Exclusive: Google's AI Overviews hit by EU antitrust complaint from independent publishers
Google's AI Overviews are AI-generated summaries that appear above traditional hyperlinks to relevant webpages and are shown to users in more than 100 countries. It began adding advertisements to AI Overviews last May.
The company is making its biggest bet by integrating AI into search but the move has sparked concerns from some content providers such as publishers.
The Independent Publishers Alliance document, dated June 30, sets out a complaint to the European Commission and alleges that Google abuses its market power in online search.
"Google's core search engine service is misusing web content for Google's AI Overviews in Google Search, which have caused, and continue to cause, significant harm to publishers, including news publishers in the form of traffic, readership and revenue loss," the document said.
It said Google positions its AI Overviews at the top of its general search engine results page to display its own summaries which are generated using publisher material and it alleges that Google's positioning disadvantages publishers' original content.
"Publishers using Google Search do not have the option to opt out from their material being ingested for Google's AI large language model training and/or from being crawled for summaries, without losing their ability to appear in Google's general search results page," the complaint said.
The Commission declined to comment.
The UK's Competition and Markets Authority confirmed receipt of the complaint.
Google said it sends billions of clicks to websites each day.
"New AI experiences in Search enable people to ask even more questions, which creates new opportunities for content and businesses to be discovered," a Google spokesperson said.
The Independent Publishers Alliance's website says it is a nonprofit community advocating for independent publishers, which it does not name.
The Movement for an Open Web, whose members include digital advertisers and publishers, and British non-profit Foxglove Legal Community Interest Company, which says it advocates for fairness in the tech world, are also signatories to the complaint.
They said an interim measure was necessary to prevent serious irreparable harm to competition and to ensure access to news.
Google said numerous claims about traffic from search are often based on highly incomplete and skewed data.
"The reality is that sites can gain and lose traffic for a variety of reasons, including seasonal demand, interests of users, and regular algorithmic updates to Search," the Google spokesperson said.
Foxglove co-executive director Rosa Curling said journalists and publishers face a dire situation.
"Independent news faces an existential threat: Google's AI Overviews," she told Reuters.
"That's why with this complaint, Foxglove and our partners are urging the European Commission, along with other regulators around the world, to take a stand and allow independent journalism to opt out," Curling said.
The three groups have filed a similar complaint and a request for an interim measure to the UK competition authority.
The complaints echoed a U.S. lawsuit by a U.S. edtech company which said Google's AI Overviews is eroding demand for original content and undermining publishers' ability to compete that have resulted in a drop in visitors and subscribers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Just raise tax? No, there's only one way out of this mess
On Wednesday, fears that Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' would further swell America's towering public debt triggered a sharp sell-off in government bonds across the advanced world. As anxiety swept global markets, UK gilts were hit especially hard, with US jitters coinciding with Labour's failed welfare bill. Before reversing on Thursday, government borrowing costs in the UK increased by even more than in the US. You would be hard-pressed today to find a serious investor who believes that Rachel Reeves's fiscal arithmetic adds up. The only question ahead of the autumn Budget now seems to be not whether, but by how much, she will raise taxes to balance the books. This week's cover of the New Statesman captures the view from the Left. It reads 'Just raise tax'. Since our ageing population is adding to the demands on public healthcare systems and welfare, Left-of-centre analysts argue that Britain simply needs to face the facts and increase taxes to finance the necessary spending. The solution put forward by the Right is not to raise tax thresholds but to cut them. Have you not heard of the Laffer curve? They say that the way to increase tax receipts is to reduce tax rates. Both sides are wrong. Putting taxes up would not only be wildly unpopular, but it would further weaken Britain's already mediocre growth rate. Cutting taxes in a major way is also a non-starter – Liz Truss tried that already, and remember what happened. Across the whole spectrum of British politics, policymakers have become prisoners of their own economic ignorance when it comes to the causes and solutions of our present fiscal dilemma. Is this situation hopeless? Not at all. There is, in