European Publishers Strike Back: Major Antitrust Complaint Filed Against Google’s AI Overviews

The fight over who owns the future of search just got a courtroom address.

European Publishers Council alleges Google is abusing market dominance by using journalistic content without consent or payment — threatening the survival of independent journalism worldwide.

By Animesh Sourav Kullu | February 11, 2026 | Updated: February 11, 2026

Key Takeaways :-

• The European Publishers Council (EPC) filed a formal antitrust complaint with the European Commission against Google on February 10, 2026.
• The complaint alleges Google’s AI Overviews and AI Mode abuse its dominant search position by using publisher content without consent, fair compensation, or meaningful opt-out.
• Research shows AI Overviews have reduced click-through rates by 58%, devastating publisher traffic and revenue.
• The filing falls under Article 102 TFEU and strengthens the EU Commission’s existing investigation opened in December 2025.
• This case could set a global precedent for how AI companies use copyrighted content — affecting publishers, creators, and readers everywhere.

The $1.5 Trillion Question Google Doesn’t Want You to Ask

Here’s a scenario that might sound familiar.

You search for something on Google. A neat little AI-generated summary pops up at the top. It answers your question. You close the tab. You never visit the website that actually reported, researched, or wrote the original information.

Feels convenient, right?

Now imagine you’re the journalist who spent three weeks investigating that story. Or the publisher who paid that journalist’s salary. Or the small newsroom in Berlin or Mumbai that just watched 40% of its web traffic vanish — because Google decided your work makes excellent free training data.

That’s not a hypothetical. That’s the complaint.

On February 10, 2026, the European Publishers Council — representing heavy hitters like The Guardian, The New York Times, DMG Media, and News UK — walked into the European Commission’s office and filed a formal Google AI Overviews antitrust complaint that could reshape the entire AI industry.

This case sits at the same intersection of AI power and regulatory response we covered in our analysis of the China Meta AI Acquisition Review — where governments worldwide are drawing lines around what AI companies can and cannot do.

And honestly? It’s about time someone asked the uncomfortable question: Can AI summaries built on journalism survive if they kill the journalism that feeds them?

What Happened: The Core Story

The European Publishers Council filed a formal antitrust complaint with the European Commission against Google on Tuesday, alleging the tech giant abuses its dominant search position through AI Overviews and AI Mode features.

The complaint, filed under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), accuses Google of using publishers’ journalistic content without authorization, without effective opt-out mechanisms, and without fair payment.

This isn’t a polite letter. It’s a legal broadside aimed at a company processing over 9 billion searches daily — and keeping an increasing share of users from ever leaving its ecosystem.

Why It Matters Now

This complaint lands at a critical inflection point.

The European Commission already opened its own investigation into Google’s AI practices in December 2025. The U.S. Department of Justice is appealing a September 2025 antitrust ruling against Google, seeking tougher remedies. India — where the AI Impact Summit 2026 recently drew 100+ countries to New Delhi — has proposed a “One Nation, One Licence, One Payment” model for AI training on copyrighted works.

The walls are closing in from multiple directions. And at the center of it all sits a single product feature — Google AI Overviews — that has quietly transformed search from a referral engine into an answer engine.

The difference? A referral engine sends you somewhere. An answer engine keeps you right where you are.

For publishers, that’s not innovation. That’s extinction.

What Are Google AI Overviews, Exactly?

If you’ve Googled anything in the past year, you’ve probably seen them. AI Overviews are AI-generated summaries that appear at the top of Google search results. They pull information from multiple sources, synthesize it into a digestible paragraph, and present it before any traditional links.

Think of them as a book report written by a very fast student who read everyone else’s homework and handed it in as their own.

If you’ve been following how Google’s Gemini AI models are being deployed across products, you already know the company’s AI ambitions run deep. AI Overviews are powered by these same models — now embedded directly into the search experience billions of people rely on daily.

Key facts about Google AI Overviews:

• They now appear in over 40% of informational search queries globally
• Approximately 16% of all U.S. desktop searches trigger an AI Overview
• In India, that figure is 16.5%; in Brazil, 15.5%; in the UK, 12.5%
• Google’s AI Mode takes this further — a chatbot-style interface that generates conversational answers with minimal external links
• AI Mode sends users to external websites in fewer than 5% of queries

The technology behind it combines large language model training (using publisher content) and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) — a technique that pulls real-time web data to keep responses current.

Translation: Google trains its AI on your content, then uses that same content in real-time to generate answers that replace you.

The Traffic Massacre: Numbers That Should Alarm Everyone

Let’s talk data. Because this isn’t an abstract debate about copyright theory.

This is a measurable financial catastrophe for publishers.

