Rolling Stone and Hollywood Parent Company Sue Google

Rolling Stone and its parent company have filed a lawsuit against Google in a federal court in Washington, D.C. The lawsuit claims that Google’s “AI Overview” feature is dismantling articles without authorization and harming website traffic.

The legal complaint alleges that Google has caused “millions of dollars in harm” and is reaping “illegal profits.” To include links in search results, Google mandates that publishers consent to the use of their content for training AI tools.

Penske Media asserts that Google is depriving publishers of potential revenue, which typically comes from licensing article rights and selling ads reliant on actual web traffic rather than AI-generated summaries.

“Google’s actions are undermining the overall internet experience for users. People will find themselves trapped within Google’s ecosystem, receiving answers filled with inaccuracies when they search,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit highlights a growing backlash from news publishers and content creators against Google’s practice of placing AI-generated summaries at the top of search results, overshadowing traditional links to actual articles.

Beyond negatively impacting the news sector, these AI summaries have reportedly propagated outright false information—like the unfounded claim that rapper Eminem performed at Jeff Bezos’ mother’s funeral.

Penske noted that approximately 20% of Google’s search results now feature these AI overviews, which detracts from the original sources.

Penske Media has indicated that the expansion of Google’s AI features has led to a drop in search impressions and referral traffic, significantly affecting advertising revenue.

According to the complaint, all articles posted on the website compel PMC to provide additional training materials to Google, resulting in a system that amplifies challenges threatening the entire publishing business.

Penske is seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Google from continuing these alleged illegal activities and is pursuing damages.

Google counters that their AI overviews actually enhance website traffic.

“AI overviews make searches feel more useful and create new ways for users to discover content. These claims are baseless,” said Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda.

While some publishers have cut back on licensing deals with Google, others have opted for legal action instead.

For instance, educational software company Chegg filed a lawsuit against Google earlier this year, asserting that the tech giant has disproportionately captured traffic that previously benefited Chegg, impacting its growth and revenue.

Interestingly, Google’s main AI competitor, OpenAI, has struck licensing deals with various media outlets, including News Corp and The Atlantic.

Industry experts had anticipated that U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta might provide some relief given earlier findings of Google’s illegal monopoly over online searches, controlling an estimated 90% market share.

Despite concerns raised by the Justice Department regarding Google’s potential monopoly on AI, Mehta has taken a relatively lenient approach, which critics have dismissed as ineffectual.

While Google is required to share search data with competitors, it does not face mandates to sell its Chrome browser or alter payment arrangements with Apple, nor does it have to make other search engines the default on most smartphones.