fact, a way to increase tax yields and hence finance higher public spending without raising tax rates. But the debate needs to refocus on the underlying causes of the fiscal gap and escape the siloed thinking about whether tax rates should go up or down, as if that is the only choice. The Government faces a serious constraint because of its promise not to raise rates on the big three taxes – on income, employee National Insurance and VAT. But this does not mean that policymakers have no options to increase the tax yields in these areas. Britain's persistent tax shortfall is a symptom of a persistent growth shortfall, caused by the excessive weight of misguided rules and regulations that arbitrarily slow and even prohibit all sorts of economic activities that would otherwise take place. Remove the economic straitjacket on our factors of production – land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship – and the fiscal problems will be solved. Needlessly restrictive and complex planning and zoning regulations prevent a much-needed increase in the stock of housing, transport infrastructure, factories and offices. We have left the EU only to discover that our Eurosclerosis is home-grown. The surest way to boost the revenues to the Exchequer from income tax and National Insurance would be to implement pro-employment policies that increase the number of people in jobs. Instead, with the Employment Rights Bill, minimum wage increases and the uplift in employers' National Insurance, Labour has delivered the most anti-employment policies in a generation. The unemployment rate has risen from 4.1pc to 4.6pc during Labour's first year in office and looks likely to rise further. Over the coming years, any rise in employment and incomes will be lower than it could have been. Economists have long known that increasing the ratio of capital to workers is the only way to increase productivity in the long run. But capital, which includes vehicles, machines and computers, needs power. The more cheap power is available, the greater the opportunities for capital to deepen and productivity growth. However, under our dogged decarbonisation push, we have reduced the availability of electricity to the economy by around a fifth since the peak in 2005. This decline has occurred due to the planned decommissioning of electricity production facilities powered by coal, oil, and even nuclear. Ahead of the election, Labour was making all the right noises. But the early promises to focus on growth with a pro-business message seem to have given way to a damaging and self-defeating cycle of growth disappointments and tax increases. Fears over higher taxes encourage saving and lacklustre spending and investment, which lowers tax yields across the board. Chronically fearful consumers are saving more than 10pc of their income, despite average annual real wage gains of nearly 2pc for over two years while businesses sit on near-record cash balances. Taxes, like public services, are a second derivative of the real economy. We depend on the profits and investment of British industry, as well as the incomes and spending of private sector workers, to finance our public sector. The UK does not need to raise taxes; it needs to raise supply. Cutting red tape to promote these activities is the path to fiscal sustainability.
Reuters
44 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU to stockpile critical minerals amid geopolitical risks, FT says
July 5 (Reuters) - The European Union plans to stockpile critical minerals as a precaution against potential supply disruptions due to geopolitical tension, the Financial Times reported on Saturday, citing a draft document by the European Commission. "The EU faces an increasingly complex and deteriorating risk landscape marked by rising geopolitical tensions, including conflict, the mounting impacts of climate change, environmental degradation, and hybrid and cyber threats," the newspaper quoted the draft as saying. The document warns that the higher-risk environment was driven by "increased activity from hacktivists, cybercriminals and state-sponsored groups", the FT said. The European Commission did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. The draft document, due to be published next week and still subject to change, says there is "limited common understanding of which essential goods are needed for crisis preparedness against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving risk landscape", the newspaper reported. In March, the European Commission unveiled its EU Preparedness Union Strategy, urging member states to strengthen stockpiles of critical equipment and encouraging citizens to keep at least 72 hours' worth of essential supplies in case of emergencies. The strategy was designed to prepare the bloc for risks such as natural disasters, cyberattacks and geopolitical crises, including the possibility of armed aggression against EU countries.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Liberal hypocrisy over immigration has just been brutally laid bare