Read that table again. The numbers aren’t declining. They’re cratering.

When Ahrefs first studied this in April 2025, the CTR reduction was 34.5%. By December 2025, it had nearly doubled to 58%. The trend line points in one direction only.

As one researcher put it: for every 100 clicks that used to go to the top-ranking page, Google now keeps 58 of them. The remaining 42 are fighting over scraps.

The Publishers’ Case: Three Core Allegations

The EPC’s complaint rests on three pillars. Each one is harder for Google to wiggle out of than the last.

1. Content Theft Without Consent

Google uses journalistic content to train its AI models. It then uses that same content — via RAG — to generate real-time summaries. Publishers never agreed to this. There’s no licensing deal. There’s no payment.

Christian Van Thillo, EPC Chairman, put it plainly: “It is about stopping a dominant gatekeeper from using its market power to take publishers’ content without consent, without fair compensation, and without giving publishers any realistic way to protect their journalism.”

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen a major technology company face allegations of using others’ data without permission. The parallels to what happened with Clearview AI’s legal battle over scraping billions of images are hard to miss — different technology, same fundamental question about consent.

2. The Impossible Opt-Out

Google says it offers “easy-to-use controls” for publishers to manage their content. The EPC says those controls are a trap.

Here’s why: if a publisher opts out of Google’s AI crawling, their content becomes less visible in regular search results. In a world where Google controls over 90% of search traffic in most markets, opting out means becoming invisible.

The choice Google offers publishers: accept that your work gets repurposed for free, or disappear from the internet. That’s not a choice. That’s coercion.

3. Market Abuse Through Dominance

This is the legal heart of the complaint. Under Article 102 TFEU, it’s illegal for a dominant company to abuse that position.

The EPC argues Google is doing exactly that — leveraging its near-monopoly in search to force publishers into accepting unfavorable terms. Google isn’t just competing in the AI space. It’s using its control of the distribution channel (search) to guarantee it never has to negotiate fairly for the raw material (journalism) that powers its AI.

Google’s Defense: “These Claims Are Inaccurate”

Google isn’t taking this quietly.

A Google spokesperson responded: “These inaccurate claims are an attempt to hold back helpful new AI features that Europeans want. We design our AI features to surface great content across the web and we provide easy-to-use controls for them to manage their content.”

There’s a particular boldness to calling the claims “inaccurate” when multiple independent studies — from Ahrefs, Seer Interactive, Pew Research Center, and Digital Content Next — all point to the same conclusion: AI Overviews are absorbing traffic that used to flow to publishers.

Google also points to its AI features as beneficial for web publishers, arguing they “surface great content.” But there’s a meaningful difference between surfacing content and summarizing it so completely that nobody needs to visit the source.

That’s not surfacing. That’s swallowing.

The Bigger Picture: A Global Antitrust Reckoning

This EU complaint doesn’t exist in isolation. Google is facing coordinated pressure from regulators around the world.

United States

The DOJ and 35 states filed a cross-appeal on February 3, 2026, challenging the September 2025 remedies ruling in the Google Search antitrust case. Judge Amit Mehta found Google illegally monopolized search but declined to force a Chrome divestiture or ban default search deals. The government wants tougher action.

Meanwhile, the Google ad tech antitrust case awaits a separate remedies decision in early 2026, where the DOJ is seeking structural separation of Google’s advertising business.

European Union

The Commission opened a formal investigation in December 2025 into whether Google breached EU competition rules by using publisher and YouTube content for AI purposes. EU Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera has suggested swift interim measures may be possible — a signal that Brussels isn’t planning to wait years before acting.

India

India’s Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has proposed a “One Nation, One Licence, One Payment” model for AI training on copyrighted works. Under this framework, AI companies would need mandatory licenses and must pay creators. No opt-out. No exceptions. India’s growing regulatory voice on AI was on full display at the recent AI Impact Summit in New Delhi, where PM Modi chaired closed-door discussions with heads of Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI.

The Pattern

Different jurisdictions. Different legal frameworks. Same conclusion: the current model — where AI companies take publisher content without meaningful compensation — isn’t sustainable.

The Paradox That Could Break AI

Here’s the part that should keep every AI executive awake at night.

AI systems like Google’s need high-quality journalism to function. Without accurate, well-researched reporting, AI Overviews would be summarizing Reddit threads and marketing blogs. The quality of the output depends entirely on the quality of the input.

But AI Overviews are systematically destroying the business model that funds quality journalism. Traffic drops mean advertising revenue drops. Revenue drops mean newsroom cuts. Newsroom cuts mean less original reporting. Less original reporting means worse AI training data.

This is a self-defeating cycle. And it’s already happening.

