A power struggle is unfolding over who controls the future of the web.
Regulators, publishers, and big tech are all pushing to define how AI systems can access, reuse, and profit from online content. The fallout will shape not only the dynamics of the search and LLM markets, but the economics of SEO, GEO, and content creation itself.
The internet ecosystem was long held in balance by a simple symbiotic relationship between search engines and website owners: content access in exchange for clicks.
But AI has flipped that on its head. Generative AI answers to user queries often result in zero clicks. And that causes a power struggle between publishers and huge technology giants like Google over that ever-precious resource – content.
We are now seeing regulators stepping up to Big Tech to try to enforce a fair balance and to ensure a competitive AI search market (whether by force or threat of force). For SEOs and digital marketers, these regulatory efforts offer a preview of new constraints, opportunities, and risks. Let’s examine some of the key battlegrounds and what they might mean.
The UK Proposes New Requirements for Google AI Overviews
Earlier this year, The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced the proposal of a new package of measures to improve Google Search services in UK. In what is perhaps the most targeted regulation for AI Search yet proposed, these conduct requirements would include:
- Publisher opt-out: “Publishers will be able to opt-out of their content being used to power AI features such as AI Overviews or to train AI models outside of Google search”
- Improved attribution of publisher content in AI results
- More transparency on rankings and how AI features use publisher content
- Ensuring fair rankings
- More data portability
- Choice screens on Android and Chrome
The significance of this move was not lost on Google. They offered a fairly direct response on The Keyword blog (a venue they do not use often to address regulatory matters). They even stated they are “now exploring updates to our controls to let sites specifically opt-out of Search generative AI features,” while also cautioning that “any new controls need to avoid breaking Search.”
The UK accounted for almost 5% of Google’s ad revenue in 2025. Perhaps more significantly, the new CMA requirements have the potential to help establish the trend for other governments’ regulations.
The EU’s Antitrust Investigation of Google AI
When it comes to regulation, perhaps no government entity is more threatening than the European Union. They hit Google with multi-billion-Euro fines in 2017, 2018, and 2019. And the EU continues to breathe down Google’s neck. In September, they slapped Google with a $3.45 billion antitrust fine for distorting competition in the adtech market.
For 2026, the EU may be winding up a heavy two-to-three-punch combo aimed at Google’s AI services.
In December, the European Commission (EC) launched a formal investigation “into possible anticompetitive conduct by Google in the use of online content for AI purposes.” The press release cited concerns that Google may have used:
- “The content of web publishers to provide generative AI-powered services (‘AI Overviews’ and ‘AI Mode’) on its search results pages without appropriate compensation to publishers and without offering them the possibility to refuse such use of their content.”
- “Video and other content uploaded on YouTube to train Google’s generative AI models without appropriate compensation to creators and without offering them the possibility to refuse such use of their content”
In January, the EC opened two separate proceedings to “assist Google in complying” with obligations of the EU’s Digital Marketing Act. The proceedings pertain to ensuring third-party AI and Search competitors have access to Android-related features and Google search query data. The proceedings are intended to close within six months of their opening.
In February, the European Publishers Council filed an antitrust complaint with the European Commission over AI Overviews and AI mode, which may add more fuel to the fire.
Reportedly, Google is feeling enough heat to be preparing to test search result changes in the EU that give rivals greater prominence in search results.
The U.S. Battleground: Litigious with a dash of Federal Oversight
Compared to Europe, US federal oversight into AI search has generally been less stringent. However, the US seems to have become more litigious than in Europe.
On April 17, 2025, a ruling was issued in the historic federal antitrust case United States v Google LLC (2023): Google was found liable on two of three counts of illegally monopolizing the adtech market. In September, remedies were issued that include:
- Preventing exclusive deals for Google Search or AI assistants
- Requiring search data to be shared with rivals
- Limits on Google favoring itself in search interfaces
While these remedies were significant and should at least nominally increase the odds that the US AI/search market has more than one player, the remedies were still quite moderate compared to some of the proposed measures (like the forced sale of Chrome or breakup of Android). Naturally, Google is expected to appeal this ruling.
There has been little regulatory focus on AI search specifically in this ruling – or in general. The current administration has signaled a permissive approach to AI regulation. (However, this may shift towards more oversight in a different administration.)
But the US landscape has been rich in private lawsuits. In September, the Anthropic Class Action copyright suit over AI training data was settled, resulting in a $1.5 billion settlement, the largest AI-related settlement to date. Here’s a few more lawsuits that are currently active:
- Chegg v. Google: Antitrust suit related to AI Overviews reducing traffic
- Penske Media v. Google: Antitrust/Copyright suit related to AI Overviews using publisher content without consent
- Carreyrou Authors v. Google/OpenAI/xAI/etc.: Copyright infringement suit over LLM training data
- Authors Guild v. OpenAI & Microsoft: Copyright suit over LLM training data
Regulation is only one part of the fight over how AI uses the web. At the same time, technical standards and infrastructure changes are emerging that could reshape how content is accessed and controlled.