Penske Media files antitrust lawsuit against Google over AI content practices

Penske Media Corporation filed a comprehensive federal antitrust lawsuit against Google on September 12, 2025. The 101-page complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges the search giant systematically coerces online publishers into providing content for artificial intelligence systems without compensation while simultaneously reducing website traffic that publishers depend on for revenue generation.

The lawsuit involves 14 plaintiff entities under the Penske Media umbrella. These include Rolling Stone LLC, Variety Media LLC, Billboard Media LLC, The Hollywood Reporter LLC, Deadline Hollywood LLC, Indiewire Media LLC, Artforum Media LLC, Art Media LLC, Fairchild Publishing LLC, Gold Derby Media LLC, SheMedia LLC, Sourcing Journal Media LLC, Sportico Media LLC, and Vibe Media Publishing LLC. According to the filing, these properties collectively attract more than 120 million monthly visitors in the United States alone, nearly doubling that figure globally.

The complaint centers on what Penske Media describes as an impossible choice. Publishers must either allow their content to be used for training and grounding AI models without payment, or face exclusion from search results that drive substantial portions of their revenue. "This action challenges Google's abuse of its adjudicated monopoly in General Search Services to coerce online publishers like PMC to supply content that Google republishes without permission in AI-generated answers that unfairly compete for the attention of users on the Internet," according to the complaint's opening statement.

The lawsuit builds upon established judicial findings. A federal court previously determined that Google holds monopoly power in general search services, a determination referenced throughout Penske Media's complaint as foundational to its claims. The filing states that Google depends on referrals from this monopoly search engine for a large portion of revenue devoted to producing original online content through its various properties.

Google's conduct allegedly manifests through multiple phases of development. The complaint describes Phase I as republishing other online publishers' content on search engine results pages. Phase II involves developing generative AI, using that technology to rewrite publisher content, then publishing derivative material on search results pages. According to the filing, this conduct threatens to perpetuate Google's search monopoly into the era of generative search while expanding it into online publishing markets.

The complaint identifies several distinct product markets affected by Google's alleged conduct. Beyond general search services, Penske Media defines markets for "Search Referral Traffic," "Republishing Content," "GAI Training Content," and "RAG Content" (retrieval-augmented generation content). This framework enables antitrust analysis across different product categories where Google allegedly ties access to its search monopoly with requirements to provide content for AI purposes without compensation.

Technical details about Google's AI products feature prominently in the lawsuit. The complaint examines Bard, Gemini, Search Generative Experience, AI Overviews, and AI Mode. According to the filing, these products rely on large language models trained on massive text corpuses. "The training process for Google's LLMs involves storing encoded copies of the training works in computer memory, repeatedly passing them through the model with words masked out, and adjusting the parameters to minimize the difference between the masked-out words and the words that the model predicts to fill them in," the complaint explains.

The lawsuit addresses Google's opt-out mechanisms. Google introduced "Google-Extended" controls in September 2023, purportedly allowing publishers to prevent content usage for AI training. However, Penske Media alleges these controls provide insufficient granularity and exclude key products. "Even when publishers have chosen to opt out of training Google's AI products through Google-Extended, Google still trains its search-specific AI products, including AI Overviews, on their content," according to the filing. This limitation prevents publishers from participating in search while blocking AI usage, creating what internal Google documents allegedly called a "forced choice" scenario.

Financial implications appear throughout the complaint. According to the filing, available information shows that participants in the AI content market recognize republishing, training, and retrieval-augmented generation as separate use cases with independent value. The complaint cites licensing deals between AI companies and publishers, with some involving flat fees for content training use while others feature percentage of revenue sharing for content citation. Industry analysts estimate the AI content licensing market could approach $30 billion by 2034, though current deals remain largely confidential according to the filing.

The lawsuit includes multiple legal theories. Count I alleges reciprocal dealing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Count II charges reciprocal dealing under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Count III claims unlawful monopoly leveraging under Section 2. Count IV alleges unlawful monopolization under Section 2. Count V charges unlawful attempted monopolization under Section 2. Count VI asserts common law unjust enrichment claims.

