Google AI Overviews Face Legal Action in UK and EU

Independent publishers across the UK are voicing serious concerns over Google’s AI Overviews, arguing that it threatens both visibility and revenue. At the heart of the issue is the lack of choice: publishers cannot opt out of AI Overviews without removing their content from Google Search results entirely.

This challenge has gained legal traction as the Movement For An Open Web (MOW) and other advocacy groups have formally filed a complaint against Google. They allege that Google’s AI Overviews are built on content produced by news organisations, using their work to create AI-generated summaries without proper permission or compensation.

The complaint, brought before the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), highlights an urgent need for intervention. It points out that Google’s current approach leaves publishers with an impossible choice: either have their content appear in AI Overviews or risk losing all visibility in search.

Last week, the CMA shared plans to explore ways to improve fairness in Google Search. This includes proposals to give publishers more control and greater transparency regarding how their content is used, especially in AI-generated results. However, campaigners argue that these changes cannot come soon enough.

Groups like Foxglove, the Alliance, and MOW have expressed that news publishers in the UK are already facing financial harm due to AI Overviews. The complaint warns that without swift action, independent journalism could be undermined even further.

The concern extends beyond the UK. Reuters reports that a similar antitrust complaint has been lodged in Brussels, suggesting this is part of a wider European issue. The EU filing claims Google’s search engine is unfairly reusing content in AI Overviews, leading to a measurable decline in traffic, readership, and advertising revenue for publishers.

One key demand from the complainants is for Google to introduce a fair opt-out mechanism. This would allow publishers to keep their content searchable in traditional results while choosing not to participate in AI-generated answers.

Advocacy groups argue that such measures are already being considered in other jurisdictions, including by the US Department of Justice and South Africa’s Competition Commission. They warn that unless the UK acts quickly, it risks falling behind as other countries move to protect their news industries.

The complaint also calls for interim measures. These would limit Google’s ability to use publisher content in AI Overviews while the CMA carries out its full investigation. This, they say, would help prevent further damage while regulators consider longer-term solutions.

Critics of Google argue that AI Overviews could centralise even more power within the search giant, making it harder for smaller publishers to compete for audience attention.

They also question the fairness of a system that relies on journalists’ hard work to train and ground AI tools, while offering little in return. As newsrooms across the UK face financial pressures, every drop in website traffic can mean a significant impact on their viability.

Meanwhile, Google maintains that AI Overviews are designed to improve user experience and help people find answers faster. But for many publishers, the debate is about more than convenience – it’s about the survival of independent journalism in a rapidly changing digital landscape.

As discussions continue, the coming months may prove decisive. The CMA’s review and the parallel legal challenges could shape how AI-generated content coexists with original journalism.

The outcome could determine whether publishers regain a measure of control over their work or whether AI Overviews become yet another hurdle for an industry already under strain.

For now, all eyes are on the regulators to see if they will act swiftly enough to address publishers’ concerns before lasting damage is done.

Publishers And SEOs Critical Of AI Overviews

Google is facing growing criticism from both publishers and the SEO community over claims that it is driving fewer clicks to external websites. Many in the industry argue that users are increasingly kept within Google’s own ecosystem, rather than being directed out to visit the sites that create original content.

At the same time, Google maintains that it is, in fact, sending more traffic than ever before. The tech giant insists that its search and AI features are designed to help users find what they need more efficiently, which in turn should benefit publishers.

This disagreement highlights a deepening divide between Google and the content creators who rely on the platform for visibility and revenue. While publishers argue that the number of direct referrals has been falling, Google points to its own data suggesting otherwise.

For those observing from the outside, it seems likely that this conflict could end up being settled by regulators or courts, rather than through dialogue alone. The phrase “let the judge decide” increasingly feels like an accurate reflection of where this dispute might lead.

Over the past decade, critics have noted a steady trend in Google’s approach: showing fewer traditional blue links and instead offering more direct answers within its search pages. This includes features like AI overviews, featured snippets, and knowledge panels.

While these changes arguably make search faster and easier for users, many website owners feel they come at a cost. Reduced click-through rates can directly impact advertising revenue and the financial sustainability of online publishing.

For now, there are no obvious signs that Google plans to reverse this direction. Instead, it continues to focus on tools and AI-driven results that keep users on its own platform.

This tension points to a broader debate about the role of big tech in shaping the digital economy and how much power platforms like Google should hold over who gets seen and who doesn’t.

As the situation develops, publishers, SEO experts, and regulators alike will be watching closely to see what happens next – and whether meaningful change is on the horizon.