Brazil's CADE recommends a Google investigation over AI Overviews scraping

Brazil's competition authority this year moved one step closer to opening a formal antitrust case against Google, after Commissioner Diogo Thomson de Andrade issued a 180-page opinion recommending that the Administrative Council for Economic Defence - CADE - refer Administrative Inquiry No. 08700.003498/2019-03 to a full sanctioning proceeding. The opinion, released publicly in an English translation, focuses on Google's alleged exploitative abuse of a dominant position in Brazil's search and news markets, and places the company's AI Overviews feature at the centre of an updated theory of harm.

The case did not begin with AI. It dates to a complaint filed in 2019 by Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A., on behalf of its news portal G1, which argued that Google's search engine systematically displayed excerpts of journalistic content - titles, text snippets, images, and other metadata - directly on search results pages without offering publishers any form of remuneration. At the time, the investigation was narrow: it concerned the automated collection and partial reproduction of content, what the inquiry refers to as scraping, as a mechanism that improved Google's product while reducing incentives for users to visit source websites. Five years of proceedings, supplementary investigations, civil society submissions, and international comparative analysis later, the scope has expanded substantially.

From snippets to AI summaries

The critical shift came in 2024, when Google launched AI Overviews in Brazil. According to the opinion, AIOs are not, in Commissioner de Andrade's view, a new form of conduct but rather "a new, more sophisticated stage of the same conduct originally investigated." The technical mechanism changed; the underlying economic logic did not. Where snippets offered isolated title-and-excerpt displays, the generative layer in AIOs reorganises, synthesises, and recombines content from multiple publishers into a unified textual response - one that users can read without leaving Google's environment. The same crawling and indexing protocols that enabled snippets now feed a generative model, and that output appears at the top of search results, absorbing attention that previously translated into referral traffic.

The opinion is explicit on this continuity. According to the document, "the same affected parties remain, as do the same protocol for accessing and obtaining data and, above all, the same underlying economic rationale of appropriating and utilising content produced by third parties for the benefit of the platform." The difference, according to the commissioner, lies in scale and product design. Instead of displaying one excerpt from one article, the generative layer merges multiple references into a single response with its own character and added value. Publishers bear the costs of fact-checking, editing, and editorial responsibility; Google captures the resulting informational value.

Evidence for the AIO analysis came largely from supplementary investigation work conducted between 2025 and 2026 - after Google's commercial roll-out of the feature in Brazil. The original technical notes issued by CADE's Department of Economic Studies (DEE/Cade) and General Superintendence (SG/Cade) predated that roll-out and therefore did not address AI-generated summaries. Commissioner de Andrade conducted his own inquiry. Between August and October 2025, his office issued official letters to media associations including the Brazilian Digital Media Association (ABMD), the National Association of Newspapers (ANJ), the National Federation of Journalists (FENAJ), the Association of Digital Journalism (Ajor), the Brazilian Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters (ABERT), the National Association of Magazine Publishers (ANER), and the Brazilian Association of Journalists (ABJ). Civil society organisations were also invited to submit technical and factual contributions under Order No. 38/2025.

Meetings with Google took place on five occasions: 19 December 2025, 22 January 2026, 23 February 2026, 19 March 2026, and 7 April 2026. Additional meetings were held with Ajor on 18 September 2025, with Foxglove on 17 March and 1 April 2026, with Reporters Without Borders on 1 April 2026, with ANJ on 2 April 2026, and with ABERT on 6 April 2026.

The theory of harm

The opinion advances a theory that is unusual in Brazilian antitrust precedent: exploitative abuse of a dominant position. Traditional competition cases focus on exclusion - one competitor driving another out of the market. Exploitative abuse is different. It concerns the imposition of unfair trading conditions by an entity with structural power over dependent partners. The commissioner argues that Brazilian law, under Article 36 of Law No. 12.529/2011, is deliberately open-ended and effects-oriented, meaning that the absence of established case law under the label of "exploitative abuse" does not prevent the authority from investigating such conduct.

