Google Accused of Cannibalising Publisher Traffic

Penske Media Corporation (PMC) has lodged an antitrust complaint asserting that Google’s AI search features are diverting traffic away from publishers. The company argues that by repackaging content in AI-generated answers, Google is effectively cannibalising the very traffic that publishers rely on to sustain their online operations. This federal court filing opposes Google’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that the tech giant has disrupted a longstanding web ecosystem that has historically allowed publishers to benefit from search traffic in exchange for allowing their content to be crawled.

PMC, which owns high-profile publications such as Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and Rolling Stone, highlights the importance of what it calls the “fundamental fair exchange” between publishers and search engines. Traditionally, websites permitted Google to index their pages, with the understanding that search engines would then drive users to those pages. This mutual benefit has been a central pillar of the internet for decades and, according to PMC, is now under threat.

The company emphasises that this arrangement has been widely recognised within the industry and even endorsed by Google itself. As far back as 2004, Google’s philosophy included the principle of directing users away from its platform to relevant websites. In May 2025, a Google blog post reaffirmed this stance, stating that the company’s mission remains to connect users with high-quality, original content that provides unique value.

Further clarifying this approach, Google CEO Sundar Pichai highlighted in a June 2025 podcast that sending users to human-created content is a core principle of the company’s AI initiatives. Pichai stressed that journalism and news play a critical role in the web ecosystem and emphasised that Google remains committed to ensuring publishers benefit from referral traffic even as AI search expands.

Despite these statements, PMC contends that Google’s AI search is fundamentally altering the landscape. The complaint asserts that Google has shifted from functioning as a search engine—which traditionally directed users to publishers’ sites—to acting as an “answer engine” that provides AI-generated summaries directly in search results. This shift reduces the incentive for users to click through to the original content, thereby undermining the economic viability of online media.

According to the filing, Google’s use of AI has created a coercive environment for publishers. By requiring access to content for AI training and AI Overviews, Google forces publishers to allow their work to be repurposed without compensation. Those who refuse risk losing search visibility, creating a stark choice: permit AI use of content or face diminished traffic and revenue.

The lawsuit highlights retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), or “grounding,” as a key method by which Google’s AI repackages publisher content. By presenting information directly within search results pages, users are often able to consume content without visiting the original website. PMC argues that this practice directly reduces monetisable clicks, harming advertising, subscription revenue, and other essential income streams for publishers.

Zero-click search results are identified as a particularly damaging element. These AI-driven summaries allow users to obtain answers without ever leaving Google, bypassing the publisher entirely. PMC claims that this practice undermines the principle of reciprocal benefit that has historically supported the online ecosystem. Users consume the content, but the original creators see little or no traffic in return.

The filing also stresses that Google’s dominant position in search enables it to impose these new conditions on publishers. With significant control over how content is surfaced, Google effectively coerces participation in its AI initiatives. Publishers who do not comply risk losing the limited referral traffic that remains, leaving them with few viable options to maintain their online presence.

Beyond immediate traffic loss, PMC raises concerns about the wider implications for the digital media landscape. By diverting attention away from original publisher sites, Google’s AI tools threaten revenue streams, content quality, and the sustainability of professional journalism. The company argues that these effects could have lasting consequences on the diversity and quality of online content.

Google’s own public statements are cited extensively in the filing to underscore the perceived discrepancy between its words and actions. While executives, including Pichai, have affirmed a commitment to directing users to publisher content, PMC contends that the practical reality of AI search shows otherwise. The memorandum states that Google’s AI effectively reduces click-throughs, increases zero-click behaviour, and repackages publisher content to the benefit of Google alone.

The filing paints a stark picture for publishers, describing Google’s approach as a coercive manoeuvre rather than a neutral innovation. By leveraging its market power, Google ensures that publishers must either permit AI use of their content or face the consequences of lost visibility and diminished revenue. PMC calls this a significant deviation from the historical model that supported the open web.

Industry observers note that this issue reflects broader concerns about AI’s impact on online traffic and monetisation. Many publishers have reported similar declines in referral traffic, suggesting that the problem is systemic rather than isolated. The rise of AI-generated summaries is reshaping how users interact with online content, often to the detriment of the original creators.

Ultimately, PMC frames the lawsuit as a defence of the web’s foundational principles. Publishers have historically created content in exchange for traffic, maintaining a balance that sustains the ecosystem. PMC argues that Google’s AI search disrupts this equilibrium, prioritising its own summarised answers over the creators who generate the original material.

By challenging Google’s practices in court, PMC seeks to reaffirm the rights of publishers and preserve the economic incentives that underpin quality online journalism. The complaint asserts that AI-driven cannibalisation of traffic is not merely a technical issue, but one with profound implications for the sustainability of the media landscape and the health of the wider web ecosystem.