Publishers Can Finally Say No to Google’s AI Overviews, But It Comes With a Catch

The battle over how artificial intelligence should interact with the open web just took a new turn in the United Kingdom, and while it looks like a major win for media companies, the reality is more nuanced. The U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has proposed rules that would let content owners opt out of having their material used in Google AI Overviews without losing visibility on Google’s standard search results. That sounds like a breakthrough for publishers, but it’s not the silver bullet many had hoped for.

What Are Google AI Overviews?

Google AI Overviews are automated summaries that appear at the top of some search results pages, synthesizing information from content across the web into a concise answer box. Google introduced this feature as an evolution of its Search Generative Experience, aiming to provide quick responses to user queries without requiring clicks through to external sites.

While these summaries can be helpful for users seeking instant answers, they have drawn significant criticism from content creators because they can reduce site traffic. For some topics, users spend less time clicking through to original articles, meaning fewer page views, fewer ad impressions, and ultimately less revenue for publishers.

The CMA’s Proposed Opt-Out: What Changed

In late January 2026, the CMA unveiled a set of conduct requirement proposals for Google under Britain’s digital markets framework. Among the key components is a potential opt-out mechanism for publishers. This would allow them to choose not to have their content included in Google AI Overviews without also being removed from Google Search entirely, a departure from current options that often amount to an “all or nothing” choice.

Currently, publishers who want to prevent AI models from scraping their content or being used in AI summaries can often only do so by instructing robots.txt or similar tools, which buckets them out of broader Google indexing and search visibility. That trade-off has made opt-outs impractical for most.

If implemented as proposed, the CMA’s idea would give publishers a real choice: keep search presence while excluding AI Overview use. The regulator is also considering requiring Google to improve transparency around how it ranks search results and how it uses content for AI features.

Why This Feels Like a Win, and Why It’s Limited

On the surface, letting publishers control whether their work fuels Google AI Overviews seems like a victory. It shifts some leverage back to content creators who have long felt squeezed by the dominance of search engines that both index and repurpose their material.

However, several key limitations temper that optimism:

1. It’s Still a Proposal, Not a Rule
   The CMA’s plan is in a consultation phase through late February 2026. It’s not yet a legal requirement. The final version of these conduct rules could change based on industry feedback and lobbying by Google and others.
2. No Guaranteed Compensation or Fair Use Terms
   Even if publishers can opt out of Google AI Overviews, there’s no requirement in the proposals for compensation or payment for content used when publishers choose to participate. Critics, including some media trade groups, argue this is still an incomplete fix for an underlying imbalance where tech platforms benefit financially from creators’ work while leaving revenue with the publisher.
3. The Market Power Problem Remains
   Google’s search engine handles more than 90% of general queries in the UK, and similar dominance globally. That stranglehold means publishers still depend heavily on Google for discovery, even as AI features shift user behavior. The CMA’s approach aims to promote “fairer” search practices, but the basic dependency doesn’t disappear with an opt-out toggle.

Why Publishers Pushed Back

The backdrop to this regulatory shift includes legal complaints and regulatory filings from publisher coalitions and advocacy organizations. Groups like Foxglove, the Independent Publishers Alliance, and the Movement for an Open Web have argued that Google AI Overviews divert traffic, revenue, and engagement by presenting answers directly in search without compelling users to visit original articles. Some filings suggest traffic reductions exceeding 50 % for queries that trigger an AI Overview — a phenomenon often called “zero-click search.”

Those complaints called for interim measures to protect publishers while regulators consider broader changes, including the ability to opt out of AI features without sacrificing search visibility or compensation.

Google’s Response and Industry Debate

Google has not opposed the idea of giving publishers more control, and in official responses to regulators said it is exploring updated controls for site owners. However, it has also warned that overly rigid opt-out requirements could “fragment the Search experience” and harm users who depend on a consistent search interface.

This tension highlights a broader debate: how to balance innovation in AI search experiences with maintaining fair value for the creators whose work feeds those experiences. For marketers, publishers, and content strategists, this is more than an abstract argument. It directly affects traffic patterns, SEO strategies, and audience engagement metrics going forward.

What This Means for Publishers and Marketers

Even if the UK’s proposed opt-out becomes reality, publishers and digital marketers will need to adjust:

• Reevaluate search traffic strategies: As AI answers draw more attention, brands and media outlets may need to focus on richer content formats, structured data, and SERP features that encourage deeper engagement.
• Plan for diversified discovery: Relying less on being first in Google Search and more on a mix of social, email, and referral traffic could mitigate risks tied to how search engines present information.
• Monitor regulatory developments: Similar regulatory pressures are emerging in the EU and potentially elsewhere; being attuned to these shifts allows publishers to plan long-term content strategies that hedge against platform dependency.

Looking Ahead

The CMA’s proposal around Google AI Overviews publishers is a noteworthy step in pushing back against the asymmetry between digital platforms and content creators. It recognizes that publishers should have agency over how their work is used, and that search engines shouldn’t automatically extract and repurpose content without consent. But because the rules aren’t yet finalized and do not yet guarantee compensation or broader fair use protections, the change is a qualified win rather than a full victory.

In the months ahead, publishers, regulators, and search platforms will continue to shape how AI and search intersect. For those whose livelihoods depend on digital visibility, the outcome of these debates will matter deeply, not just in the U.K., but across global markets striving to balance technological progress with sustainable ecosystems for content creators.