and Penske Media Corporation, et al. v. Google LLC, et al., No. 25-cv-03192 (APM)
- Authority
- United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Amit P. Mehta
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Status
- Both motions to dismiss granted. The opinion says a final, appealable order accompanies it. Whether any appeal has been filed is not stated in the opinion
- Bindingness
- Court decision binding on the parties. Pleading-stage ruling on the sufficiency of the amended complaints, taking the well-pleaded allegations as true; no merits findings on Google's conduct
- Issue date / next deadline
- September 30, 2026. No deadline is stated in the opinion
- Defendants
- Google LLC and its parent, Alphabet, Inc.
- Claims dismissed
- Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2 (reciprocal dealing, tying, monopoly maintenance, monopoly leveraging, attempted monopolization); California-law unjust enrichment dismissed after the court declined supplemental jurisdiction
- Primary source
- https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv3192-32
What did the court decide?
It granted Google's motions to dismiss both amended complaints. This is a ruling at the pleading stage: the court took the plaintiffs' well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asked whether they stated plausible claims. It did not hold a trial or find facts about how AI Overviews affect publishers.
The plaintiffs were Chegg, an education technology company, and Penske Media Corporation, joined by nine of its publishing companies, among them Rolling Stone, Billboard Media, Variety Media and Hollywood Reporter. They alleged that Google uses its monopoly in general search to make publishers supply content for free, which Google then republishes through featured snippets, AI Overviews and Gemini in competition with them.
The cases ran in parallel. Chegg sued on February 24, 2025 and amended on June 9, 2025; Penske Media sued on September 12, 2025 and amended on December 4, 2025. The court heard consolidated argument on August 25, 2026 and ruled in one opinion on September 30, 2026.
At the pleading stage, each federal count failed for a stated reason. Reciprocal dealing under Sections 1 and 2 failed for want of any plausible agreement or dealing relationship. The tying count failed because general search and AI Overviews were not plausibly separate products. Monopoly maintenance failed for lack of antitrust standing. Monopoly leveraging and attempted monopolization failed because the plaintiffs did not define plausible markets.
Why did the reciprocal dealing claims fail?
The publishers' theory was that Google sells them search referral traffic only on condition that they give it three kinds of content at no cost: content to republish, content to train its models, and content for retrieval-augmented generation. The court, ruling on the pleadings, found no deal to which that condition could attach.
Section 1 needs an agreement. The court said the plaintiffs alleged no offered and accepted terms, no negotiation of quantity, duration or exclusivity, and no commitment on either side. What they pleaded was an expectation of traffic. "But an expectation is not an agreement. It is simply how a general search engine works."
An implied agreement from a historical course of dealing did not rescue the claim. The court said publishers keep their content open to crawling because doing so serves their own interest in search traffic, and that the theory, if accepted, would mean Google contracts with every website it indexes, which it called entirely implausible.
Section 2 fared no better at this stage. Reciprocal dealing is two-sided by definition, the court said, so without a dealing relationship there was no exclusionary conduct to plead. It also followed its own March 20, 2026 ruling in Helena World Chronicle v. Google, where news publishers made a similar transaction argument and lost.
Why did the court reject the AI Overviews tying claim?
Only the Penske Media plaintiffs brought it. They argued that general search is the tying product and AI Overviews the tied product, forced on users because the panel appears at the top of the results page with no opt-out. The court assumed without deciding that the per se test applied and still dismissed the count on the pleadings.
The problem was separate demand. The court repeated its Helena World Chronicle reasoning that demand for Google Search includes demand for AI Overviews and every other item on the results page: "If AI Overviews is a separate product from Google Search, then so is potentially every other type of search result Google delivers."
It then turned the publishers' own traffic allegations against them. If users are not scrolling past AI Overviews to reach organic links, the court reasoned, that points to a general demand for information, and "the more plausible inference is that Google Search and AI Overviews have the same use case: providing answers to users' search queries." It added that the plaintiffs acknowledged other search engines, such as DuckDuckGo, also place a generative AI summary at the top of their results pages.
This was a holding about how a tying claim was pleaded. It was not a finding that AI Overviews are lawful in every respect, and the opinion did not address copyright.
