According to Silicon Republic, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has proposed new rules that would force Google to let content publishers opt out of its AI Overviews feature. The proposal, announced on January 28, also requires proper attribution of publisher content in AI results and follows Google being given a ‘strategic market status’ designation in October 2025. Google Search handles over 90% of UK search queries, with businesses spending over £10 billion on its search ads last year. The CMA’s move comes after lawsuits from publishers like Penske Media and Chegg, who claim AI Overviews divert traffic and hurt revenue. In response, Google says it’s “exploring updates” to allow sites to opt out of search generative AI features specifically. The regulator is seeking feedback until February 25 before making a final decision.
CMA Puts Google on Notice
Here’s the thing: this isn’t just a polite request. The CMA is flexing the new powers it got when it labeled Google with that “strategic market status” last fall. That designation is basically a regulatory sledgehammer for digital gatekeepers, and the CMA is now using it to lay down the law on AI search. The core issue is brutal in its simplicity: publishers, especially news orgs, say Google’s AI is eating their lunch. Why would you click through to The Guardian’s article if the answer is summarized for you right at the top of the page? Their traffic tanks, their ad revenue follows, and Google strengthens its position as the sole source of information. It’s a vicious cycle.
The Impossible Choice for Publishers
And that’s what makes the current situation so unfair. Up until now, if a publisher wanted to stop Google’s AI from using its content, the only tool available was to block Google’s web crawler entirely. But that’s like using a nuke to stop a burglar—you also destroy all your organic search traffic. The CMA’s proposal aims to create a scalpel instead, letting sites say “no” to AI summarization while still appearing in traditional blue-link results. It seems like a no-brainer, right? Give content creators control over how their work is used. But Google’s initial resistance highlights the tension. The company argues, not without some merit, that AI Overviews actually send traffic to a “greater diversity of sites.” The question is, is it the *right kind* of traffic, or just more low-value clicks that don’t support journalism or content creation?
Bigger Than Just Opt-Outs
Look, the opt-out rule is the headline grabber, but the CMA’s proposal goes much deeper. They also want to force Google to make default search choice screens a legal requirement on Android and Chrome. They want clearer processes for businesses to access search data and complain about rankings. They’re demanding Google prove its AI results are ranked “fairly.” This is a holistic attempt to pry open Google’s walled garden of search. It’s not just about protecting publishers; it’s about injecting competition back into a market Google utterly dominates. If users can easily switch search engines and publishers can withhold their best content from Google’s AI, it might just create an opening for rivals. That’s the real endgame here.
Google’s Calculated Response
So, what’s Google’s play? Their blog post response is a masterclass in controlled acquiescence. They say they’re “exploring” the very controls the CMA is demanding. It’s a strategic retreat. They know the regulatory tide is turning globally, and fighting this head-on would be a PR disaster. Better to seem cooperative, implement a controlled opt-out system, and live to fight another day. But don’t be fooled. Google’s ultimate vision, as the article notes, is a world where you can pay for things directly through its AI chatbot, bypassing merchant sites entirely. The CMA is trying to build guardrails on a road Google wants to own completely. This consultation is just the first major skirmish in that much larger war.