The Guardian is increasingly worried about a grave threat to British jobs. In an editorial this week, it begged UK firms not to replace university graduates with Artificial Intelligence – because AI 'must not be allowed to eclipse young talent'. It would be awful, the Guardian continued, if graduates' prospects were 'short-sightedly shut down in the name of cost savings'. Quite right, too. I agree with every word. There is, however, just one small thing that puzzles me. Glad as I am to see the Guardian highlighting this threat to middle-class jobs, why does it rarely seem quite so concerned about an equally grave threat to working-class jobs? Over the past couple of decades, any number of working-class people have complained that their livelihoods are under threat from mass immigration. Again and again, however, the Guardian has published articles flatly dismissing these fears. It's run headlines such as, 'The Tory Fallacy: That Migrants Are Taking British Jobs and Driving Down Wages.' And: 'We Keep Hearing About 'Legitimate Concerns' Over Immigration. The Truth Is, There Are None.' And, as recently as May this year: ''Things Could Fall Over': Businesses and Public Services on Starmer's Immigration Crackdown.' Anyone who disagreed was liable to be accused of racism – even if they were children. 'Racist and Anti-Immigration Views Held by Children Revealed in Schools Study,' reported the Guardian in 2015, noting with horror that '60 per cent of the children questioned believed it was true that 'asylum seekers and immigrants are stealing our jobs''. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall the Guardian thundering that immigrant plumbers and builders 'must not be allowed to eclipse young talent'. Or that working-class people's prospects must not be 'short-sightedly shut down in the name of cost savings' offered by cheap foreign labour. But perhaps it's different, when it's your own children's futures at risk. Slaves to wokery Believe it or not, some MPs are still insisting that our country owes reparations for the transatlantic slave trade. Even in happier times, it would have been difficult to persuade the wider public of their case's merits. But imagine trying to do it right now. 'Good evening, sir, I'm from the Labour party. As you will be all too well aware, these are very tough times for the nation's finances – so I'm afraid that at the next Budget we will have no alternative but to increase your taxes. Oh, and then increase them a bit more, so that we can give away vast sums of your money to countries thousands of miles away in compensation for crimes that took place hundreds of years ago and which you personally had nothing to do with.' Not the easiest sell. None the less, the campaign continues. Last week, the Jamaican government – which is extremely keen on reparations – petitioned the King to seek legal advice on the issue. And this week, Bell Ribeiro-Addy – the Labour MP who chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Afrikan Reparations – said: 'I think it's important that people are moving forward with legal remedies, because ultimately enslavement was ended with the law, the reparations to slave owners happened under the law, and so reparations to those affected must happen under legislation.' Reparations to 'those affected'? Very well. If she can find me an 18th-century Caribbean slave, I will be only too happy to compensate him. He can use the money to throw a lavish party for his 250th birthday. Unfortunately, however, I won't be able to make the same offer to anyone born more recently. Because they're no more victims of the slave trade than I'm a victim of the Great Fire of London. Sultana fruitcake Personally I'm delighted that Zarah Sultana, the 31-year-old ex-Labour MP for Coventry South, is about to launch a new Left-wing party. Because it will give us the opportunity to ask her an important question. On January 29, Ms Sultana voiced her furious opposition to the planned expansion of Heathrow airport, denouncing it as 'reckless, short-sighted and indefensible' in the face of the 'climate emergency'. Yet, on March 26, she readily endorsed a campaign for a brand new international airport to be built in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan – on the grounds that it would 'serve the vibrant, worldwide Kashmiri diaspora' (of which Ms Sultana happens to be a member, as her grandfather came to the UK from Kashmir). The question for this exciting new political leader, therefore, is: what changed? In the eight weeks between these two pronouncements, did the 'climate emergency' suddenly end? If so, I'm surprised that the Government hasn't made more of this wonderful news. Think of all the money it can save, now that net zero is no longer required. Alternatively: perhaps the 'climate emergency' is still raging, but a new Pakistani airport wouldn't exacerbate it, because, unlike nasty British planes, Pakistani ones don't emit greenhouse gases. In which case, we must beg Pakistan to share its astonishing aeronautical secrets. When Ms Sultana becomes prime minister, I hope it will be the very first thing she does. Way of the World is a twice-weekly satirical look at the headlines aiming to mock the absurdities of the modern world. It is published at 7am every Tuesday and Saturday
