Google AI Overviews: Publishers sharpen their Weapons
Why are Google AI Overviews' investigations central to the current regulatory debate?
Any sector in the AI-driven attention economy where platforms intermediate between content creators and audiences, while building AI products from that content, faces analogous dynamics. How courts and regulators resolve these disputes will signal whether existing legal frameworks can govern the AI-driven attention economy.
The situation in the US
US publishers are pursuing private antitrust lawsuits arguing that Google's AI products—particularly AI Overviews and the newer "AI Mode"—reinforce its search monopoly. Judge Mehta already found that Google holds search and search advertising monopolies but declined to grant AI-specific remedies.
AI Overview and AI Mode are both new Google Search experiences powered by Gemini, but they behave very differently: AI Overviews are quick, inline summaries on a standard results page, while AI Mode is a full conversational search experience.
Publishers argue that AI Overviews and, more recently, “AI Mode” turn Google from a gateway into an “answer engine,” keeping users on Google properties and lowering click‑throughs to publishers.
Both tying and reciprocal dealing legal theories will be tested.
- Tying: consumers "purchase" Google search by paying with their attention. When users search for news, Google forces them to consume Google's AI-generated summaries rather than giving them unmediated access to publisher content. The tying product is search; the tied product is Google's AI news content. On the publishers' side, they argue that Google ties search referral traffic (which publishers need) to the compelled supply of news content (which feeds Google's AI products). Publishers cannot get the traffic without surrendering the content.
- Reciprocal dealing: access for content, publishers "pay" Google with their journalism, and Google "pays" publishers with traffic. But publishers argue the terms have become coercive and one-sided.
A recent ruling allowed Yelp's tying claim to proceed. The case offers publishers a potential roadmap: Yelp argues that Google's design steers users toward Google's own local results rather than rival sites—logic that parallels publishers' complaints about AI Overviews transforming Google from a discovery gateway into an "answer engine."
European Concerns
Publishers filed an antitrust complaint with the Commission, arguing that Google’s AI Overviews push media-site results further down the search page, depriving them of traffic. The complaint builds on the Digital Markets Act framework, which already designates Google as a gatekeeper with specific obligations around fair access and data sharing. EU competition chief Teresa Ribera warned that AI-generated news summaries, often created without publishers’ consent or payment, pose a "real risk" and "major threats" to the media industry. She linked these risks to both copyright concerns and the way such summaries can divert traffic away from news sites.
Brazil Investigation
Brazilian publishers, civil society organizations, and advocacy groups have submitted proposals to Brazil's competition authority (CADE) to expand its investigation into Google, shifting focus from traditional news snippets to AI Overviews. They allege that Google’s design choices are reshaping how users interact with news.
Stakeholders raised serious intellectual property and fair competition concerns and alleged that Google trained its AI on publisher content without permission. Brazil's copyright framework offers stronger protections than those in other jurisdictions, and platforms that train generative AI models on copyrighted content face significant vulnerabilities. In other words, Brazil's copyright approach may prove more consequential than antitrust/competition claims.
Conclusions
Google maintains that its AI features benefit users. On the specific legal claims: Google's core argument is that search and AI summaries are an integrated product (not distinct for tying purposes), that the reciprocal dealing framing is novel and unsupported, that publishers can opt out, and that AI may ultimately face competitive disruption from independent AI firms.
The cases unfolding across the US, EU, and Brazil represent parallel experiments in how legal systems might constrain AI-mediated platform power.
The US is testing whether antitrust doctrines developed for industrial-era market abuses can stretch to cover attention-economy dynamics where the currency is traffic and the coercion operates through interface design. The EU is layering competition enforcement onto an existing regulatory framework that already imposes gatekeeper obligations. Brazil may combine competition and copyright law, leveraging a legal structure that treats unauthorized AI training as a distinct vulnerability.
These approaches reflect different institutional strengths and constraints, but they converge on the same underlying question: can a platform that dominates information discovery unilaterally transform itself into an information endpoint—answering queries directly rather than directing users onward—without regulatory consequence?
Google AI Overviews under DSA attack
A coordinated mobilization at the European level, led by ENPA (European Newspaper Publishers' Association), is calling on the European Commission to open proceedings under the Digital Services Act (DSA) against Google.
The publishers assert that Google is acting as a "Traffic Killer" because AI Overviews integrates Gemini-generated responses directly into search results, leading fewer users to scroll to traditional organic results. A form of improper competition with content produced by publishing companies that results in a structural reduction of online visibility, with consequent loss of advertising revenue for the publishers. But is AI Overviews a problem under the DSA? It may not be, and we explain why.
The Impact: How AI Overviews Transform Search and Jeopardize Publisher Viability
The AI Overviews box sits above everything else, often long and complete, which reduces users’ motivation to click through. On mobile, AI Overviews can occupy the entire first screen, pushing the first organic link several scrolls down—magnifying the click loss.