News publishers lost half their Google search traffic in just two years. Traditional web search dropped from 51% of publisher traffic in 2023 to just 27% in Q4 2025. Google Discover — the recommendation feed Google fully controls — now accounts for 67.5% of Google traffic to news organizations.

We’ve explored this tension between AI scaling and its dependency on quality data before. The pattern is remarkably similar: AI models get better by consuming more high-quality data — but the systems that generate that data are being undermined by the very AI models consuming them.

Van Thillo warned: “If these practices continue, the damage will be structural and irreversible. No amount of money can restore lost audiences, weakened brand relationships, or eroded reader trust once publishers are disintermediated.”

He’s not wrong. And here’s the uncomfortable truth: if independent journalism collapses, the AI summaries replacing it will have nothing left to summarize.

Field Notes: What a Generic AI Summary Won’t Tell You

Most coverage of this story misses several critical points. Let me fill in the gaps.

The copyright vs. competition distinction matters enormously. Copyright law, by itself, can’t fix this. Even if publishers win every copyright claim, Google could simply stop showing their content in search — which, given Google’s dominance, would be equally devastating. The antitrust angle is essential because it addresses the power imbalance directly. Google isn’t just using content unfairly; it’s using its market position to ensure publishers can’t negotiate.

The “other AI companies pay” argument is a problem for Google. OpenAI, Apple, and others have signed licensing deals with publishers. Google — which has far deeper pockets and far more to gain — has largely avoided them. The EPC specifically called this out, noting Google “relies on its control of search to secure ongoing access to content without payment.”

Smaller publishers face the highest exit risk. The Guardian and the NYT have brand recognition and subscription revenue. A regional newspaper in Portugal or a mid-sized publisher in India? They’re entirely dependent on search traffic. When that traffic vanishes, they don’t pivot. They close.

The “AI Mode” feature is arguably worse than AI Overviews. AI Mode is a chatbot-style interface within Google Search. It sends users to external sites in fewer than 5% of queries. If AI Overviews are a slow bleed, AI Mode is a tourniquet applied to someone else’s artery.

This impacts far more than publishing. Any business that depends on organic search traffic — from local retailers to SaaS companies — faces the same dynamic. When Google answers the question itself, nobody downstream gets the visit. That’s why even companies like Salesforce, already feeling the pressure of AI-driven disruption, are watching this case closely.

What Happens Next: The Road Ahead

Investigation Timeline

The EU Commission has been investigating since December 2025. This complaint adds formal evidence and legal weight.

Teresa Ribera, EU Executive Vice-President, has suggested interim measures could come relatively quickly. A final determination could take 18–24 months. But interim relief — temporary rules while the investigation plays out — could arrive much sooner.

Potential Outcomes

For Google: Possible fines (the EU has previously fined Google over €8 billion across three antitrust cases), forced licensing agreements, and modifications to AI Overview and AI Mode features.

For Publishers: A potential fair compensation framework, restored traffic referrals, and meaningful control over how their content is used for AI.

For Consumers: Possible changes to how AI Overviews work — perhaps more prominent attribution, direct links, or reduced AI summarization on certain query types.

For the Global AI Industry: A precedent. If the EU rules that AI companies must license content and provide fair compensation, every AI company using web-scraped data will need to rethink its business model. We’ve been tracking the broader regulatory trend closely — from OpenAI’s evolving approach to safety and digital rights to how LLMs are redefining the entire intelligence landscape.

Key Dates to Watch

• EU Commission interim measures — potentially mid-2026
• Google ad tech remedies ruling — expected early 2026
• DOJ appeal hearing (D.C. Circuit) — expected later in 2026
• EU final determination — estimated 2027–2028

How This Affects You (Yes, You)

Whether you’re a publisher, marketer, business owner, or someone who just uses Google 20 times a day — this case matters.

If You’re a Publisher or Content Creator

• Diversify your traffic sources. Google Discover, direct newsletters, and social channels reduce dependency.
• Track AI citations, not just rankings. Brands cited in AI Overviews earn 35% more organic clicks than those not cited.
• Build direct audience relationships. Email subscribers and loyal readers can’t be disintermediated by an algorithm.
• Upskill your team on AI. Understanding how AI systems work gives you strategic advantage. We’ve written about why AI upskilling matters for professionals at every stage of their career.

If You’re a Marketer or SEO Professional

• Shift metrics from clicks to share of voice. Traditional CTR is declining regardless of AI Overviews.
• Optimize for citation. 92.36% of AI Overview citations come from domains ranking in the top 10. Authority matters more than ever.
• Implement structured data. FAQ, Article, and Organization schema help AI systems understand and reference your content.