The unjust enrichment claims extend beyond copyright preemption. According to the complaint, while models may sometimes memorize training works by encoding retrievable copies in their parameters, many training works are not memorized this way. Similarly, while model outputs presented as AI Overviews often may be substantially similar to works they're grounded on, often they are not. "The tuning of models that does not result in the creation of memorized copies of training works in the model parameters and the presentation of model outputs that are not substantially similar to works on which those outputs are grounded are distinct acts of exploitation that are not preempted by the Copyright Act," the filing states.

Internal Google documents referenced in the complaint show the company recognized publisher concerns about forced choice scenarios. According to the filing, these documents indicate Google understood that content access requirements tied to search participation became "considered a forced choice" for publishers dependent on Google traffic. The complaint also notes that Google itself recently hired a "Head of News Product" tasked with leading AI and content licensing deals with publishers, suggesting the company recognizes the value of such arrangements even as it allegedly forces publishers to provide content without compensation.

The broader economic context receives extensive treatment in the complaint. Penske Media invests heavily in human talent, technology, and infrastructure to produce high-quality content. The filing states that PMC makes "enormous investments" in these areas, yet Google exploits content for commercial purposes without paying anything to Penske Media. The complaint alleges this conduct threatens to leave the public with an increasingly unrecognizable internet experience, where users never leave Google's walled garden and receive only synthetic, error-ridden answers.

The lawsuit seeks substantial relief. Penske Media demands injunctive relief preventing Google from continuing alleged anticompetitive practices. The company seeks monetary damages including treble damages under antitrust law, which could multiply any proven damages by three. The complaint also requests restitution, disgorgement of profits, attorney fees, and other remedies permitted by law or equity. A jury trial is demanded for all claims.

This case matters significantly for the marketing community. Publishers depend on search traffic to monetize content through advertising, subscriptions, and affiliate relationships. Google's approximately 90% market share in general search services creates dependency that the lawsuit characterizes as coercive when tied to AI content requirements. The marketing ecosystem relies on viable publisher business models to provide inventory for advertising campaigns and audiences for brand messaging.

The complaint's timing coincides with intensifying scrutiny of Google's business practices. The company faces multiple antitrust proceedings addressing different aspects of its operations. A federal judge in Virginia ruled in April 2025 that Google illegally monopolized publisher ad server and ad exchange markets, finding the company "willfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts to acquire and maintain monopoly power" that "substantially harmed Google's publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web."

Several major publishers filed similar complaints following that ruling. Dotdash Meredith filed comprehensive antitrust claims in August 2025, operating over 40 brands including People, Better Homes & Gardens, and Investopedia. Advertising technology companies including PubMatic filed in September 2025, seeking damages reaching potentially billions when trebled under antitrust law. Magnite filed its lawsuit on September 16, 2025, as the largest independent sell-side advertising company.

International publishers have also mobilized. Independent publishers filed a formal antitrust complaint with the European Commission on June 30, 2025, targeting AI Overviews. That complaint alleged publishers report traffic declines of 34.5% or more when AI Overviews appear in search results, while Google prevents opt-out without losing search visibility entirely. Brazilian media organizations have intensified campaigns against Google's practices, while European publishers pursued formal proceedings with regulatory authorities.

The advertising industry faces transformation as AI features reshape search results. Google introduced ads within AI Overviews for mobile users in October 2024, marking integration of promotional content into AI-generated search summaries. The company expanded AI Mode to Workspace accounts across the United States on July 2, 2025, extending conversational search interfaces to millions of business users. These developments demonstrate Google's commitment to monetizing AI features while publishers allege the underlying content comes without fair compensation.

Research on AI search impact shows measurable effects. Analysis from Ahrefs examined 300,000 keywords and found AI Overviews reduced organic clicks to top-ranking websites by 34.5% when comparing March 2024 data with March 2025 results. NP Digital found that 55.5% of marketers report increased traffic since AI Overview implementation, while only 8.3% experienced traffic declines, though these figures reflect aggregate results rather than impacts on specific publishers whose content appears in AI-generated answers.