The heart of the theory, as described in the opinion, is what it calls "structural dependence, rule-setting power, forced free-riding, administered remuneration and the absence of genuine economic choice." In platform markets, according to the commissioner, these elements make it possible to identify exploitation even where there is no traditional monetary price. The extraction occurs through non-monetary parameters: traffic, visibility, data, attribution, and access to the public.

The opinion also frames the theory of harm as ecosystemic. Journalistic content does not merely feed Google's indexing system, the commissioner argues. According to the document: "[T]he theory of harm is also ecosystemic. Journalistic content does not merely feed indexing. It improves the SERP, enhances the attractiveness of Search, feeds discovery surfaces, contributes to advertising inventory, reputation and data, and, in the case of AIOs, also serves as input for training, grounding and synthetic responses."

What makes AIOs analytically distinct from snippets, according to the opinion, is the dimension of prospective harm. Snippets were primarily a problem of traffic and attribution. AIOs carry additional risks: increased publisher dependency on Google's platform, reduced revenue predictability, curtailed editorial investment, and a weakened capacity to produce original and verifiable content in the future. The commissioner describes this as "a risk of ongoing and cumulative harm to the information ecosystem."

Google's position, as summarised in the opinion, is that its relationship with news organisations is mutually beneficial: publishers gain free traffic while the platform benefits from user engagement. The company argued that algorithmic updates and AI features are intended solely to improve search relevance, that it provides granular control mechanisms to publishers, and that it could find no commercial or legal basis justifying mandatory remuneration for the indexing of journalistic content excerpts.

The opt-out problem

One of the key structural arguments in the opinion concerns the choice facing publishers. Opting out of Google's crawling - blocking the Googlebot - is technically possible. But opting out means losing visibility in general search results. This is not a genuine economic choice, according to the commissioner. The opinion cites an observation that goes back to the original 2019 complaint: "Not being indexed by Google can be even more detrimental to publishers, as their visibility will be severely impacted, with a consequent reduction in their competitiveness vis-a-vis other players who remain indexed." The situation with AIOs intensifies this coercive logic. There is no mechanism for publishers to allow general indexing while excluding their content from generative AI summaries, without the risk of losing placement in organic search results entirely.

International context

The opinion devotes a substantial section to comparative international experience. The UK's Competition and Markets Authority examined Google Search under conduct requirements. France's Autorite de la Concurrence investigated Google. Italy opened Investigation A420. Australia enacted the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code. South Africa conducted its Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry.

The most directly relevant parallel, however, is the European Commission's formal antitrust proceedings, case AT.40983, opened on 9 December 2025. The EU investigation examines whether Google's practice of using publishers' web content to generate AI Overviews and AI Mode summaries violated Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, specifically by failing to offer publishers the ability to refuse that use without losing access to Google Search and without appropriate compensation. The CADE opinion notes that the EU investigation and the Brazilian inquiry echo overlapping concerns and are "both worth watching," as Thomas Hoffpner, partner at Geradin Partners - the firm representing publishers before the European Commission in the EU AIO case - noted in a LinkedIn post highlighting the CADE commissioner's opinion.

PPC Land has tracked the EU investigation since its launch in December 2025, and also reported on the June 2025 antitrust complaint filed by the Independent Publishers Alliance before Brussels regulators. In May 2025, Brazilian media organisations and publishers had already escalated pressure on CADE to investigate Google's AI Overviews, citing traffic declines of 34 percent or more.

The operative recommendation

The operative part of the opinion is short and direct. According to the document: "I recommend that the case file be returned to the SG/Cade for the proper initiation of an Administrative Proceeding for the Imposition of Sanctions due to Violations of the Economic Order, with a focus on investigating alleged exploitative abuse of a dominant position, given the technological evolution of the conduct, pursuant to Article 36, items I and IV, in conjunction with Article 36, paragraphs 2 and 3, items IV, XII and XVIII, of Law No. 12,529/2011, as well as Article 67, paragraph 2, items II, of the same act."

