Google Considers Opt-Out Option for AI Search Tools

Google has confirmed that it is looking into new options that would allow website owners to opt out of AI-driven search features. This announcement comes at the same time as the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched a formal consultation into how Google Search operates and how publishers’ content is used in AI-powered results.

The company explained that it is reviewing how its existing controls could be improved so that sites can manage whether their content appears in generative AI search features, rather than being forced into an all-or-nothing choice.

This update was shared in a blog post written by Ron Eden, Principal of Product Management at Google. He said the company is working closely with the wider web community to explore ways for websites to specifically exclude their content from Search generative AI tools.

However, Google made it clear that this is still at an early stage. There is no confirmed timetable, no technical details, and no guarantee that these controls will become available soon. For now, the idea remains under consideration rather than part of an official product plan.

At present, Google already offers several methods for publishers to control how their content appears in search results. The problem is that none of these options clearly separate AI features from traditional search listings.

One existing tool, Google-Extended, allows publishers to block their content from being used to train Google’s AI models such as Gemini and Vertex AI. However, Google’s own documentation states that this does not affect whether content appears in Google Search or in AI-generated summaries. It only applies to AI training, not AI display.

Other tools, such as the nosnippet and max-snippet directives, do apply to AI Overviews and AI Mode. The drawback is that they also remove snippets from normal search results. This means publishers who want to limit AI exposure must sacrifice visibility across standard search listings as well.

Google has acknowledged that this situation is far from ideal. Eden noted that any new controls would need to be carefully designed so they do not damage the overall search experience or create confusion for users.

This issue is becoming increasingly important as pressure grows from publishers and regulators. Over the past year, many organisations have challenged the way AI Overviews use their content without giving them meaningful control over how it is displayed.

In the UK, groups such as the Independent Publishers Alliance, Foxglove, and the Movement for an Open Web submitted a formal complaint to the CMA last summer. Their main request was the ability to opt out of AI summaries without being removed entirely from Google Search.

Similar concerns have been raised internationally. In the United States, the Department of Justice has discussed potential measures, while South Africa’s Competition Commission has proposed comparable rules aimed at protecting publishers’ content in AI-powered search environments.

Research also shows that publishers are already taking action on their own. A recent BuzzStream study found that nearly eight in ten major news publishers block at least one AI training bot, and more than seven in ten block retrieval bots that affect AI citations. Many publishers are already using robots.txt files as a way to push back.

Google’s recent statement suggests it is responding to this growing resistance by considering controls it previously did not offer. The company appears to be trying to balance innovation with the demands of publishers and regulators.

Even so, Google’s wording remains cautious. Phrases such as “exploring updates” and “working with the web ecosystem” indicate discussion rather than commitment. There is no confirmation that a new opt-out feature will definitely be introduced.

The CMA consultation process will now collect feedback from industry players on what rules should apply to Google Search. While regulatory action can take time, past cases show it can lead to real changes. For example, investigations under the EU’s Digital Markets Act have already forced Google to adjust some of its practices in Europe.

For the moment, publishers who want to limit their exposure in AI search features must rely on existing tools like nosnippet and max-snippet, despite their impact on standard search visibility. Google’s current robots meta tag guidance explains these options in detail.

If Google does go ahead with a dedicated opt-out control for AI features, how it is implemented will be crucial. Whether this comes as a new robots directive, a setting in Search Console, or another method entirely will determine how useful and practical it is for website owners to adopt.