Publisher control limitations remain contentious. Google executive Robby Stein addressed these concerns in an October 10, 2025 podcast appearance, describing existing options but avoiding specific controls publishers demand. Publishers want the ability to specifically opt out of AI Overviews and AI Mode while still appearing in traditional search results. Current controls require choosing between allowing all AI usage or losing search visibility entirely, creating the forced choice that Penske Media's lawsuit challenges.

The legal proceedings could establish precedent for how technology platforms acquire and utilize content for AI development. Success for Penske Media would potentially reshape licensing practices across the industry, requiring platforms to negotiate compensation for content used in training and grounding AI models. The case tests whether antitrust law addresses coercive tying arrangements where monopoly power in one market (search) leverages market entry in another (online publishing through AI-generated content).

The complaint positions this conduct as threatening fundamental internet economics. Traditional search created symbiotic relationships where search engines provided discovery while publishers monetized traffic through advertising and subscriptions. AI-generated answers that satisfy user queries without requiring clicks to publisher websites disrupt this arrangement. If publishers cannot monetize content investment through traffic, the complaint suggests reduced production of original content across the web, ultimately harming both consumers and the quality of information available for search engines to index.

Google's response to these allegations remains unaddressed in the public record as of the September 12 filing date. The company has defended its search practices in other proceedings by arguing that its success reflects product quality rather than anticompetitive conduct. Google's positions in the Virginia advertising technology case and other antitrust matters emphasize consumer benefits from integrated services and efficiency gains from unified platforms.

The Penske Media lawsuit adds pressure to Google's legal position across multiple fronts. The company already faces structural remedy proceedings following liability findings in search and advertising markets. Judge Amit Mehta issued a comprehensive remedies ruling on September 2, 2025, prohibiting exclusive search distribution agreements and mandating data sharing with competitors while rejecting Chrome divestiture demands. The Virginia advertising technology case could result in forced sales of ad exchange and publisher ad server components.

The convergence of private litigation seeking damages with government enforcement actions seeking structural remedies creates unprecedented pressure on Google's business model. Each successful liability finding encourages additional lawsuits as plaintiffs rely on established monopolization determinations to reduce litigation risk. Law firms actively recruit advertisers for lawsuits following the April 2025 Virginia ruling, claiming potential recovery of up to 30% of Google advertising expenditures since 2016 based on alleged auction manipulation.

The Penske Media complaint represents a critical test of antitrust law's application to artificial intelligence market competition. Traditional antitrust analysis examines market definition, monopoly power, and anticompetitive conduct within established frameworks. AI introduces novel questions about how to characterize content relationships, whether training data constitutes a separate market, and whether platform providers can condition access to one service on providing inputs for another.

The case also highlights tensions between copyright law and antitrust law. While copyright governs unauthorized reproduction of protected works, antitrust law addresses competitive harm from market power abuse. Penske Media's unjust enrichment claims explicitly address conduct beyond copyright preemption, arguing that Google benefits from publisher investments without compensation through mechanisms that copyright law does not reach. This framing attempts to avoid dismissal based on copyright preemption while still seeking redress for unauthorized content usage.

Industry observers note the ruling's potential implications for AI development broadly. If courts determine that training AI models on copyrighted content without permission or compensation violates antitrust law when undertaken by monopolists, this could affect how AI companies across the industry acquire training data. The lawsuit challenges not just Google's conduct but potentially establishes principles applicable to other platforms with market power that use publisher content for AI purposes.

European regulatory perspective

The Penske Media lawsuit resonates with European concerns about AI Overviews and gatekeeper conduct. Dr. Christina Oelke, Lawyer and Deputy Legal Counsel at VAUNET German Media Association, characterized the case as a "not so new battlefield for antitrust" in comments posted three weeks after the September 12 filing. According to Oelke's statement, the complaint argues that "Google's use of its monopoly power to coerce publishers to supply content for other, often competing, purposes as a condition of receiving search referrals from Google amounts to a form of unlawful reciprocal dealing that harms competition."

Oelke emphasized that European action remains crucial alongside U.S. litigation. "For European media, AIO poses a severe competitive problem," according to her assessment. She called for the EU Commission to "make efficient use of its toolbox to curb gatekeeper abuse and protect diversity, trust, and fair competition in digital markets." This perspective reflects broader European regulatory scrutiny of how dominant platforms leverage market position across different services.

