Frequently asked questions

The EPC has filed a formal antitrust complaint alleging that Google is abusing its dominant position in search by deploying AI Overviews and AI Mode in a way that uses publishers’ journalistic content without authorisation, without effective control, and without fair remuneration. At the same time, these AI features substitute publishers’ content, displace traffic and audiences, and undermine the economic sustainability of professional journalism.

While copyright is central to the facts, the core problem is competition. Google is an unavoidable trading partner because of its dominance in general search. It uses that position to impose conditions under which publishers must accept the use of their content for AI purposes in order to remain visible. Copyright law alone cannot address this coercive imbalance or restore competitive conditions.

AI Overviews and AI Mode embed AI-generated summaries and chatbot-style answers directly into Google Search. Rather than directing users to original sources, these tools synthesise publishers’ content and present it as a complete response within Google’s own interface. This marks a structural shift from search as a referral service to search as an answer engine that substitutes original content.

Google’s AI features rely on publishers’ content for AI training, grounding, and output generation. The systems reproduce, transform, and repurpose journalistic works to generate responses that directly compete with publishers’ own content. This is not incidental reference, it is systematic use at scale.

There is no meaningful opt-out. The technical tools cited by Google either do not prevent AI use or require publishers to accept severe losses in search visibility. In practice, opting out of AI means opting out of the market. A choice between exploitation and invisibility is not a genuine choice.

Independent evidence and publisher data show the opposite. AI Overviews significantly reduce click-throughs by answering queries directly on the top of the search results page. This substitutes publisher content rather than referring users to it. Traffic lost in this way cannot be replaced.

There is no comprehensive or transparent licensing framework covering Google’s AI uses of publishers’ content. Limited commercial arrangements do not reflect the scale of use or compensate for lost traffic, audiences, and revenue.

Uniform conditions can still be abusive when imposed by a dominant undertaking. Publishers cannot realistically negotiate or refuse the terms without suffering serious commercial harm. Competition law exists precisely to address this kind of dependency.

No. AI Overviews and AI Mode represent a qualitative change. Search no longer primarily facilitates discovery of original sources. It now delivers AI-generated answers that disintermediate publishers, weaken brand recognition, and crucially erode the economic foundation of journalism.

No. Selective and discretionary citations do not restore lost traffic or audience relationships as users don’t click through. The comprehensive nature of the AI Overviews is conditioning users to remain on Google. Publishers cannot verify when their content is used, how it is used, or challenge unauthorised exploitation.

No. Publishers are already among the most active and responsible adopters of AI, using it across newsrooms, production, verification, and accessibility. What they oppose is the use of dominant market power to appropriate publishers’ content without consent, control, or fair remuneration. Sustainable AI depends on sustainable journalism.

Smaller, regional, and specialist publishers are most dependent on search referral traffic and have the least bargaining power. They are therefore the first to exit the market when traffic and revenues are displaced. This leads to reduced media diversity and a weaker information ecosystem.

Professional journalism provides reliable, fact-checked information. If publishers are weakened or forced out of the market, the quality and reliability of information available to users declines. AI systems themselves depend on high-quality journalistic content, and undermining its economic base ultimately degrades AI outputs.

No. Once publishers are disintermediated, audiences lost, and brand relationships weakened, competitive conditions cannot be restored through payments after the fact. Remedies must restore control, visibility, and fair market conditions.

The EPC is calling for remedies capable of restoring competition, including meaningful publisher control over AI use, transparency on how content is used and its impact, and a fair licensing and remuneration framework that reflects the scale and value of publishers’ content.