Google Moves to Dismiss PMC AI Antitrust Suit — What It Means for Crypto Publishers

Google has asked a federal court to throw out an antitrust suit from Penske Media Corporation (PMC), arguing that its use of AI-generated search summaries is a lawful product improvement — not an anti-competitive maneuver that siphons traffic from publishers. What happened - On Monday, Google and parent Alphabet filed a motion to dismiss PMC’s amended antitrust claims in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This is Google’s third bid to kill the case after PMC amended its complaint twice following earlier dismissals. - PMC — owner of titles including Rolling Stone, Variety, Billboard and Deadline — sued last September, alleging Google conditions inclusion in search results on allowing Google to use publishers’ content to train AI and to republish that content in features like AI Overviews and Featured Snippets. PMC says those features divert clicks and damage advertising, affiliate and subscription revenue. Google’s defense - Google argues the company is being punished for “introduc[ing] generative AI features on its search engine that more efficiently provide users with the information they seek.” The motion insists publishers voluntarily allow Google to index their sites and can opt out entirely, so there is no coercion. - The filing calls PMC’s “reciprocal dealing” theory simply a complaint that Google refuses to deal on PMC’s preferred terms, invoking Supreme Court precedent that businesses have broad latitude to set the terms of commerce. - Google also attacks PMC’s market definition as “massively overbroad,” noting competitors including Microsoft’s Bing and DuckDuckGo already offer AI-enhanced search features — a point Google says undercuts any monopolization theory. Legal context and precedent - Google points out it defeated similar claims from education company Chegg twice, and says the same plaintiffs’ legal team has had “multiple opportunities to plead [their] best case” across four complaints. - Experts see real harms to publishers from AI summaries, but significant hurdles for an antitrust framework under current law. Ishita Sharma, managing partner at Fathom Legal, told Decrypt the case “raises legitimate concerns” but could face substantial legal obstacles; if dismissed, it could still proceed in narrower forms (for example, copyright or licensing claims). If the court denies dismissal, the litigation could broaden into a high-profile antitrust fight over AI and platform power. - The lawsuit arrives amid other legal pressure on Google: a federal judge recently found Google unlawfully monopolized U.S. search (but declined to force a Chrome divestiture, opting instead for conduct remedies), and a separate DOJ ad-tech case has pushed regulators to consider divestiture of Google’s advertising exchange. Those cases are still in appeals or remedies phases. Why crypto and web-native publishers should care - Crypto and web3 outlets often depend on direct traffic and subscription models, and many are experimenting with token-gating, NFT-based membership, and other monetization mechanisms that rely on visit and click metrics. If AI-driven search summaries continue to divert traffic at scale, these publishers could see the same revenue pressure PMC cites. - The case could set precedents for how major platforms may index, summarize, and monetize third-party content — with potential knock-on effects for decentralized publishing experiments and alternative distribution strategies that aim to bypass centralized platforms. What’s next - Google has asked the court to dismiss the antitrust claims. If the court grants that motion, PMC might pursue narrower claims; if denied, the dispute could turn into an extended antitrust battle over AI-powered search. - Decrypt has requested comment from Google, its counsel at WilmerHale, Penske Media Corporation, and the plaintiffs’ attorneys at Susman Godfrey. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news