The Digital Markets Act provides the European Commission with specific enforcement mechanisms targeting gatekeeper conduct. Google's designation as a gatekeeper under that framework creates obligations to maintain fair competition and allow business users to operate independently. European publishers filed their own formal antitrust complaint with the Commission on June 30, 2025, specifically targeting AI Overviews and alleging inability to opt out from content usage without losing search visibility.

The convergence of U.S. litigation and European regulatory proceedings creates pressure on Google from multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. While U.S. antitrust law focuses on competitive harm through monopolization and tying arrangements, European frameworks emphasize gatekeeper obligations and fair dealing requirements. Both approaches target similar underlying conduct where dominant platforms allegedly leverage market position to enter adjacent markets or extract value from dependent business users without adequate compensation.

Timeline

• 2008: Google acquires DoubleClick for $3.1 billion, obtaining dominant ad server and exchange
• 2013: Project Bernanke launched to manipulate advertising auctions
• September 2023: Google introduces "Google-Extended" controls for AI training opt-out
• October 3, 2024: Google announces ads within AI Overviews for mobile users
• January 2025: Claude Sonnet 4 knowledge cutoff ends
• March 2025: Google launches AI Mode testing in Search Labs
• April 17, 2025: Eastern District of Virginia rules Google illegally monopolized publisher ad server and ad exchange markets
• June 30, 2025: Independent Publishers Alliance files formal antitrust complaint with European Commission
• July 2, 2025: Google extends AI Mode to Workspace accounts in the United States
• August 4, 2025: OpenX files follow-on antitrust lawsuit
• August 26, 2025: Judge Mehta prepares remedies ruling on Google Chrome divestiture
• August 29, 2025: Dotdash Meredith files comprehensive antitrust lawsuit
• September 2, 2025: Judge Mehta issues comprehensive antitrust remedies ruling
• September 8, 2025: PubMatic files antitrust lawsuit seeking billions in trebled damages
• September 12, 2025: Penske Media Corporation files 101-page antitrust complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
• September 16, 2025: Magnite files antitrust lawsuit as largest independent sell-side advertising company
• October 10, 2025: Google VP Robby Stein addresses publisher control limitations on TBPN podcast

Summary

Who: Penske Media Corporation, along with 13 subsidiary entities including Rolling Stone LLC, Variety Media LLC, Billboard Media LLC, The Hollywood Reporter LLC, and Deadline Hollywood LLC, filed the lawsuit against Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. The plaintiffs collectively operate over 25 print and digital properties attracting more than 120 million monthly U.S. visitors.

What: A 101-page federal antitrust complaint alleging Google abuses its search monopoly to coerce publishers into providing content for AI training and grounding without compensation. The lawsuit includes six counts: reciprocal dealing violations under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, unlawful monopoly leveraging, unlawful monopolization, unlawful attempted monopolization, and common law unjust enrichment. Penske Media seeks injunctive relief, treble damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, and attorney fees.

When: Filed on September 12, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint addresses conduct spanning multiple years, including Google's introduction of Google-Extended controls in September 2023, development of various AI products including Bard, Gemini, Search Generative Experience, AI Overviews, and AI Mode, and ongoing practices that allegedly harm publisher revenues through traffic diversion.

Where: The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03192. The conduct affects markets for general search services, search referral traffic, republishing content, generative AI training content, and retrieval-augmented generation content. Impacts extend globally where Google operates its search and AI services, though the lawsuit focuses on U.S. antitrust law violations.

Why: The lawsuit matters because it challenges how dominant technology platforms acquire content for AI development. Publishers depend on search traffic for revenue generation through advertising, subscriptions, and affiliate relationships. Google's alleged conduct forces publishers to choose between allowing content usage for AI without compensation or losing search visibility entirely. The case could establish precedent for content licensing requirements in AI development, potentially reshaping business models across the technology industry and determining whether monopoly power can be leveraged to coerce content provision for new market entry. The outcome affects content production economics, internet information quality, and competitive dynamics in both search and online publishing markets.