European Commission opens probe into Google's AI content practices

The European Commission launched a formal antitrust investigation on December 9, 2025, examining whether Google violated EU competition rules by using content from web publishers and YouTube creators for artificial intelligence purposes without appropriate compensation or viable opt-out mechanisms.

The investigation represents one of the most significant regulatory interventions targeting the intersection of dominant platform power and emerging AI technologies. Brussels regulators will assess whether Google imposed unfair terms on publishers and content creators while granting itself privileged access to training data that competitors cannot obtain.

According to the Commission's announcement, Google may have used publisher content to power AI Overviews and AI Mode features on search results pages without compensating publishers or allowing them to refuse such use without losing access to Google Search. Many publishers depend on search visibility for user traffic and cannot risk exclusion from Google's platform.

The investigation also examines YouTube content usage. Content creators uploading videos to the platform must grant Google permission to use their data for various purposes, including training generative AI models. Google does not remunerate YouTube creators for this AI training use, nor does it allow uploads without such permission. Meanwhile, YouTube policies prohibit rival AI developers from accessing the same content for their own model training.

"A free and democratic society depends on diverse media, open access to information, and a vibrant creative landscape," stated Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition, in the Commission's announcement. "These values are central to who we are as Europeans. AI is bringing remarkable innovation and many benefits for people and businesses across Europe, but this progress cannot come at the expense of the principles at the heart of our societies."

The Commission will investigate whether these practices breach Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the European Economic Area Agreement, which prohibit abuse of dominant market positions. If proven, the violations could result in fines reaching 10 percent of Google's global annual revenue, along with mandated structural or behavioral remedies.

Brussels authorities confirmed they will conduct the investigation as a matter of priority. The opening of formal proceedings does not prejudge the outcome but relieves national competition authorities in EU member states of their competence to apply competition rules to the same practices.

Publishers face what legal experts characterize as a coercive choice. They must either allow Google to extract value from their content investments for AI purposes or accept diminished search visibility that threatens their business models. The investigation stems from complaints filed by the European Publishers Council and Corint Media, represented by law firm Geradin Partners.

Major publishers have condemned Google's AI Mode as content scraping that systematically extracts value without providing adequate compensation mechanisms. Research documenting AI Overviews' impact on publisher traffic shows click-through rates declining 34.5 percent to 54.6 percent when AI summaries appear in search results.

The timing of the investigation reflects mounting tensions between technology platforms and content creators. Penske Media Corporation filed a comprehensive antitrust lawsuit against Google on September 12, 2025, alleging systematic coercion of publishers to provide content for AI systems while facing search traffic penalties for technical blocking attempts.

Damien Geradin, founder of Geradin Partners, characterized the investigation as vital for maintaining press publishing viability. "This investigation is one of the most important interventions in the press publishing and media industry of the past few years," Geradin stated in a December 9 press release. "Ensuring that content producers receive fair compensation for their valuable content from Google and other AI providers is essential for the survival of an industry that is of vital importance for the maintenance of democracy and the rule of law."

Thomas Höppner, partner at Geradin Partners, drew parallels to historical competition concerns. "Already back in 2013, former EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunía stressed that Google may not 'create a link between getting the right to use material from other sites on its specialised search services [such as Google News] and the appearance that these sites have on Google's general search results,'" Höppner stated.

Google's approach to AI content usage builds upon practices established over more than a decade. The company operates simultaneously as both infrastructure provider and content platform, creating conflicts of interest that regulators now examine through AI deployment lenses.

AI Overviews generate summaries responsive to search queries using material extracted from publishers without their explicit consent. The feature displays above traditional organic results, reducing traffic to source websites. AI Mode operates as a conversational search interface similar to chatbots, answering queries while further diminishing publisher click-through opportunities.

Google introduced AI Overviews to more than 100 countries and 40 languages as of May 2025. The company positioned these features as improvements to search quality while simultaneously preventing publishers from opting out without suffering search ranking penalties.

YouTube's content licensing structure creates similar competitive concerns. Creators must agree to broad data usage terms that include AI model training as a condition of platform access. This requirement applies universally, giving Google exclusive access to video content that comprises billions of hours of human-created material.