Why did the monopolization, leveraging and attempt claims fall?
Monopoly maintenance in general search failed on antitrust standing, at the pleading stage. The court held that the publishers' injuries, lost subscriptions and inadequate pay for training and grounding content, arise in content markets, not in the general search market where competition is said to be restrained.
Their fallback under Blue Shield v. McCready also failed. The court said the complaints made no allegations about market share and did not allege that, among search firms, only Google acquired content free of cost. It distinguished Novell v. Microsoft because nothing pleaded showed Google targeting these publishers specifically.
On leveraging and attempted monopolization, the court did not decide how much remains of a standalone monopoly leveraging claim. Both theories needed a plausible second market. It called the Penske Media market of essentially all online text "implausibly overbroad", and found Chegg's online educational publishing market too vague to test for substitutability, while doubting that Google even participates in it.
What did the court leave open?
The state-law claims. Having dismissed every federal claim, the court said it "declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims" and dismissed them on that basis. That is a jurisdictional choice, not a ruling on whether Google was unjustly enriched under California law.
Copyright. The opinion is about the Sherman Act and contains no copyright analysis. Questions about training on or republishing publisher content under copyright law were not before the court in these claims, and we do not read the dismissal as answering them.
The policy question. The court wrote that it "does not treat Plaintiffs' alleged harms lightly" and said it is not unsympathetic to publishers, but quoted earlier authority that any gap in the antitrust laws "is an issue for Congress [or regulators] to consider." On our reading, that sentence is a statement about the limits of antitrust, not an endorsement of the conduct.
Other forums. The UK Competition and Markets Authority and the French competition authority matters on AI Overviews that we have covered are separate proceedings under different law. This opinion says nothing about them.
What we did not verify
What we opened: the 41-page memorandum opinion, fetched as a PDF by our verification batch from the court's public document link for case 25-cv-03192, and read in full as extracted text. Every date, count and quotation on this page comes from that text.
What we did not open: the accompanying order the opinion refers to, the dockets of either case, the amended complaints, the motions and opposition briefs, the hearing transcript, the Helena World Chronicle and Sensory decisions the court relied on, and any filing after September 30, 2026.
What we refuse to claim: we do not say whether the dismissal of the federal claims is with or without prejudice, or whether leave to amend was granted or refused, because the opinion does not say and we did not read the order. We do not say whether any party has appealed. We do not say AI Overviews or Google's crawling are lawful generally, that any copyright question was decided, or that the unjust enrichment claims failed on the merits.
Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
A publisher claim that rests on an implied content-for-traffic bargain with Google now faces two opinions from this court rejecting that framing at the pleading stage. On this opinion's reasoning, counsel weighing a new antitrust case would need pleaded facts of an actual agreement, separate demand for the AI feature, or harm in the restrained market itself. The ruling leaves copyright and state-law theories undecided.
Source File
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv3192-32
Open the memorandum opinion and confirm four things: the case numbers 25-cv-00543 and 25-cv-03192 on the caption, the tying analysis in Part IV.B, the decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction in Part IV.E, and the conclusion granting both motions with the date September 30, 2026.
the presence of AI Overviews on the SERP does not implicate the evil of tying arrangements ยท Judge Amit P. Mehta, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Memorandum Opinion, September 30, 2026
FAQ
Did the court rule that AI Overviews are legal?
No. It ruled at the pleading stage that the amended complaints did not plausibly state the antitrust claims pleaded. It made no finding that AI Overviews or Google's use of publisher content is lawful generally, and it did not decide any copyright question.
Can Penske Media and Chegg refile or amend?
The memorandum opinion does not say whether the dismissal of the federal claims is with or without prejudice, and does not mention leave to amend. It says a final, appealable order accompanies it. We did not open that order.
What happened to the unjust enrichment claims?
Having dismissed all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the California-law unjust enrichment claims and dismissed them on that basis. It did not decide whether Google was unjustly enriched.
Does this ruling affect the UK and French AI Overviews proceedings?
Not on its face. Those are separate proceedings under UK and French law before different authorities, and the opinion does not mention them.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.