This is a recommendation, not a binding decision. The case must return to the General Superintendence of CADE, which would then initiate a formal Administrative Proceeding for the Imposition of Sanctions. That proceeding would carry investigative powers, rights of defence for Google, and could ultimately result in sanctions. The original Administrative Inquiry was initiated in 2019. The path to a final decision, should proceedings follow the recommendation, would extend the timeline further.

Civil society engagement

One aspect of the proceeding that the opinion highlights explicitly is its unusual degree of civil society involvement. The commissioner invited not only direct market participants - publishers, broadcasters, press associations - but also organisations without direct competitive stakes in the market, including consumer protection groups, media watchdogs, and academic institutions. Organisations that submitted technical contributions include the Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection (IDEC), Momentum - Journalism and Tech Task Force, the Open Markets Institute's Center for Journalism and Liberty, Article 19 Brazil, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Sleeping Giants Brasil, Foxglove, and the Getulio Vargas Foundation Centre for Technology and Society (CTS).

Ulrich Muller, head of Rebalance Now, a German NGO focused on corporate monopoly power, highlighted in a LinkedIn comment on the opinion that a notable section addresses the role of civil society in antitrust proceedings. The passage he cited reads: "I believe it is necessary to point out, from the outset, that the supplementary investigation carried out in these proceedings was not guided solely by the aim of strengthening the evidence in the strict sense. It also reflected a broader institutional understanding of the need to increase the openness of competition policy to the involvement of civil society and of actors who, although not directly competing in the market under scrutiny, represent diffuse interests."

Alexandre Laube, senior legal counsel specialising in competition law and digital markets regulation, noted in commenting on the opinion that sections 625 to 647, which develop an "ecosystem logic" framework, represent a significant development. "Good to see that more and more competition agencies are taking into account ecosystem dynamics seriously in their assessment, CADE being at the forefront on that cf. Apple App Store case," Laube wrote. Thomas Hoffpner, responding in the same thread, added that when it comes to Alphabet and Google or Apple, one can no longer assess any individual conduct without considering its impact on the entire ecosystem.

What this means for publishers and the advertising market

For publishers, the CADE opinion matters beyond Brazil's borders for two connected reasons. First, it develops an ecosystemic theory of harm that goes beyond traffic loss - it frames the publisher-Google relationship as one in which a dominant intermediary controls simultaneously the access to the public, the use of the informational input, and the residual return paid to the supplier. That framing, if adopted in a formal proceeding, could become a reference point for similar investigations elsewhere. Second, it treats AI Overviews as a functional evolution of pre-existing conduct rather than a categorically new behaviour, which has implications for how authorities approach AI-powered search features that were not covered by earlier regulatory actions.

For the advertising community, the proceedings are directly relevant because the opinion identifies advertising as part of the value chain that Google allegedly captures at publishers' expense. According to the commissioner, journalistic content "contributes to advertising inventory, reputation and data." In the AIO context, it also serves as training input and grounds generative responses. The asymmetry the opinion describes is not simply a traffic dispute - it concerns who captures the commercial value generated when high-quality content draws users to a search environment monetised primarily through advertising.

PPC Land has covered the broader pattern of Google's search traffic decline affecting news publishers, and the expansion of AI Mode that has intensified the dynamics the CADE opinion describes. Google's AI Overviews began appearing in European markets in March 2025, compounding the regulatory pressures the commission was already managing under the Digital Markets Act. In Germany, a coalition of major media organisations published a joint position paper in April 2026demanding binding AI content rules - a document whose concerns closely parallel those addressed in CADE's proceedings.