An Ahrefs analysis (reported by PPC.land) indicates an average 34.5% drop in clicks for the first organic link when the page includes an AI Overview. Ahrefs analyzed 300,000 keywords to quantify how Google's generative AI summaries affect organic traffic.
The most comprehensive longitudinal study came from marketing agency Seer Interactive in November 2025, tracking 3,119 informational queries across 42 organizations over a 15-month period from June 2024 to September 2025. Their findings revealed an even more severe decline than earlier studies: organic CTR for queries with AI Overviews collapsed by 61%, falling from 1.76% to just 0.61%.
The alleged DSA violation and Legal Theory
According to the publishers, AI Overview functionalities would violate several DSA articles (Articles 34 and 35). The regulation imposes specific obligations on Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs) regarding algorithmic transparency, non-discrimination against content providers, protection of media plurality, and mitigation of systemic risk. The argument is that Google AI Overviews' design turns editorial content into mere training/input material for AI. At the same time, the platform captures user attention and monetization, undermining the economic basis of independent journalism. This would constitute discriminatory treatment of media service providers and a threat to media diversity, as the platform’s algorithmic choices systematically disadvantage professional news outlets compared with its own AI-generated outputs and other content.
In the event of a confirmed violation, the DSA provides for sanctions of up to 6% of the platform's global turnover.
Is AI Overviews a Real Threat under the DSA?
Seer Interactive's study also documented that even queries without AI Overviews experienced a 41% CTR decline during the same period. This might suggest a broader behavioral shift in which users are fundamentally changing how and where they seek information, potentially migrating to ChatGPT or Perplexity, or going directly to trusted brands rather than relying on traditional Google search. This complicates the DSA systemic risk theory: if the alleged harm persists regardless of Google's conduct, it is difficult to attribute systemic risk to AI Overviews specifically. In other words, it's possible that total queries are up, but total click-throughs to publishers are down (because all platforms increasingly satisfy queries without outbound clicks). If that's the case, then there is systemic harm to publishers — but it's an industry-wide structural shift, not a Google-specific DSA violation.
Beyond the DSA
Whether Google's AI Overviews deployment constitutes an anticompetitive response to emerging threats from ChatGPT and Perplexity raises distinct questions better suited to Digital Markets Act enforcement (particularly Article 6(5) on self-preferencing) and antitrust tying theories. Publishers may also pursue parallel copyright claims over AI training data. Parallel developments in the United States—including ongoing DOJ remedies in the Google antitrust case and academic arguments for Sherman Act tying violations—suggest converging transatlantic regulatory pressure on AI-search integration.
For now, organizations in the digital publishing and search ecosystem should prepare for a fundamentally redefined landscape, where the mechanisms of visibility and user engagement are subject to both regulatory intervention and competitive transformation.
Online Content Regulation: The system of accountability for online intermediaries and platforms serving the EU
Meta and TikTok could face fines of up to 6% of their global annual turnover under the Digital Services Act (DSA). Both TikTok and Meta allegedly restricted researchers’ access to platform data, undermining academic scrutiny of harmful and illegal content exposure—particularly affecting minors. Meta reportedly also failed to provide effective mechanisms for users to report illegal content or appeal moderation decisions. These failings could disqualify Meta from the DSA’s liability exemption for illegal content remaining online.
The DSA introduces a layered system of accountability for online intermediaries and platforms serving the EU, scaling rules according to the size and societal impact of the service. This tiered system begins with foundational obligations that apply universally, then adds requirements for interactive platforms, and culminates in the strictest standards for Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs)—services with more than 45 million monthly EU users.
Tier One: Foundational Rules for All Intermediaries
The rules aim to protect the fundamental rights of users in the digital space and to create a safer, fairer online environment. They ensure that platforms and intermediaries meet minimum requirements for content management, user safety, and transparency: from swift removal of illegal content and clear avenues for user complaints and appeals, to thorough reporting and advertising clarity.
Tier Two: Additional Requirements for Online Platforms
Platforms enabling user-to-user interactions or hosting third-party content face added responsibilities beyond the foundational rules.
Here, the purpose is to further strengthen user protection, platform accountability, and transparency in contexts where users interact with one another or third-party content is shared. For example, platforms must prioritize reports from trusted flaggers—entities verified by authorities, act against users who repeatedly upload illegal content, explain how their recommender systems (the algorithms that suggest content) work, and provide users with a choice over recommendation parameters, provide mechanisms for out-of-court dispute resolution, ensuring users who disagree with moderation decisions can settle complaints in a fair, accessible manner outside lengthy or costly legal proceedings.
Tier Three: Heightened Obligations for VLOPs and VLOSEs
The heightened obligations for Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs) under the DSA are designed to address the substantial influence and risks these services pose to the digital ecosystem. VLOPs/VLOSEs must carry out annual risk assessments covering specific areas, report findings to EU authorities, implement effective risk mitigation measures, which can include changes to algorithms, policies, or moderation resources, and maintain a public database of all advertisements shown on their service, detailing targeting criteria and reach. Moreover, to facilitate independent monitoring, research, and accountability for systemic impacts VLOPs and VLOSEs must grant vetted researchers access to relevant data for research on risks and impacts, respecting privacy and confidentiality standards.