The platform's policies explicitly prohibit third-party AI developers from using YouTube content for training purposes. This asymmetry places Google at a substantial competitive advantage in generative AI development, as the company controls both the distribution platform and exclusive training rights for content uploaded by independent creators.

Publishers have reported mounting challenges in controlling how their content appears in AI-powered features. Google executives have described existing opt-out options that apply to training data, web crawling, and search snippets, but these controls do not provide granular ability to block AI Overviews specifically while maintaining normal search presence.

Content creators uploading to YouTube face similar constraints. The platform's 3 million monetized channels generate substantial advertising revenue for Google while providing training data for Gemini and other AI systems. Creators receive no separate compensation for this AI training usage beyond standard advertising revenue sharing.

Google's market position amplifies competitive concerns. The company maintains dominant positions in search, video sharing, and digital advertising that create dependency relationships with publishers and creators. Many content producers cannot afford to lose access to Google's distribution platforms, even when the economic terms prove disadvantageous.

Independent publishers have documented substantial traffic declines following AI feature deployments. Travel bloggers Dave Bouskill and Debra Corbeil experienced 90 percent traffic reductions after AI Overviews began reproducing their specialized content about Canadian topics without attribution or compensation.

The investigation examines whether Google's conduct constitutes tying arrangements that violate competition law. Publishers seeking search visibility may have no practical alternative to accepting AI content usage terms, while YouTube creators face similar constraints in video distribution.

Brussels regulators will assess whether alternative arrangements could allow publishers and creators to refuse AI usage while maintaining market access. The Commission's preliminary concerns suggest that Google's current approach forecloses competition by denying rivals access to equivalent content for their own AI model development.

Competitors developing AI services cannot access YouTube content under platform policies, placing them at systematic disadvantages relative to Google's own Gemini models. This exclusive access potentially violates rules against self-preferencing and discriminatory treatment of business partners.

The investigation occurs alongside multiple parallel enforcement actions targeting Google's business practices. United States federal courts have ruled that Google illegally monopolized search markets and digital advertising technology, with remedy proceedings ongoing.

European regulators imposed a €2.95 billion fine on September 5, 2025, for advertising technology violations involving conflicts of interest across publisher ad servers, programmatic buying tools, and exchange infrastructure. Google submitted compliance proposals rejecting structural remedies while proposing behavioral modifications.

The Commission's investigation methodology will examine market definition, competitive effects, and potential consumer harm. Regulators possess extensive information-gathering powers under Article 102 enforcement procedures, including document requests, witness interviews, and on-site inspections.

Google has not provided public comment on the December 9 announcement. The company previously characterized various European regulatory actions as disproportionate interventions that degrade service quality for users and businesses.

Industry reactions highlight fundamental disagreements about value distribution in AI-powered services. Publishers argue that Google appropriates investments in journalism and content creation without fair compensation, while the company maintains that AI features enhance rather than replace traditional search functionality.

Angela Mills Wade, executive director of the European Publishers Council, characterized the investigation as addressing existential threats to journalism. "This is one of the most significant investigations we have seen," Wade stated in comments quoted by Philipp Westerhoff. "It goes to the heart of how a gatekeeper like Google can exert undue control and plunder an entire business sector, one that invests in producing primary source journalism, and which bears full legal responsibility for what it publishes."

The marketing community faces significant implications from potential investigation outcomes. Google's AI features have fundamentally transformed content discovery patterns, with zero-click searches now accounting for approximately 69 percent of queries, up from 56 percent before AI Overview deployment.

Publishers must adapt strategies to account for reduced click-through opportunities while maintaining content investments necessary for AI systems to function. This creates asymmetric dependencies where platforms extract value while individual content creators bear production costs without proportionate compensation.

YouTube creators similarly navigate platform policies that mandate broad data usage permissions as conditions of audience access. The investigation may establish precedents for how dominant platforms must structure data licensing arrangements with business users.

Technical experts note that AI model training requires massive datasets that few entities beyond Google can assemble. YouTube's content library represents irreplaceable training data spanning diverse topics, languages, and presentation styles. Exclusive access to this material provides Google with competitive advantages that potential remedies might address.

Potential investigation outcomes range from behavioral commitments to structural separations. Brussels regulators could require Google to offer meaningful opt-out mechanisms, compensate content usage through licensing arrangements, or provide rival AI developers with equivalent data access under fair terms.

