Google is facing a formal antitrust complaint in Europe from a coalition of independent publishers, who accuse the company of abusing its dominance through its AI Overviews feature. The complaint, filed with the European Commission on 30 June, claims the tool harms publishers by extracting information from their content and displaying it directly on search results pages, sharply reducing user traffic and threatening the financial viability of independent journalism.
At the heart of the case is Google’s growing use of AI-generated summaries to answer search queries without requiring users to click through to the original sources. Publishers say this practice leads to substantial drops in traffic, with some reporting losses of more than 70%. Data submitted to the Commission suggests that click-through rates fall by over 40% on desktop and more than 30% on mobile when content is included in these summaries. AI Overviews appeared in more than 13% of Google search queries by March 2025 – more than double the figure in January.
The complainants also argue that Google’s opt-out options are not viable. While publishers can exclude their content from being used in AI training or summary generation, doing so reportedly results in a sharp fall in search visibility. This, they say, amounts to a forced trade-off that entrenches Google’s control of the search market and allows it to exploit publisher content without compensation.
Google disputes the allegations. A spokesperson told Reuters the summaries generate billions of clicks each day and improve content discovery. They said changes in traffic are driven by a range of factors including user interest and algorithm updates, and insisted the AI tools are designed to improve the search experience by delivering faster, clearer answers.
This is not the first time Google’s AI tools have landed it in trouble with European regulators. In early 2024, the French competition authority fined the company €250 million for training its AI assistant, then called Bard, on publisher content without consent. Google accepted the fine as part of a settlement but said it was disproportionate.
Similar legal and regulatory challenges are now playing out elsewhere. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority is examining the same issue, and in the United States, education firm Chegg has launched a lawsuit claiming that AI summaries are diverting users away from its platform and causing substantial commercial harm.
The European complaint lands at a time when the EU is actively tightening oversight of major tech platforms through legislation such as the Digital Markets Act, which aims to prevent anti-competitive behaviour by so-called gatekeepers. If the Commission grants an interim measure, it could restrict the use of AI Overviews across the EU – a move that would have global implications.
Publishers and industry observers say the case reflects a wider shift in how information is accessed and monetised online. AI-powered search tools offer convenience for users, but at the cost of diverting traffic from the websites that create the content they rely on. As other platforms such as Microsoft Copilot and Brave adopt similar approaches, questions are mounting over how the economics of the open web can be sustained in an AI-first era.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative is current, with the complaint filed on June 30, 2025, and the article published on July 4, 2025. No evidence of recycled or outdated content was found. The report includes recent data, such as the increase in ‘zero-click’ searches from 56% to 69% between May 2024 and May 2025. The inclusion of updated data justifies a higher freshness score.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
The article includes direct quotes from the complaint document dated June 30, 2025, and statements from a Google spokesperson. No identical quotes were found in earlier material, indicating original or exclusive content.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from Reuters, a reputable news organisation, enhancing its credibility. The Independent Publishers Alliance, a known entity, is cited as the source of the complaint.
Plausability check
Score:
10
Notes:
The claims about Google’s AI Overviews feature and its impact on publishers’ traffic and revenue are plausible and align with ongoing discussions in the industry. The article provides specific data points, such as the increase in ‘zero-click’ searches and the percentage of news-related searches ending without clicks, supporting the narrative’s credibility.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is current, original, and sourced from reputable entities. The claims are plausible and supported by specific data points, indicating a high level of credibility.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