Enforcement in Practice: The Meta and TikTok Cases
The preliminary findings against Meta and TikTok demonstrate that the Digital Services Act is not merely a regulatory aspiration but an actively enforced framework with substantial consequences for non-compliance. Both companies have disputed the European Commission's findings, with TikTok arguing that data-sharing requirements conflict with GDPR privacy protections and Meta asserting that changes made since the DSA's enforcement demonstrate compliance. The proceedings serve as a critical test of the DSA's enforcement credibility, signaling whether the DSA can deliver on its promise to create a safer, more transparent, and more accountable digital environment.
The $55 billion buyout of Electronic Arts (EA)
The buyout values EA at a revenue multiple of about 7.3x, significantly above average for traditional gaming
The $55 billion acquisition of Electronic Arts (EA), led by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), Affinity Partners (Jared Kushner), and Silver Lake, is making headlines across the digital entertainment industry. EA earned $7.5 billion in revenue last year—so what makes a publisher (not a console maker or marketplace owner) worth such a premium?
At the heart of EA’s value lie its intellectual property portfolio, dominance in global sports gaming, and stable, recurring digital revenue from microtransactions and online services.
EA’s protections include:
- Copyright law for software and creative assets (game engines are protected as “literary works” under U.S. and international copyright law)
- Trade secrets covering optimizations and internal workings (features, optimizations, and internal workings of game engines are protected as trade secrets)
- Patents for technological innovation (technological solutions in EA engines can be protected by patents)
- Contractual safeguards for employee and developer relationships (employee and third-party developer contracts further safeguard against the unauthorized transfer or use of engine technologies outside EA)
Was the transaction investigated?
Industry and Regulatory Concerns (Antitrust, Foreign Investment, and Media Regulation)
Given the record-setting price and foreign ownership, the deal underwent review by antitrust authorities and the US Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS). Unlike some recent industry deals, the EA transaction did not trigger a prolonged antitrust investigation or major regulatory blockade.
That said, questions persist about data privacy and user protection standards (EA possesses vast amounts of user data), and the potential influence of new ownership on creative direction and content moderation (the Saudi state-backed ownership exerting control over the messaging and content decisions of a major entertainment brand consumed by millions globally).
Broader Strategic Implications
Jared Kushner was pivotal in orchestrating not just this landmark business deal but also related diplomatic initiatives, notably in the Middle East, with the US administration’s engagement mirroring ongoing cross-border business and peacemaking efforts in the region. Saudi Arabia’s ambitious gaming and entertainment investments fall under its Vision 2030 strategy. The EA deal is a prime example of how Saudi Arabia is leveraging its sovereign wealth to diversify the economy and elevate its cultural and technological footprint globally.
Media Regulation and Merger Control: The European Media Freedom Act (EMFA)
Media regulation and pluralism under the EMFA
The EMFA is a landmark advance for EU media regulation and mandates structural safeguards with greater regulators' power to attach remedies to media mergers.
EMFA regulates the internal market for media services, which include television and radio broadcasts, on-demand audiovisual platforms, audio podcasts, press publications (digital and print), and platforms like news websites or digital magazines. Even very large online platforms are covered if they exercise editorial control. Editorial responsibility is central to the definition of media service—providers must have control over content choice and the manner of its dissemination.
As to content regulation, the new rules include safeguards against unwarranted removal of media content by large online platforms, protection of journalistic sources, and guarantees for public service media funding and editorial freedom. While most EMFA provisions now apply, rules allowing users to customize media content options on their devices will be activated in May 2027.
EMFA intends competition in terms of pluralism, meaning that Member States must assess media mergers based not only on economic competition but also on pluralism. The rules apply to all media acquisitions—print, broadcast, online, podcasts, and deals involving digital platforms exercising editorial responsibility. While EMFA does not set rigid, quantitative market share thresholds, the new media-merger plurality test aims to assess media mergers based on cross-media concentration, their influence over public opinion, editorial independence, and financial sustainability, not just competition law.
The institutional architecture of the new legislation: the European Commission and a newly established Media Board will issue guidelines and advisory opinions to ensure consistent application across member states. Full predictability will depend on detailed Commission guidance, consistent national practices, and case-law development, and the Commission's power to initiate infringement proceedings if EU law is not properly respected at the national level.
How does EMFA interact with the EU Merger Regulation? The European Commission is not the primary decision-maker for media mergers, unlike its central role in the EU Merger Regulation. The Commission may clear a merger on competition grounds, but that same transaction could still be subject to additional review or remedies by national authorities under EMFA for risks to media pluralism or editorial independence.
Media and tech firms should assess internal governance, editorial independence policies, and compliance frameworks to align with EMFA’s new standards.