Publishers have spent two years arguing that Google’s AI answers use their work while sending less traffic back. In the past week, that argument moved on two fronts at once. In the United States, Penske Media has appealed the dismissal of its antitrust lawsuit over AI Overviews. In Türkiye, the national competition authority has opened a full investigation into whether AI Overviews and AI Mode abuse a dominant position — and it has already imposed interim measures on how Google treats news publishers.
Neither development is a verdict. One is an appeal asking a higher court to revive a case; the other is an investigation that has only just begun. But together they mark a shift: the fight over AI answers is now being argued in courtrooms and before regulators, with legal tests attached. Here is what has happened, what has not, and what to do with it.
Key Takeaways
- Penske Media filed a notice of appeal on October 29, 2026, challenging the September 30 dismissal of its antitrust lawsuit over Google AI Overviews, according to reporting on the filing. The appeal goes to the D.C. Circuit (case 26-7219).
- Penske says its organic affiliate revenue fell by more than a third — that figure is the company’s own claim, made as part of its case, not an independently verified measurement.
- Türkiye’s Competition Authority opened a full investigation on November 2 into whether AI Overviews and AI Mode violate Article 6 of Act No. 4054, the abuse-of-dominance provision.
- Interim measures adopted on October 8 require Google not to discriminate between news publishers, to set terms reflecting the economic value of using their content in AI answers, and to let each publisher decide on AI use independently of its visibility elsewhere in Google Search.
- Neither move is a finding against Google. No fine, payment amount, deadline, or ban has been set, and no Google response to the Türkiye announcement had been found by late morning CET on November 2.
What Is Penske Media Appealing?
Penske Media has filed a notice of appeal against the dismissal of its antitrust lawsuit over Google AI Overviews. According to reporting on the filing, the notice was filed on October 29, 2026, and challenges Judge Amit Mehta’s September 30, 2026 decision dismissing the case. The appeal will be heard by the D.C. Circuit, where it is docketed as case 26-7219.
A note on sourcing, because it matters for a legal story: these details come from reporting on the appeal — Too Much TV reported it on November 5, and affne.com covered it on November 6 — not from the court filing itself, which we have not read directly. Treat the dates and the docket number as reported facts, and expect the appeal brief itself to fill in the legal arguments over the coming weeks.
The underlying dispute is the one publishers know well. Penske’s case centres on the claim that AI Overviews answer questions using publisher content while reducing the visits that content used to earn. As part of its case, Penske says its organic affiliate revenue fell by more than a third. Read that figure carefully: it is Penske’s own claim, advanced by a party to the litigation, not a number a court has accepted or an independent study has measured. It tells you the scale of harm Penske alleges — it does not, on its own, prove the cause.
An appeal is also a narrow thing. Penske is asking an appeals court to find that the dismissal was wrong in law and that the case should proceed. Appeals move slowly, and many fail. What the filing does guarantee is that the legal argument over AI Overviews stays alive in the US courts — and that the evidence questions publishers care about, including what AI answers do to referral and affiliate revenue, remain in play. For the measured side of that question, see our breakdown of the field experiment behind AI Overviews cutting outbound clicks by 39.8%.
What Has Türkiye’s Competition Authority Actually Done?
Türkiye’s Competition Authority (Rekabet Kurumu) has opened a full investigation into whether Google’s AI Overviews and AI Mode violate Article 6 of Act No. 4054, the provision against abuse of a dominant position. Announced on November 2, 2026, the investigation follows a preliminary inquiry opened on August 27, 2026.
The investigation (decision 26-31/932-M at the preliminary stage) covers Alphabet Inc., Google Ireland Ltd, Google LLC, Google International LLC, and Google Reklamcılık ve Pazarlama Ltd. Şti., Google’s Turkish arm.
The investigation is only half the story. At its October 8, 2026 meeting, the Competition Board adopted interim measures under Article 9(4) (decision 26-37/1000-423) — temporary requirements imposed while an investigation runs, not its conclusion. Under them, Google must:
- Not discriminate between news publishers in the terms it applies to them.
- Set terms that reflect the economic value of using publishers’ content in AI Overviews and AI Mode.
- Let each publisher decide on AI use independently — a publisher’s choice about AI features must not be tied to its visibility or indexing in Google’s other search services.
The scope limits matter as much as the measures. The measures concern news publishers — this is not a general ruling about all websites in AI answers. The announcement sets no monetary amount, no compliance deadline, and no fine, and it cites no traffic figure. And as of late morning CET on November 2, no response from Google had been found. What Türkiye has produced is a formal investigation plus a set of interim conditions — significant, but several steps away from any final outcome. You can read the announcement in full on the Rekabet Kurumu website.
Is Either Development a Ruling Against Google?
No. Nothing in the past week is a ruling, a finding, or a ban. Penske has filed an appeal, which asks a court to reconsider a dismissal — the underlying case has not been won by anyone. Türkiye has opened an investigation and set interim measures, which is the start of a regulatory process, not its conclusion. AI Overviews and AI Mode have not been banned anywhere.
Holding that line matters because stories like these attract stronger headlines than the facts support. An investigation opened under Article 41 of Act No. 4054 is a decision to examine whether Article 6 was violated — the word “whether” is doing real work. The October 8 interim measures are stronger than a mere announcement, since they impose conditions now, but they are explicitly interim: they hold the position while the authority investigates, and they can be revised or lifted as the case develops.
