On September 30, 2026, US District Judge Amit P. Mehta of the District of Columbia granted Google’s motions to dismiss two private antitrust suits in a single 41-page memorandum opinion: Chegg, Inc. v. Google LLC (No. 25-cv-00543) and Penske Media Corporation v. Google LLC (No. 25-cv-03192), the latter joined by Penske titles including Billboard, Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter. The plaintiffs alleged that Google uses its search monopoly to force publishers to supply content free of charge, then republishes it in features such as AI Overviews and Gemini to compete with them.
The core claim was “reciprocal dealing”: publishers hand over content in exchange for search traffic. Mehta held there was no agreement to support it. The plaintiffs, he wrote, “have pleaded only that they have an ‘expectation’ that Google will send them search traffic if they make their content available for free. But an expectation is not an agreement. It is simply how a general search engine works.” He also rejected the theory that AI Overviews is a separate product tied to Google Search, repeating his earlier view that “If AI Overviews is a separate product from Google Search, then so is potentially every other type of search result Google delivers.” He declined jurisdiction over the state-law unjust enrichment claims. The order dismisses the Penske complaint without prejudice and is a final, appealable order.
Mehta is the judge who presided over the government’s search monopoly case against Google, and the opinion cites both his remedies ruling and his March 2026 dismissal of similar claims in Helena World Chronicle v. Google.
Why it matters: publishers losing traffic to AI answers have tried antitrust as an alternative to copyright, and this ruling shuts that door for now in the court that knows Google’s search monopoly best. What it does not show: the opinion decides only Sherman Act and pleading questions. It says nothing about whether AI Overviews infringes copyright, and the dismissal without prejudice and the right to appeal leave the plaintiffs room to try again.