Google is hitting back at Penske Media Corporation (“PMC”)’s lawsuit in a newly filed motion to dismiss, characterizing the media group’s AI search-centric antitrust claims as “legally defective in every way” and grounded in “an implausibly alleged market that includes nearly all information on the Internet.” Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Google’s response frames PMC’s lawsuit as an effort to rewrite the rules of how the Internet – and search – operate: “PMC claims that Google Search now designs its search results page too well. In PMC’s preferred world, Google Search must be frozen in time.”
According to Google, features such as AI-powered summaries and enhanced result formats are the natural evolution of search – and the type of product improvement U.S. antitrust law is meant to encourage, not penalize.
Search, Traffic & Generative AI
In the lawsuit that it filed in September, PMC, the parent company of Women’s Wear Daily, Rolling Stone, Variety, Billboard, VIBE, and Deadline, argues that Google’s integration of generative AI into search results reduces user click-throughs to publisher websites. In essence, PMC alleges its model “cannot compete” when users get close facsimiles of its content on AI-powered search engine results pages or other AI tools, eroding the traffic that drives its ad, affiliate, and subscription revenues.
PMC’s leading claim hinges on a theory of “reciprocal dealing,” alleging that Google threatens to reduce search referral traffic unless publishers provide content for AI training and output. Pushing back, Google argues that antitrust law is designed to protect competition, not specific competitors’ revenue models. Innovative features that help users find information more efficiently, Google says, are competitive enhancements – not exclusionary conduct. In particular, it counters PMC’s reciprocal dealing theory, arguing that it fails as a matter of law because …
> Publishers voluntarily allow indexing and maintain the ability to opt out entirely through standard web protocols.
> There is no coerced transaction. Google does not “purchase” publisher content nor “sell” referral traffic.
> PMC itself acknowledges the existence of competition among entities licensing content for AI, which undermines any claim of foreclosure.
“Publishers who allow Google to index their sites do so not because of coercion,” Google argues, “but because of the visibility and discoverability benefits indexing provides.”
The “Online Publishing” Market & Unjust Enrichment
PMC also alleges that Google is leveraging its search dominance to monopolize a market PMC defines as “Online Publishing” – effectively, all text-based information on the Internet. Google calls this definition “massively overbroad and implausible,” noting that no entity, Google included, could monopolize such a boundless category. Further, simply providing search answers, context, or summaries does not, Google argues, exclude publishers from competing for readers or content value.
PMC also sets out an unjust enrichment cause of action based on Google’s alleged use of its content to generate AI Overviews without authorization. Google argues that this claim lacks the legally required elements of fraud, coercion, or mistaken transfer. Without those, PMC’s theory falls short, per Google.
Finally, Google also highlights that PMC’s complaint mirrors the claims previously brought by Chegg, Inc., which is represented by the same legal team. Chegg amended its complaint when Google moved to dismiss; PMC filed its lawsuit shortly thereafter, repeating “nearly verbatim” allegations. In Google’s view, PMC was on notice that these theories were already under significant legal scrutiny, and its choosing to advance the same claims confirms “they cannot be cured.”
What Comes Next & Why it Matters
Google is seeking dismissal with prejudice, arguing that PMC’s claims fail as a matter of law rather than fact. The case lands at a moment when the industry (and the law) is grappling with how generative AI reshapes intellectual property and the economics of online publishing. At stake is more than one publisher’s site traffic. The lawsuit reflects a broader tension between content creators and the platforms that increasingly intermediate – and sometimes summarize – their work. As AI tools play a growing role in how information is accessed and delivered, disputes over control, compensation, and competitive fairness are likely to accelerate.
Whether the court accepts PMC’s attempt to redefine the competitive landscape or agrees with Google that enhancing search is not an antitrust violation, could set meaningful precedent for how AI and the web’s publishing economy coexist going forward.
The case is Penske Media Corporation v. Google LLC and Alphabet Inc., 1:25-cv-03192 (D.D.C.).
Share