Timeline

• March 2006: CADE initiates Administrative Proceeding No. 08700.009082/2013-03, which later generates a referral for an inquiry into Google's conduct in the search and news markets
• 2019: CADE's General Superintendence initiates Administrative Inquiry No. 08700.003498/2019-03 against Google Brasil Internet Ltda., following a complaint by Globo's G1 portal about content scraping without remuneration
• May 2023: CADE's Department of Economic Studies issues Technical Note No. 24/2023, analysing exclusionary abuse theories related to Google's content display practices
• 2024: Google launches AI Overviews in Brazil, introducing a new generative layer to the conduct under investigation
• 2024 (Technical Note No. 70/2024): CADE's General Superintendence issues Technical Note No. 70/2024, recommending closure of the case on the basis of insufficient evidence - a recommendation Commissioner de Andrade would ultimately disagree with
• 28 March 2025: Commissioner Camila Cabral Pires-Alves issues Decision No. 9/2025 proposing referral of the Administrative Inquiry to CADE's tribunal for closure
• 9 April 2025: Case is assigned to Commissioner Gustavo Augusto Freitas de Lima as rapporteur
• 11 June 2025: During the 249th SOJ (Judgment Session), the rapporteur delivers an oral vote
• 27 May 2025: The National Federation of Journalists (FENAJ) appears in the case file, submitting a statement and annexes
• May to October 2025: Commissioner de Andrade conducts supplementary investigation - issuing official letters to media associations and inviting civil society submissions under Order No. 38/2025
• 30 May 2025: PPC Land reports Brazilian media organisations escalating pressure on CADE over AI Overviews, citing traffic declines of 34 percent
• 9 December 2025: European Commission opens formal antitrust investigation into Google's AI content practices (case AT.40983)
• 19 December 2025 to 7 April 2026: Five meetings between Commissioner de Andrade's office and Google, plus additional meetings with publisher associations and civil society organisations
• March 2026: Eighteen European industry and consumer organisations urge the European Commission to issue a formal DMA non-compliance decision against Google
• April 2026: Commissioner Diogo Thomson de Andrade issues 180-page opinion recommending that the case file be returned to SG/Cade for initiation of a formal Administrative Proceeding for the Imposition of Sanctions
• April 2026: German media coalition (ARD, BDZV, MVFP, VAUNET, ZDF) publishes joint paper demanding binding AI content rules
• April/May 2026: Thomas Hoffpner of Geradin Partners highlights the CADE opinion on LinkedIn, drawing connections between the Brazilian and EU proceedings

Summary

Who: Commissioner Diogo Thomson de Andrade of Brazil's Administrative Council for Economic Defence (CADE), issuing an opinion in Administrative Inquiry No. 08700.003498/2019-03, targeting Google Brasil Internet Ltda. (respondent), with civil society contributions from organisations including IDEC, Article 19, Foxglove, Reporters Without Borders, and the FGV Centre for Technology and Society, and publisher associations including ANJ, FENAJ, ABMD, Ajor, and ABERT.

What: A 180-page commissioner's opinion recommending that CADE's General Superintendence initiate a formal Administrative Proceeding for the Imposition of Sanctions against Google for alleged exploitative abuse of a dominant position, covering both the original conduct of displaying journalistic content excerpts (snippets) on search results pages without remuneration and the 2024 expansion of that conduct through AI Overviews - characterised in the opinion as a technologically evolved but functionally continuous form of the same practice.

When: The opinion was issued in April 2026, concluding a supplementary investigation conducted between August 2025 and April 2026. The underlying inquiry was initiated in 2019.

Where: The proceedings are conducted before CADE in Brazil and concern Google's conduct in the Brazilian search and news markets. The opinion draws extensively on international precedent from the European Union, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Australia, and South Africa.

Why: The commissioner concludes that Google - holding a dominant position in the Brazilian search market - has systematically used journalistic content to enhance the value of its search product and advertising infrastructure, without providing publishers adequate compensation or genuine opt-out mechanisms. The launch of AI Overviews in 2024 intensified this dynamic by adding a generative layer that incorporates content from multiple publishers into unified summaries, further reducing the likelihood that users will visit source websites and increasing what the opinion frames as an ongoing and cumulative threat to the sustainability of journalism as a public good.