Judge Amit P. Mehta on September 30 dismissed the antitrust lawsuits brought by Chegg and Penske Media Corp. against Google over A.I. Overviews, ruling in a 41-page memorandum opinion that no publisher holds a legal right to the search traffic its content attracts. The decision closes the most aggressive avenue publishers had opened against generative search, and it does so from the bench of the same judge who in 2024 found that Google maintains an illegal monopoly in general search.

That juxtaposition is the story. Mehta isn’t a jurist inclined to indulge Google. He has already written the opinion that defined its market power. And he still concluded that antitrust doctrine can’t reach what A.I. Overviews is doing to the open web.

The reasoning is clinical. Publishers keep their sites open to Google’s crawlers because doing so serves their own interest in traffic, the court found, not because they’ve struck a commercial bargain. “An expectation is not an agreement. It is simply how a general search engine works,” Mehta wrote. Penske’s tying claim collapsed on a related finding: Google Search and A.I. Overviews, under antitrust law, aren’t two products but one integrated search experience. The reciprocal-dealing, monopoly-maintenance, and attempted-monopolization theories were dismissed alongside it. Penske’s dismissal is without prejudice, and a final, appealable order accompanied the opinion, but the structural argument has been foreclosed.

Mehta signaled he understood the stakes. He was, he wrote, “not unsympathetic” to creators whose content Google takes and repurposes without compensation. He simply held that antitrust law is the wrong instrument. The right one, in his framing, is Congress.

For owner-operated businesses in the five-to-thirty-employee range that depend on content to bring in customers, the practical read is immediate. Pew Research Institute data cited by The Verge finds that A.I. Overviews can divert 50 percent or more of a site’s traffic, and the courts won’t restore it. The task reorganizes around being cited inside the Overview rather than clicked through from it, a shift reinforced by a recent study finding A.I. search favors content quality over brand age, by Google’s A.I. now writing the first line of a brand’s story for most searchers, and by Google’s payments to selected publishers whose content shapes its answers.

The ruling clarifies the regime. Legislative relief, if it arrives, is years away. In the interim, the search engine owes nothing, and the content economy adjusts to that fact.

Sources