A US federal judge in Washington dismissed on Wednesday, September 30, the antitrust claims that education technology company Chegg and Penske Media — publisher of Rolling Stone, Billboard and Variety — filed against Google over its AI Overviews.

US District Judge Amit Mehta wrote that the publishers' claims that Google's business practices violate antitrust law "fail to get out of the starting gate." The decision follows Mehta's March ruling that rejected similar claims by another publisher suing Google over the same AI feature.

What did the publishers actually allege?

Chegg and Penske sued Google last year, arguing the search company broke antitrust law by effectively forcing publishers to accept AI-generated summaries of their content if they wanted to remain indexed in Google Search. Both companies said the summaries drew readers away and cost them revenue.

The plaintiffs argued that in a competitive market, Google would pay them for republishing their work or using it to train AI systems. Google countered that it has no obligation to index publishers' content on their preferred terms.

Why did the judge reject the case?

Mehta's core reasoning turned on what the publishers had — and had not — actually pleaded. "Plaintiffs have pleaded only that they have an 'expectation' that Google will send them search traffic if they make their content available for free," the judge wrote. "But an expectation is not an agreement. It is simply how a general search engine works."

The ruling is a direct win for Google, which has denied any wrongdoing. Chegg, Penske and Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

What did the judge say about publishers' economic harm?

Mehta added that he is not "unsympathetic" to publishers and online creators whose content Google takes and repurposes without paying them. He then drew a line between antitrust law and broader AI policy, writing that antitrust laws don't substitute for legislators' power to address how innovation may cause economic harm.

The framing is a clear signal that courts will not stretch existing competition law to compensate publishers for AI-related traffic losses. Any remedy, Mehta suggested, must come from Congress rather than from a damages award.

Which verticals and site types are most exposed?

The two plaintiffs each represent a vertical where AI Overviews can answer the underlying query without sending users to the source. Chegg sells textbook rentals, homework help and tutoring — educational questions that Google can now summarize directly. Penske's Rolling Stone, Billboard and Variety live in entertainment news, where listicles, reviews and profiles are prime AI Overview fodder.

Publishers running e-commerce funnels, transactional queries or local-intent search face less direct click loss. The Chegg and Penske model — informational publishers dependent on top-of-funnel queries — carries the heaviest exposure the lawsuit tried to convert into a competition case.

What to monitor next

Watch for amended complaints or an appeal. Mehta signaled that publisher compensation belongs with legislators rather than judges, so the next move may come from Congress, where AI training data and content licensing are already in debate.

Also watch whether the March plaintiff has refiled. A second Mehta's-courtroom loss would push the publisher coalition toward lobbying and away from AI-search litigation, and would reinforce the September 30 framing of an "expectation" rather than an antitrust duty.