The fate of quality journalism in a Google-led ecosystem
Opinion
Following the court’s decision to keep Chrome with Google, publishers now have a lot more questions than answers. But a technical committee could provide some potential positive outcomes.
After a five-year-long battle over anti-competitive practices in search with the US Department of Justice, Google is rejoicing in keeping Chrome within the company.
But, for publishers, it’s an entirely different matter. Many have been left frustrated that the remedies laid out in the trial didn’t fully address the impact that Google’s current practices are having on journalism.
Over the past few months, AI Overviews have had a major impact on journalism. Some outlets have lost up to 80% of search-driven clicks since the feature was introduced — notably the Daily Mail, which has reported an 89% drop. This is a devastating blow to referral-driven models that publishers have long relied on.
This trial was a perfect opportunity to curb Google’s dominance in the space and publishers were hoping it would set a standard for publisher control over how content is used in AI models.
Yet this chance was missed.
‘An historic failure’ or a new opportunity? Industry reacts to Google’s search monopoly remedies
What this means for journalism
There are now a lot more questions than answers, especially for publishers.
While the sharing of data offers new avenues for advertisers and reduces Google’s monopoly in the space, how will courts extend this protection to journalists? In an increasingly AI-driven world, the battle is now on to protect independent voices and editorial calibre.
As part of the remedies, the judge ordered the creation of a technical committee to oversee and enforce the court’s judgement. For publishers, this is the only real lifeline presented by the verdict.
But, despite the opportunity it presents for future change, it relies heavily on many conditions and “ifs”.
If the technical committee is given genuine attention and legs, it could allow publishers and rival platforms to help monitor compliance and shape standards for fairer competition.
If it has fair representation from publishers on the board, growing issues could be heard and addressed.
If the right issues are raised, it could allow for stronger cases against the misuse of data and AI referrals in the future.
Potential positives
There remains hope for potential outcomes.
For example, the committee might compel Google to share data on referral traffic, AI training practices or ranking systems — all of which is information publishers rarely have access to today.
If this is the case, publishers will be granted the same footing that advertisers have received from the Chrome trial and, crucially, this will help publishers quantify the harm from AI Overviews and strengthen future legal or policy efforts.
But all potential positive outcomes hinge on multiple variables. Full transparency requires Google to play ball and, as of this moment, there’s no external pressure to ensure this happens.
Without strong representation from publishers or their advocates on the committee, it risks becoming a symbolic body with no authority to press for changes. Publishers need to have strong voices on the board to bring pressing issues to the table.
Visibility of traffic loss, AI Overviews and compliance concerns surrounding data use are all critical issues facing the editorial world. And yet, without sympathetic supporters on the committee, it’s likely that these problems will be overlooked on the agenda.
So while the committee is a positive first step, publishers don’t have a secure footing on the path to transparency.
Unbalanced ecosystem
The precedent has been set; it’s now up to publishers and lobby groups to take the next step to protect quality journalism in an unbalanced ecosystem. It’s time to look ahead and lay the groundwork for future action.
The News/Media Alliance has long championed the independence of creatives, asking for more protection from AI. And with more transparency, the hope is that future legal cases have more data-backed support.
It’s an uncomfortable waiting game to see how this will play out for journalism, resting on hopes and ifs. But this is not the end — and more substantial remedies could be on the horizon.
Stephanie Himoff is executive vice-president of global publishers at Teads