‘A big win for Google’

After months of buildup, the Department of Justice’s behavioral remedies for Google, revealed on Sept. 2, have landed with a dull thud for many in adland.

The verdict has felt anti-climactic for media and ad execs who had hoped for sweeping change, especially given the court had already ruled Google’s search dominance a monopoly last August. Publishing execs hoped the remedies would separate Google’s search engine crawler from its AI experiments — such as AI Overviews and AI Mode — or at least force them to provide more data on how those products are impacting publisher clickthroughs from search. That would’ve given publishers more control over where their content is showing up, and what it’s used for.

The ad industry reacted to the remedies with a mix of vehement criticism and resignation. For publishers, there is equally little immediate relief: Google’s search engine remains deeply intertwined with its AI products and referral traffic continues to slide, leaving licensing deals and direct platform negotiations with other AI companies as the only real levers on the table.

“It’s essentially keeping the status quo. It’s a big win for Google,” said Marc McCollum, chief growth officer at Raptive, which oversees over 6,000 independent publishers, who later added that the ruling “doesn’t address the core issues” for publishers.

Publishers hopeful that further action would be taken against Google’s search business were left disappointed.

“For now, Google’s monopoly in the search space is intact and this ruling will have little to no impact for news publishers,” added Sarakshi Rai, deputy managing editor of audience and content at The Hill.

But for some, this ruling is just one milestone in a longer pursuit to win back more control for publishers. The News/Media Alliance is already exploring options for next steps, noted Danielle Coffey, president and CEO of the publisher trade body with over 2,000 publishers, though she declined to share specifics.

Beyond the core remedies that Google will not have to divest Chrome, there were less headline-grabbing details more directly related to publisher remedies. The ruling on Tuesday outlined two proposals from the trial: one would have prohibited Google from signing exclusive data and content agreements with publishers, and another effectively separates Google’s search crawler from its AI products, such as AI Overviews, which would given publishers the option to appear in Google search results but opt out of their content showing up in Google’s AI experiments.

Justice Amit Mehta acknowledged that publishers are “caught between a rock and a hard place” when it comes to Google, noting in his final judgment that publishers have “little choice” but to allow Google to crawl their sites to be included in its search results and drive traffic back to their sites. But it was difficult to build a case around these remedies, he wrote.

“The court heard evidence about Google’s opt-out offerings, but no testimony from a single publisher,” read Justice Amit Mehta’s final judgment. “The court does not doubt that publishers face new challenges because of GenAI technologies, but there can be no cure without evidence to support it. In any event, the conduct and proposed remedy fall well outside the scope of these proceedings.”

One media exec — who requested to speak anonymously — called this a “cop out,” and was peeved that the judge presented the harm Google’s dominance has on publishers (especially with AI Overviews and publishers’ lack of data around the AI search feature), without offering solutions.

Coffey called the verdict a “no-win scenario” for publishers when it comes to their ability to opt out of Google’s AI without damaging their search rankings. “Google will continue to have the competitive search advantage… [The ruling] could’ve gone further to curb their dominance in AI,” Coffey told Digiday.

The 90% market dominance of Google’s search engine — and the recent growth of other AI search engines like Perplexity and OpenAI — leaves media businesses vulnerable to the exploitation of tech and AI companies, some publishing execs said. The verdict has left publishers under no illusions that regulatory action will curb the threat AI engines pose to their business models.

“Not only does Google’s dominance continue, but with data sharing limited to only a few competitors — the biggest tech companies in the market — the judgment emboldens the AI community that continues to exploit publishers’ content without consent,” said Sajeeda Merali, CEO of the U.K.’s Professional Publishers Association, in an emailed statement.

But this case could set a new precedent as it established Google as a monopoly and identified Google’s data at the heart of its businesses. Two media execs told Digiday they believe the ruling ultimately was in publishers’ favor and could lay the groundwork for future regulation and the next Google antitrust trial, over its monopoly of the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets, set to begin on Sept. 22 (where it also faces a potential forced divestiture).

Matt Prohaska, founder of Prohaska Consulting, said one potential silver lining in the ruling may be the five-person Technical Committee, appointed by the court to ensure compliance with its recommendations — if someone friendly to publishers and their interests ends up sitting in that group.

McCollum suggested there could be an opportunity for some media companies to get their hands on the data that Google is being told to share with competitors — depending on how “competitors” are being defined. But even still, there are many unknowns to navigate.

“We’re left with more questions than answers about how AI will continue to shape discovery,” noted Eric Hochberger, CEO of Mediavine. “This feels like an example of attempting to regulate a moving target with rules built for a bygone era.”

—Ronan Shields, senior reporter, ad tech, contributed to this story.

What we’ve heard

“I wouldn’t call it a blow. Nothing’s been taken away from [publishers] that they never had before.”

— A media exec on the fact that Google will be required to share its search data with competitors, but not with publishers.

Numbers to know

£167: The annual price for a new U.K. digital subscription bundle between The New York Times and The Economist.

80%: The percentage of advertisers Gay Times has lost in the past year, which amounts to a £5 million loss in expected ad revenue.

$6: The price people will have to pay to play The New York Time’s daily mini crossword, now behind its games subscription paywall.

9 months: Taz Patel’s tenure as head of advertising and shopping at the AI search startup Perplexity. (Ad revenue was at the core of Perplexity’s revenue share program with publishers.)

What we’ve covered

Overheard during the Digiday publisher town hall

• Digiday gathered a group of publishing execs for a virtual town hall session to discuss top-of-mind issues for the latter half of the year.
• On top of the list? Optimizing and diversifying revenue, dealing with DSPs and SSPs (and the changing dynamics there), and the impact — and use cases — for AI. 

Read the key takeaways here.

Digiday editors recap the top stories and developments from summer 2025

• Digiday managing editor Sara Jerde joined Digiday Podcast hosts Kimeko McCoy and Tim Peterson to recap the stories of the summer and analyze what they mean for the rest of 2025 and beyond.
• They touched on everything from Paramount’s Skydance Media sale and Omnicom-IPG’s merger milestone to a new CEO at WPP and fresh competition for Google.

Listen to the latest Digiday Podcast episode here.

How The Wall Street Journal is strategizing for ‘Google zero’

• In a “Ask Our Editors” Digiday virtual event, Ed Hyatt, director of newsroom SEO at The Wall Street Journal, shared what his team is focused on amid the threat of “Google zero.”
• Hyatt went over some ways publishers can build SEO strategies to try to insulate themselves from the changes.

Get his tips here.

Substack creators attribute their boost in subscribers to the platform’s community tools

• Newsletter creators who moved their operations over to Substack in said their following — and revenue — had grown since they made the jump.
• They credit Substack community tools such as co-livestreaming and recommendations for the subscriber boost.

Read more here.

What we’re reading

Onion CEO on why he wants to buy Infowars

Onion CEO Ben Collins spoke with Wired on why he revived its print edition, how he grew digital subscriptions to 53,000 and ambitions to buy Infowars.

Spin magazine deal falls through

The owner of music magazine Spin was in sale discussions for eight months with a Florida music-app company, before it all fell through, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Chloe Malle is the next top editor of Vogue

After 37 years, Anna Wintour is stepping out of the role of editor in chief of Vogue, making way for Vogue’s website and podcast co-host Chloe Malle to take the reins, The New York Times reported.

No more print editions of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The Journal-Constitution will stop publishing a print newspaper at the end of the year and put all of its resources into the digital news operation, The New York Times reported. The company has published print editions since 1868.