After a landmark antitrust ruling against Google, online publications face a pivotal decision: whether to allow the tech giant to use their content for AI-generated search answers. The court’s decision thrust publishers into this choice, which could reshape the digital content landscape and the economics of online publishing.
The recent federal court decision, 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 view the ruling as an opportunity, opinions vary 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 AI usage for certain types of content, like news summaries or listicles, while restricting it for in-depth analysis and opinion pieces that are core to their value proposition.”
Earlier this month, Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a nearly 300-page opinion in the U.S. Department of Justice’s case challenging Google’s alleged dominance in online search markets. The ruling concluded that Google possessed 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 original equipment manufacturers such as Apple, Samsung and Verizon were at the heart of the case. These deals made Google the exclusive default search engine on smartphones and web browsers, and the court deemed them to be de facto exclusive-dealing agreements that unlawfully 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 indeed broken down, 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, emerging opportunities are already visible.
“We’re already seeing Open AI, more specifically Search GPT, making moves to attract publishers by offering them rev share and other types of deals,” he said. This could be particularly beneficial for smaller publishers who have historically struggled against larger, more authoritative websites in search results.
Despite the ruling, some industry veterans believe Google’s dominance will continue to shape SEO strategies.
“Though the recent landmark ruling against Google’s monopoly seems like it may shake up the status quo, there is one thing that remains certain: Google is king and has dominated search since the year 2000,” Solomon Wiesen, head of strategy at Reputation Citadel, told PYMNTS. “Any AI expert who recommends to online publications to shun Google will be leading their clients astray and miss out on potential exposure — and in this case, being listed as a source for AI content.”
The implications of Google’s AI use 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 siphons away search traffic and ad dollars, leading to acquisitions by larger media companies or widespread shutdowns.”
Yet Krstic said he sees signs of positive change already underway: “The recent Google update has already been made to help small publishers get more exposure, causing some websites to see increases in their traffic. My clients and I are excited for the future, and so should you be.”
The ruling may present an opportunity for publishers to negotiate better terms.
“The monopoly ruling may 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 usage.”
As the situation unfolds, online publishers must carefully consider their strategies for content distribution and monetization.
“Publications should also invest in building direct audience relationships through newsletters, apps and subscriptions to reduce reliance on search traffic,” Davis said, emphasizing the importance of diversification.
The case is far from over, and the issue of remedies has yet to be addressed. Potential remedies could range from prohibiting 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 breakup of the company.
Google has announced its intention to appeal the ruling, though the timing and scope of that appeal are still unclear. This means that the full impact of the decision on both Google and the broader tech and publishing industries may not be known for several years.
The decisions made in response to this ruling could have far-reaching consequences for the future of online content creation, distribution and the economic models that sustain 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 in question.
“SEO folks understand that they must feed the beast — give Google the content it is seeking and become rewarded with additional exposure by being listed as a source for the AI content,” Wiesen said, underscoring the enduring influence of the search giant in shaping online content strategies.
We’re always on the lookout for opportunities to partner with innovators and disruptors.
Learn More