It is also worth being precise about what has not been decided. No regulator has set a price for publisher content in AI answers. No court has ordered Google to change how AI Overviews work. No traffic remedy exists that a publisher can claim today. Two formal processes are now running in parallel — one judicial, one regulatory — and both will take time. Anyone planning around an imminent payout or a traffic rebound is planning around something that has not happened.
Does Türkiye’s Decision Create a New Publisher Opt-Out?
No — and this is the point most likely to be misreported. Google already offers a Search Console control for generative AI features, and it has been live worldwide since August 31, 2026. Türkiye has not created the first publisher opt-out. What is genuinely new is a regulator ordering Google to set terms that reflect the economic value of publisher content.
The distinction is worth spelling out. The third interim measure requires that each news publisher be able to decide on AI use independently of its visibility and indexing in Google’s other services. Whether Google’s existing Search Console control satisfies that requirement is an open question — the Rekabet Kurumu announcement does not say. A control that exists is not necessarily a control that meets a regulator’s test of independence, and the announcement is silent on the point. Anyone claiming Türkiye has either endorsed or rejected the existing control is going beyond the source.
The first two measures are the real news. Non-discrimination between publishers and terms reflecting economic value go to the commercial heart of the dispute: not just whether publishers can say no, but what the terms are when their content is used. That is a different kind of intervention from an opt-out toggle, and it is why this investigation deserves attention even from publishers far outside Türkiye. If you are reviewing your own controls in the meantime, our guide to blocking AI crawlers in robots.txt covers the crawler-level options, which are separate from the Search Console setting.
What Did One Site’s Opt-Out Test Show?
One early data point, flagged clearly as a single site’s unsettled test: publisher Cyrus Shepard’s first public test of the Search Console opt-out, reported October 30 via Search Engine Roundtable. After opting out, the site’s AI impressions went to zero — the control did what it says. But regular organic clicks also fell, suggesting a possible “halo” effect in which appearing in AI answers supports ordinary clicks too.
That is one site, over a short window, with no settled conclusion — it does not prove opting out costs traffic. What it underlines is why the independence question in Türkiye’s third measure is more than legal wording: publishers need to know whether declining AI use carries consequences elsewhere in search, and the public evidence is currently thin.
What Should Publishers and SEOs Do Now?
Do not change strategy on the strength of two processes that have just started — but do get your house in order while they run. The publishers best placed if either case develops are the ones who can document what AI answers have done to their traffic and revenue. Concretely:
- Monitor your referral and affiliate data properly. Track Google organic referrals and affiliate revenue over time, segmented where you can, so any change is a documented trend rather than an impression. If a regulator, a court, or a licensing negotiation ever asks what AI answers cost you, dated data is the answer.
- Know the controls that already exist. The Search Console generative AI control has been available worldwide since August 31, 2026. Understand what it does before you touch it — and weigh the single-site test evidence above before assuming opting out is cost-free.
- Document traffic changes as they happen. Keep dated notes alongside your analytics: AI feature rollouts, citation changes, ranking shifts. Our playbook on how to get cited by ChatGPT covers the visibility side of the same picture — being cited well is still worth having while the legal questions run.
- Separate claim from proof in your own reporting. Penske’s “more than a third” affiliate decline is a litigant’s claim. Your board, clients, and planning deserve numbers labelled by source.
- Watch the process, not the headlines. The next milestones are Penske’s appeal brief, any statement from Google, and Türkiye’s findings in due course. Until then, treat both stories as open.
FAQ
Has Google been found guilty of abusing its position over AI Overviews?
No. Türkiye has opened an investigation into whether Article 6 of Act No. 4054 was violated, and imposed interim measures while it investigates. An investigation is not a finding, and no fine or final decision has been issued.
What exactly is Penske Media appealing?
According to reporting on the filing, Penske filed a notice of appeal on October 29, 2026, challenging Judge Amit Mehta’s September 30, 2026 dismissal of its antitrust lawsuit over AI Overviews. The appeal sits with the D.C. Circuit as case 26-7219. It asks the appeals court to revive the case; it is not a new trial or a win.
Did Türkiye ban AI Overviews or AI Mode?
No. Nothing has been banned. The interim measures set conditions on how Google treats news publishers — non-discrimination, terms reflecting the economic value of their content, and independent choice over AI use. They set no payment amount, deadline, or fine.
Is the “affiliate revenue fell by more than a third” figure verified?
No. It is Penske Media’s own claim, made as part of its legal case. It indicates the scale of harm Penske alleges, but it has not been independently verified or accepted by a court.
Should I opt out of AI features in Search Console now?
That is a business decision, not a legal requirement. The control has been live worldwide since August 31, 2026. One site’s early test saw AI impressions drop to zero but regular organic clicks fall too, so weigh your own referral data before acting — and document whatever you decide.
Sources
- Rekabet Kurumu (Türkiye’s Competition Authority), announcement of the investigation into Google’s AI Overviews and AI Mode, November 2, 2026 — rekabet.gov.tr
- Reporting on Penske Media’s notice of appeal: Too Much TV, November 5, 2026, and affne.com, “Penske Google AI Search Appeal,” November 6, 2026 — affne.com
- Search Engine Roundtable, report of Cyrus Shepard’s Search Console opt-out test, October 30, 2026
