Google is landing in hot water once again over how it uses online articles to train and power its AI search features. During a recent federal court hearing for the ongoing Google AI Overviews antitrust lawsuit filed back in September 2025 by Penske Media, US District Judge Amit Mehta did not hold back, observing out loud that Google’s current setup with digital publishers “all seems really unfair.”
Judge Mehta—the very same judge who ruled in 2024 that Google holds an illegal monopoly in general search—was listening to arguments on whether to dismiss Penske’s lawsuit. Penske claims Google is abusing that exact search dominance to force publishers into handing over their hard-earned content for AI answers, all without paying a single cent.
Calling out the “product improvement” argument
Attorneys for Google tried to downplay the issue. They called AI Overviews a simple “product improvement” and dismissed the long-standing deal where publishers let Google crawl their sites in exchange for web traffic as a “vague historical course of dealing.” Google insisted that publishers can always choose to opt out of indexing if they don’t like how their content gets used.
However, Judge Mehta pushed right back against that line of thinking. As detailed in live coverage by Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, the judge pointed out that product improvements aren’t immune to antitrust laws. He noted that Google’s shiny new AI features are essentially being built “on the backs of the publishers” (via Search Engine Journal).
Paying for content vs. taking it for free
The hearing also highlighted a glaring double standard in the AI market right now. Penske pointed out that competing AI players like OpenAI and Perplexity are actively paying news outlets and creators licensing fees to use their content. Meanwhile, Google is using its search muscle to take the exact same web data for free, driving up costs for competitors while giving publishers zero room to negotiate.
Telling publishers to just “opt out” of AI features is a trap. If a media company blocks Google, it risks losing out on whatever tiny crumbs of traffic AI Overviews still send—which are already way less than the traditional ten blue links ever provided. Blocking search indexing altogether would mean digital suicide for any online publication.
What this means for the future of search
Judge Mehta hasn’t officially ruled on Google’s motion to dismiss just yet. However, his skeptical questioning suggests he sees a strong link between Google’s existing search monopoly and how it dictates terms to publishers. If the case moves forward, it could fundamentally change the rules of web search, forcing Google to finally pay for the content that keeps its AI running.
The post ‘Seems Really Unfair’: Judge Pushes Back Against Google in AI Overviews Suit appeared first on Android Headlines.