If You’re a Reader

• Click through to original sources. The free information in AI summaries was created by someone who deserves the traffic.
• Support journalism directly. Subscriptions, memberships, and direct visits keep newsrooms alive.
• Stay informed about this case. The outcome will determine what information looks like on the internet for the next decade.

5-Step Implementation Roadmap for Publishers

1. Audit your AI exposure. Use Google Search Console to identify which of your pages trigger AI Overviews and measure traffic impact.
2. Implement comprehensive Schema markup. Article, FAQ, Author, and Organization schema improve your chances of AI citation.
3. Build a first-party data strategy. Newsletters, apps, and membership programs create direct reader relationships Google can’t mediate.
4. Document your traffic losses. Detailed, dated records of traffic declines are valuable — both for internal strategy and potential legal claims.
5. Join industry coalitions. Organizations like the EPC, Digital Content Next, and national press associations are building collective bargaining power that individual publishers can’t achieve alone.

Comparison: How Google AI Overviews Stacks Up Against Other AI Search Tools

This Case vs. Previous Google-Publisher Disputes

The Closing Line

The European Publishers Council hasn’t just filed a complaint. They’ve laid down a marker: the era of AI companies treating journalism as a free public utility is over.

Google processes billions of searches every day. It has transformed search into a product that increasingly answers questions without ever sending users to the sources of those answers. And now, the people who create those sources are demanding a seat at the table.

Whether you think publishers are defending democracy or protecting a dying business model — the outcome of this case will define how information flows on the internet for the next generation.

The EU Commission’s next formal review is expected by mid-2026. By then, we’ll know whether this complaint becomes a footnote or a turning point.

One thing is already clear: the question is no longer whether AI should pay for the content it consumes. The question is how much, and who gets to decide.

Your turn: Have AI Overviews changed how you use Google Search? Have you noticed yourself clicking fewer links? Drop your experience in the comments below — this conversation is bigger than any single lawsuit. And if this article gave you a new perspective, share it with a colleague who needs to see these numbers.

Stay ahead of every development in the AI industry. Follow DailyAIWire for breaking coverage, deep analysis, and stories that help you understand not just what is happening in AI — but why it matters.

Read more on DailyAIWire:

• India AI Impact Summit 2026: Why 100+ Countries Are Gathering in Delhi
• China Meta AI Acquisition Review: 7 Critical Concerns for Global Tech
• Overview of the Clearview AI Legal Case: Complete Guide
• AI Scaling Laws 2025: Will They Keep Improving?
• Top AI Stories of 2026

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Google AI Overviews antitrust complaint about? The European Publishers Council filed a formal antitrust complaint with the European Commission on February 10, 2026, alleging Google abuses its dominant search position by using publisher content in AI Overviews without consent, meaningful opt-out, or fair compensation.

How much has Google AI Overviews reduced website traffic? Research by Ahrefs (December 2025) found a 58% reduction in click-through rates for top-ranking pages when AI Overviews are present. Seer Interactive documented a 61% organic CTR decline for informational queries with AI Overviews.

What is Article 102 TFEU? Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union prohibits the abuse of a dominant market position where that abuse may affect trade between EU Member States and distort competition within the internal market.

Can publishers opt out of Google AI Overviews? Technically, yes — Google offers controls to opt out of AI crawling. However, publishers report that opting out reduces their search visibility significantly, making it an impractical choice for businesses that depend on search traffic.

How does this relate to the U.S. DOJ Google antitrust case? The U.S. DOJ found Google illegally monopolized search in August 2024 and obtained behavioral remedies in September 2025. The DOJ filed a cross-appeal in February 2026, seeking stronger measures including potential Chrome divestiture. The EU case focuses specifically on AI content use rather than default search agreements.

What are publishers demanding from Google? The EPC demands meaningful publisher control over AI use of their content, transparency regarding traffic and revenue impacts, and a fair licensing and payment framework reflecting the economic value of journalism.

Could this case affect AI companies beyond Google? Yes. If the EU establishes that AI companies must license content and provide fair compensation, it would set a precedent affecting any AI system that trains on or retrieves copyrighted web content — including OpenAI, Perplexity, Meta, and others.

What is Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)? RAG is an AI technique that combines a model’s trained knowledge with real-time retrieval of web data. Google uses RAG in AI Overviews to pull current information from publisher websites and generate up-to-date summaries.

When will the EU Commission make a decision? Interim measures could come as early as mid-2026. A final determination on the Google AI Overviews antitrust case is estimated to take 18–24 months from the start of the formal investigation in December 2025.

How can publishers protect themselves right now? Publishers should audit their AI exposure using Google Search Console, implement structured Schema markup, build first-party audience relationships through newsletters and memberships, document traffic losses with precise data, and join industry coalitions to strengthen collective bargaining power.