Following a landmark antitrust ruling against Google, online publications face a crucial decision: whether to allow the tech giant to use their content for AI-generated search answers. The court’s ruling led publishers to make this choice, which could reshape the digital content landscape and the economics of online publishing.
The recent federal court ruling, which found Google’s search engine dominance an illegal monopoly, has significant implications for the digital publishing world. While some see challenges ahead and others see the ruling as an opportunity, opinions differ on how publishers should navigate this new landscape.
“Publications must weigh the short-term benefits of Google search visibility against the long-term risks of AI eroding their business,” Marshal Davis, president of Ascendly Marketing, told PYMNTS. “One approach is to selectively allow the use of AI for certain types of content, such as news summaries or lists, while limiting it to in-depth analysis and opinion pieces that are core to their value proposition.”
Balance Act for publishers
Earlier this month, Judge Amit P. Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a nearly 300-page opinion in the US Justice Department’s case challenging Google’s alleged dominance of online search markets. The decision concluded that Google had monopoly power in the “general search” and “general search text advertising” markets and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Google’s agreements with major OEMs such as Apple, Samsung and Verizon were at the heart of the case. These agreements made Google the exclusive default search engine on smartphones and web browsers, and the court deemed them to be de facto exclusive trade agreements that illegally maintained Google’s monopoly status.
Bogdan Krstic, founder of Krstic SEO, offered a more optimistic view: “Small publishers should actually be excited about this lawsuit,” he told PYMNTS. “If Google is truly broken, it will allow for more competition in the search engine space between the already existing giants like Microsoft, Yahoo and Google, in addition to the new players like Open AI.”
According to Krstic, new possibilities are already visible.
“We’re already seeing Open AI, more specifically Search GPT, taking steps to attract publishers by offering them rev share and other types of deals,” he said. This can be especially beneficial for smaller publishers who have historically struggled against larger, more authoritative sites in search results.
Google’s continuing influence
Despite the ruling, some industry veterans believe Google’s dominance will continue to shape SEO strategies.
“While the recent landmark ruling against Google’s monopoly appears to shake up the status quo, one thing remains certain: Google is king and has dominated search since the year 2000,” Solomon Wiesen, chief strategy officer at Reputation Citadel, told PYMNTS. “Any AI expert who advises online publications to avoid Google will be misleading their clients and missing out on potential exposure — and in this case, being listed as a source of AI content.”
The implications of Google’s use of artificial intelligence extend beyond individual publications. Davis warned of potential industry-wide effects.
“It could accelerate the ongoing consolidation of the online media industry,” Davis said. “Smaller publishers may struggle to survive if AI takes away search traffic and ad dollars, leading to acquisitions by larger media companies or widespread shutdowns.”
Still, Krstic said he sees signs of positive change already underway: “The latest Google update has already been made to help small publishers get more exposure, which is causing some sites to see increases in their traffic. My clients and I’m excited about the future, and you should be too.”
The ruling may give the publishers the opportunity to negotiate better terms.
“The monopoly ruling could give publishers a rare opportunity to reset the power dynamic with Google and secure more favorable AI usage agreements,” Davis said. “Publications should band together, potentially through trade associations, to increase their collective bargaining power and establish industry-wide standards for content use.”
As the situation evolves, online publishers must carefully consider their content distribution and monetization strategies.
“Publications should also invest in building direct audience relationships through newsletters, apps and subscriptions to reduce reliance on search traffic,” Davis said, stressing the importance of diversification.
The case is far from over and the issue of remedies has not yet been addressed. Potential remedies could range from banning Google from entering into exclusive agreements for default search engine status to more drastic measures, such as requiring Google to share its data or code with competitors, or even ordering a dissolution of the company.
Google has announced his intention to appeal the ruling, although the timing and scope of that appeal remains unclear. This means that the full impact of the decision on both Google and the wider technology and publishing industries may not be known for several years.
The decisions made in response to this judgment could have far-reaching consequences for the future of online content creation, distribution and the economic models that support digital publishing. As the industry adapts to these changes, the diversity of voices in the digital space and the balance of power between tech giants and content creators will be at stake.
“SEOs understand that they need to feed the beast — give Google the content it’s looking for and be rewarded with additional exposure by being listed as a source of the AI content,” Wiesen said, underscoring the search giant’s lasting influence in shaping online content strategies.
