Europe opens antitrust probe into Google’s AI use of publisher content

The European Commission has launched an antitrust investigation into Google’s use of news publishers’ and Youtube creators’ content for AI products, as reported by Press Gazette. Regulators are examining whether Google accessed and repurposed this material without fair compensation or adequate opt-out mechanisms, potentially disadvantaging both rights holders and rival AI developers.

Key Points from Press Gazette’s Coverage

• The Commission will assess whether Google imposed “unfair terms and conditions” or granted itself “privileged access” to publisher and Youtube content for AI training and outputs.

• Regulators are “concerned” that Google may have used web content for AI Overviews and AI Mode “without appropriate compensation to publishers and without offering them the possibility to refuse such use of their content”.

• The complaint triggering the probe was filed by Movement for an Open Web, Foxglove and the Independent Publishers’ Alliance, supported by Preiskel and Co.

• The coalition also filed a parallel complaint with the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority, which has since designated Google as having “strategic market status” across its search products.

• James Rosewell of Movement for an Open Web described Google’s AI Overviews as “double daylight robbery” and called for interim measures to prevent further harm.

• Youtube creators must grant Google permission to use their uploads for AI training and are not remunerated for this use, while rival AI developers are barred from training on Youtube content.

• Google said the complaint “risks stifling innovation” and insisted Europeans “deserve to benefit from the latest technologies”.

Analysis

This investigation represents the most serious regulatory challenge yet to how Google sources and deploys third-party content in its AI ecosystem. For publishers, the Commission’s framing is significant. It is not merely scrutinising copyright or data-scraping practices but questioning whether Google’s dual role as dominant search intermediary and emerging AI platform gives it the ability to set terms unilaterally, distorting competition with downstream effects on the sustainability of news provision.

The Commission’s concern that publishers lack meaningful opt-out rights goes to the heart of debates about consent in AI training. If participation in search visibility effectively requires participation in AI products, publishers are trapped in an unequal exchange. This explains why major media groups have been preparing “Google Zero” strategies and exploring direct-to-audience models to reduce exposure to volatile referral traffic.

The Youtube dimension broadens the implications. If creators must license their content for Google’s AI models while competitors are prohibited from training on the same material, regulators may view this as reinforcing ecosystem lock-in. For the wider media sector, the outcome could shape norms for fair compensation, data access and competitive neutrality across both text and video platforms.

Two plausible scenarios are emerging. In one, the Commission imposes remedies that force Google to establish transparent licensing frameworks, genuine opt-outs and parity of access, setting a template for UK and global regulators. This would likely strengthen publishers’ negotiating position and accelerate the development of commercial data-licensing markets for AI. In the other, any intervention is limited, allowing Google to continue integrating AI deeper into search with minimal structural change. That path could trigger further strategic shifts by publishers to reduce reliance on Google traffic, invest in subscription and direct-engagement channels, and pursue more assertive collective action on data rights.

Either way, the Commission’s investigation signals that the balance of power between platforms, publishers and AI developers is entering a decisive phase.