The Commission operates under strict procedural requirements governing investigation timelines and evidence standards. No legal deadline constrains investigation duration, which depends on case complexity, company cooperation levels, and parties' exercise of defense rights.

Interim measures remain possible if the Commission identifies urgent competitive harm requiring immediate intervention before final decisions. Publishers and creators could request such measures if they demonstrate irreparable damage from ongoing conduct.

The investigation builds upon broader regulatory scrutiny of Google's search practices under both traditional antitrust law and the Digital Markets Act. Multiple proceedings examine different aspects of how dominant platforms structure relationships with business users and consumers.

Google faces parallel investigations regarding site reputation policies, comparison shopping services, and advertising technology practices. The convergence of enforcement actions reflects regulatory determination to address what officials characterize as systematic abuse of gatekeeper positions.

Law firms have begun recruiting advertisers and publishers for follow-on damage claims based on established antitrust violations. Private litigation could supplement public enforcement by providing compensation to businesses harmed by anticompetitive conduct.

The investigation timeline will extend over months or potentially years as the Commission gathers evidence, evaluates competitive effects, and considers potential remedies. Google maintains rights to submit arguments and evidence throughout proceedings, with multiple opportunities for engagement before final decisions.

Brussels regulators emphasized commitment to fair, open, and competitive AI development that respects content creator rights while enabling innovation. The balance between these objectives will shape investigation outcomes and establish precedents for platform obligations in AI-powered services.

Timeline

• 2013: Former EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunía warns Google against linking content usage rights to search visibility
• March 2024: Google updates site reputation abuse policies affecting publisher content strategies
• May 2024: Google launches AI Overviews globally across 100+ countries
• May 2025: Google expands AI Mode to all United States users without waitlist restrictions
• June 30, 2025: Independent Publishers Alliance files formal antitrust complaint with European Commission targeting AI Overviews
• September 5, 2025: European Commission imposes €2.95 billion fine on Google for advertising technology violations
• September 12, 2025: Penske Media Corporation files comprehensive antitrust lawsuit against Google over AI content usage
• October 10, 2025: Google executives face confrontation over publisher controls for AI search features
• November 13, 2025: Google rejects EU breakup demand in advertising technology antitrust response
• December 9, 2025: European Commission opens formal investigation into Google's use of publisher and YouTube content for AI purposes

Summary

Who: The European Commission launched an antitrust investigation into Google, the multinational technology company headquartered in the United States that operates dominant search, video sharing, and digital advertising platforms. The investigation responds to complaints filed by the European Publishers Council and Corint Media, represented by Geradin Partners law firm. Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera leads the Commission's enforcement efforts.

What: Brussels regulators are investigating whether Google violated EU competition rules by using web publisher content and YouTube creator videos for artificial intelligence purposes without appropriate compensation or viable opt-out options. The probe examines AI Overviews and AI Mode features that generate summaries using publisher material, plus YouTube's requirement that creators grant Google AI training rights as a platform access condition. The investigation assesses whether these practices constitute abuse of dominant market positions through unfair trading terms and self-preferencing.

When: The European Commission announced the formal investigation on December 9, 2025. The probe will examine conduct spanning multiple years as Google deployed AI-powered search features globally from 2024 through 2025. No legal deadline constrains investigation duration, which depends on case complexity and evidence gathering requirements. Publishers and creators have experienced mounting competitive harm since May 2024 when Google launched AI Overviews across 100+ countries.

Where: The investigation covers the European Union's 27 member states plus the European Economic Area, examining Google's practices affecting publishers and content creators operating within these jurisdictions. The competition concerns extend globally given Google's worldwide market dominance in search, video sharing, and digital advertising infrastructure. YouTube policies restricting third-party AI developer access affect content creators internationally who depend on the platform for audience distribution.

Why: The investigation matters fundamentally because it addresses whether dominant technology platforms can appropriate content creator investments for AI development without fair compensation or meaningful consent mechanisms. Publishers depend on search visibility for revenue generation but face coercive terms requiring AI usage permissions. YouTube creators must grant broad data usage rights as platform access conditions while Google prohibits competitors from accessing equivalent training data. The investigation will establish precedents for how competition law applies to AI model training using content from business users who depend on platform access for market participation.