It was about time someone sued Google for what AI Overviews have done to many online businesses (including ours)

Finally, someone is standing up to the tech giant. Chegg’s recent lawsuit against Google marks what many of us in the online publishing world have been waiting for – accountability for how AI Overviews are decimating web traffic and revenue across countless websites.

Our team at TechIssuesToday has watched with growing alarm as our traffic plummeted following Google’s introduction of AI-generated summaries at the top of search results. These “helpful” summaries give users the information they want without ever clicking through to the websites that actually created the content. This means while we enjoy our work out here, helping countless people with guides and details on everyday tech bugs, our time invested isn’t sustainable at all.

Apart from Google’s algorithm updates that destroyed sites like our own sister site – PiunikaWeb – and thousands of other niche sites like Retro Dodo and House Fresh, AI Overviews is the next big roadblock. Hillary Keverenge from our team also shared his unfiltered views on AI Overviews saying he’d “pay to NOT have generative AI (SGE) in Google Search results.”

So the news of Chegg suing Google feels like vindication. Their complaint echoes what we’ve experienced firsthand – Google is using its monopoly power to force publishers to provide content for its search engine, then repurposing that same content in AI Overviews that keep users on Google’s platforms.

What makes this especially frustrating is the one-sided relationship. Google needs our content to train its AI models, yet offers nothing in return when those same models are used to keep users from visiting our sites. As Chegg’s CEO pointed out, Google is “reaping the financial benefits of content without having to spend a dime” on creating it.

The damage is staggering. Chegg reported a 24% decline in year-over-year revenue. Their stock is trading just above $1 per share. For smaller publishers like us, without the resources of a public company, the impact has been even more devastating.

Google’s response is predictable corporate speak: “AI Overviews send traffic to a greater diversity of sites.” But what they don’t mention is how much less traffic those sites are receiving overall. When an AI Overview contains 40, 50, or even 60 links, who’s going to click through? The answer is practically no one.

On an anecdotal note, I’ve discussed the search experience with several individuals, all of whom claim that if the AI Overview is present, they almost never find the need to click and visit the website. As someone who knows the impact of not visiting sites linked back in the AI Overview, I try making a conscious effort to do so. But hey, of the several billion searches made daily, I highly doubt a majority of users think the same way or even understand what’s going on. And I don’t even blame them in the slightest. It’s Google’s job to be ethical with how it uses information that it collects from websites and to make sure publishers are rewarded fairly.

Of course, there are ways to prevent AI Overviews from showing up in search results, but how many people would want to get out of their simple routine of performing a Google Search to stop AI Overviews from showing up? Not many, that’s for sure. What’s even worse is the fact that in some instances, Google’s AI completely botches up the information it shares with search users.

This isn’t just about our business. It’s about the future of online publishing. If original content creators can’t monetize their work, what incentive is there to create high-quality content? Google’s monopolistic practices aren’t just hurting businesses like ours – they’re threatening the quality and diversity of information available online.

The evil doesn’t end there. Google’s also lately publishing health and fitness content on its blog, and to no one’s surprise, their posts rank ahead of many authoritative sites that have existed for years. Apart from that, Google Travel is booming with traffic while other travel blogs have been snuffed out of the competition.

The irony isn’t lost on us that Google initially rose to dominance by directing users to the best content across the web. Now, they’ve essentially built a moat around that content, keeping users within Google’s ecosystem while starving the very websites that provide the information they rely on.

The question now is whether Chegg’s lawsuit will be enough to force meaningful change, or whether it will take more publishers standing up together against these predatory practices. Either way, it’s about time someone took a stand against what AI Overviews have done to the publishing industry.