Judge dismisses Chegg and Penske antitrust lawsuits targeting Google AI search

法官驳回 Chegg 和 Penske 针对谷歌 AI 搜索的反垄断诉讼

In a setback for publishers worried about the effects of AI search, a US federal judge has dismissed lawsuits filed by Chegg and Penske Media against Google. The companies accused Google of antitrust violations in products like AI overviews, which have led to decreasing traffic at numerous sites. However, US District Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that Google’s conduct is not illegal under antitrust law. 对于那些担忧 AI 搜索影响的出版商来说，这是一次挫折：一位美国联邦法官驳回了 Chegg 和 Penske Media 对谷歌提起的诉讼。这些公司指控谷歌在 AI 概览（AI Overviews）等产品中存在反垄断违规行为，导致许多网站的流量下降。然而，美国地方法官阿米特·梅塔（Amit Mehta）裁定，谷歌的行为在反垄断法下并不违法。

The lawsuits were filed in 2025, and Google requested a dismissal earlier this year. Chegg, an education and learning platform, claimed in its lawsuit that Google illegally scraped its educational content. This allowed Gemini models to essentially recreate that content and reduce the site’s traffic. Penske, which owns publications like Rolling Stone and Variety, filed a similar case that alleged lost traffic. Specifically, the publisher claimed it was unfair that sites indexed for organic search would also have their content harvested for AI answers, with no way to opt out. 这些诉讼于 2025 年提起，谷歌在今年早些时候申请驳回。教育学习平台 Chegg 在诉讼中声称，谷歌非法抓取了其教育内容，使 Gemini 模型能够实质性地重现这些内容，从而减少了该网站的流量。拥有《滚石》和《综艺》等出版物的 Penske 也提起了类似的诉讼，声称流量流失。具体而言，该出版商认为，被索引用于自然搜索的网站，其内容同时被抓取用于 AI 回答且无法选择退出，这是不公平的。

These arguments did not sway the judge, who noted that Google’s implicit agreement with websites is not legally relevant. “Plaintiffs have pleaded only that they have an ‘expectation’ that Google will send them search traffic if they make their content available for free,” wrote Mehta. “But an expectation is not an agreement. It is simply how a general search engine works.” Since Google never had a formal arrangement with either Chegg or Penske, antitrust law doesn’t apply. 这些论点并未动摇法官，他指出谷歌与网站之间的隐含协议在法律上并不相关。梅塔写道：“原告仅辩称，他们有一种‘期望’，即如果他们免费提供内容，谷歌就会为他们输送搜索流量。但期望并非协议。这仅仅是通用搜索引擎的工作方式。”由于谷歌从未与 Chegg 或 Penske 达成过正式协议，因此反垄断法不适用。

And Mehta is aware of the legal issues surrounding search. He also heard the DOJ’s long-running search antitrust case against Google, eventually finding that Google violated the law. However, the government didn’t get the harsh penalties it wanted in that case. 梅塔法官也了解围绕搜索的法律问题。他曾审理过美国司法部针对谷歌的长期搜索反垄断案，并最终裁定谷歌违反了法律。然而，政府在那起案件中并未获得其想要的严厉处罚。

Not unsympathetic

并非缺乏同情

While Google is getting the dismissal it wanted, it doesn’t come away looking particularly good. Mehta recognizes that Google’s approach to AI search may be unfair to web publishers even if it’s not illegal. “The court does not treat Plaintiffs’ alleged harms lightly,” he wrote. “Nor is it unsympathetic to the situation publishers now find themselves in, and the knock-on consequences to journalists, educators, and other online creators whose content Google takes and repurposes without compensation.” 虽然谷歌获得了它想要的驳回结果，但其形象并不光彩。梅塔承认，谷歌的 AI 搜索方式即便不违法，也可能对网络出版商不公平。他写道：“法院并未轻视原告所称的损害。对于出版商目前所处的困境，以及谷歌在未经补偿的情况下获取并重新利用内容，对记者、教育工作者和其他在线创作者所产生的连锁反应，法院也并非缺乏同情。”

This case essentially comes down to the nature of innovation. Google is changing the way search operates, and that may come with economic harm. However, not all economic harm that may befall a company is the product of an illegal act. Mehta says that antitrust laws cannot be applied in place of legislative action just because something feels unfair: “The court is bound to apply the law only as it is written, not how the court or any party believes it ought to be.” 此案本质上归结为创新的本质。谷歌正在改变搜索的运作方式，这可能会带来经济损害。然而，并非所有公司遭受的经济损害都是非法行为的产物。梅塔表示，不能仅仅因为某事让人感觉不公平，就用反垄断法来代替立法行动：“法院只能按照法律的明文规定来适用法律，而不是按照法院或任何一方认为它应该有的样子来适用。”

Google will undoubtedly face more legal challenges over AI search, but it’s going to be an uphill battle in US courts absent new legislation, and lawmakers have been slow to adapt to the AI era. Publishers may have more luck overseas. The European Commission is currently considering these same questions, and it tends to take a dimmer view of Big Tech’s conduct. The UK has also ordered Google to provide an AI opt-out for sites that want to remain in organic search results. Google is exploring ways to pay sites directly for contributing to AI answers, but its pilot program is reportedly not going over well with publishers. 谷歌无疑将面临更多关于 AI 搜索的法律挑战，但在缺乏新立法的情况下，在美国法院的诉讼将是一场艰苦的战斗，而立法者对 AI 时代的适应速度缓慢。出版商在海外可能会有更好的运气。欧盟委员会目前正在考虑同样的问题，并且倾向于对大型科技公司的行为持更严厉的看法。英国也已下令谷歌为希望保留在自然搜索结果中的网站提供 AI 退出机制。谷歌正在探索直接向为 AI 回答做出贡献的网站付费的方法，但据报道，其试点项目在出版商中反响并不好。