The Google dilemma

The European Commission has launched a formal investigation into how Google uses online content for its AI services and search results. The central question is whether Google is abusing its dominant market position by forcing publishers and website owners to hand over their data for AI training and summaries, without offering reasonable compensation or a real choice in return. For website owners, this creates an impossible dilemma: participating means cannibalizing your own traffic, while refusing means digital invisibility.

The stranglehold of the search bot

The core of the conflict lies in the binary choice that Google offers website owners. To remain findable in regular search results, a site must grant Googlebot access. However, Google now uses that same access to scrape content for its AI models and to generate “AI Overviews.” As Arnoud Engelfriet analyzes on his blog Ius Mentis, there is little room for nuance, legally or technically. Although Google claims that there are opt-outs, the reality is more complicated: those who block the AI bot often fear for their position in the general search index. The result is a forced trade-off in which the content creator supplies the raw material for a product that undermines its own raison d'être.

The rise of the ‘zero-click’ search

Whereas the deal between Google and publishers used to be “we index you, you get traffic,” that balance has now been disrupted. The use of AI summaries gives users immediate answers on Google's results page. The result is an explosive increase in ‘zero-click’ searches: users find what they are looking for, but no longer click through to the source. The website owner bears the costs of content creation and hosting, while Google collects the advertising revenue surrounding the summary. The Commission is now investigating whether this is an unfair commercial practice that directly threatens the viability of independent journalism and information provision.

The European magnifying glass

The European Commission is assessing Google's conduct not only against traditional competition rules (Article 102 TFEU), but also against the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The focus here is on the ‘fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory’ (FRAND) conditions under which access to data and platforms must take place. The question is whether Google is abusing its role as a ‘gatekeeper’ to give itself an unfair advantage in the AI race. If the Commission finds that publishers' freedom of choice is being artificially restricted, this could lead to fines running into billions or, more importantly, a forced change in how search engines and AI models deal with copyright-protected content.

An uncertain future for the open web

The outcome of this investigation will determine the future of the free internet. If the status quo is maintained, there is a risk of a scenario in which only the largest platforms survive, while smaller specialized sites close their doors because their revenue model is wiped out by AI aggregation. The EC faces the challenge of striking a balance between technological innovation and protecting the economic interests of those who create the actual value. For now, however, website owners are stuck in a dilemma: do they feed the AI that is replacing them, or do they opt for digital isolation?