A new study of Google's AI Overviews finds the clicks publishers lost to the feature were not lower-quality traffic. Search Engine Journal reported the finding. The result weakens a common consolation narrative in the SEO industry.

That narrative holds a simple claim: AI Overviews mostly cannibalize clicks that would never convert anyway. The study contradicts it. Traffic lost after AI Overviews appeared did not differ meaningfully in quality from traffic that survived.

This matters because the consolation narrative shapes budget decisions. If lost clicks were junk, publishers could ignore them. If they were not, AI Overviews cut real audience.

What did the study actually measure?

The report examined clicks lost when AI Overviews appeared above traditional results. Researchers compared the quality of lost clicks against retained clicks. They found no meaningful quality gap.

Be precise about what this is. It is a third-party study, not a Google statement. Google has not confirmed these findings. The company rarely discloses click-quality data for AI Overviews at all.

Takeaway: the study measures what was lost, not why Google's feature absorbed it.

Why the 'low-quality clicks' claim spread

Publishers and analysts repeated the claim for a simple reason. It softened a hard problem. AI Overviews answer queries directly, so users skip the blue links below them. Calling those users low intent made the loss feel smaller.

The study removes that cushion. Lost clicks behaved like normal clicks. They were, by the evidence available, ordinary visitors who no longer arrive.

One caveat belongs here: the Search Engine Journal report summarizes the study, and the underlying methodology, sample size and vertical breakdown were not detailed in the available material — so treat the strength of the finding as provisional until the full dataset appears.

Takeaway: the burden of proof now sits with anyone who still calls lost AI Overview clicks disposable.

Who feels this most?

Sites that answer informational queries face the largest exposure. AI Overviews trigger most often on question-style searches, where publishers once earned top-of-funnel traffic. That traffic fed retargeting, newsletter signups and later conversions.

The study suggests those losses hit real prospects, not bots or bounces. For content sites, that is the worst version of the story. For e-commerce, product and transactional queries still trigger AI Overviews less often, so the direct damage stays smaller there.

Takeaway: informational publishers carry the risk, and this study says the risk is real.

What should publishers monitor next?

Watch three things. First, whether Google expands AI Overviews into more commercial query classes. Second, whether follow-up studies with published methodology confirm the quality finding at scale. Third, whether Google's own statements on AI Overview traffic —sparse so far— begin to address click quality rather than only click volume.

Until then, treat every claim about which clicks AI Overviews take as unverified. This study pushes back on the comfortable version. It does not settle the question.