.png)
1 hour ago
6
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is using powers that allow it to set bespoke rules for major tech firms that it deems to have “strategic market status”. Google, the world’s largest search engine, is one of those companies.
What has the CMA announced?
The CMA has imposed a set of “conduct requirements” on Google, which the tech firm must adhere to. It must allow publishers to block Google from using their content to power features such as AI Overviews and AI mode (an expanded version of overviews).
An AI Overview is an answer to a query, produced by the search engine’s Gemini AI model, that summarises material from news publishers and other websites to produce an answer. Publishers do not like this, arguing that over views dissuade users from clicking through to their content – and thus denying them readers and advertising revenue. Under the current set-up news publishers who allow their content to be listed in ordinary Google search results are defaulted into AI Overview responses as well. In other words, they will now be able to opt out from appearing in such responses.
Google will also be required to make sure that publisher content is properly flagged and attributed in overview results, using clear links to the material. Furthermore, Google must allow publishers to opt out of using their content to update models (the underlying technology that powers tools such as chatbots).
How will it affect publishers?
The CMA hopes this will give publishers greater leverage in content deals with Google, by forcing the company to seek permission to use their intellectual property. The CMA will wait to see how its first wave of interventions pan out before it decides whether to act further. This announcement at least signals a direction of travel.
Does this pave the way for publishers to make money from AI firms using their content?
There is still a long way to go. A mass boycott of AI Over views by publishers, in a bid to force Google’s hand, seems unlikely. But Google’s brand relies heavily on being the world’s central source of information.
Earlier this week, AG Sulzberger, the chairperson of the New York Times, revealed that the publisher has already spent $20m (£15m) on lawsuits against OpenAI and AI startup Perplexity over the use of its copyrighted content.
Publishers have seen dramatic falls in Google traffic to their websites, and therefore revenue, since their content was pulled into AI summaries.
However, they have not been able to negotiate AI content deals without jeopardising inclusion in traditional Google search, which has been central to online journalism since its inception.
Tim Cowen, co-founder of the Movement for an Open Web (MOW) and competition lawyer at Preiskel, believes the CMA’s move means publishers will now have the power to make money from Google’s use of their content in AI.
“It provides a baseline that Google can’t just take content,” he says. “This provides a framework to monetisation, which is welcome, but there is a long way to go. It doesn’t provide a mechanism for monetisation, or what enforcement against Google looks like. There is a lot of difficulty for publishers determining what the value of content for AI use actually is.”
What does Google say?
Google will have nine months to implement the changes but the CMA wants swift action on the most important aspects of its decision. The search company announced on Wednesday it was testing a new control that lets website owners manage how their links and content appear in AI features such as AI Over views or AI Mode.
Google will also give websites more information about how much their content is being used in its AI features.
This will be trialled with a “subset” of UK websites, said Google, before being rolled out globally. The global deployment underlines the impact of the CMA’s new digital competition powers.
What next for the publishing industry?
Publishers have welcomed the CMA’s move with the News Media Association (NMA), which represents UK news publishers, hailing it as a “significant step towards levelling the playing field” in an online environment where big tech-controlled algorithms dictate how and where content appears.
However, concerns remain that dealing with Google will remain a difficult proposition with the Silicon Valley company being left to provide “periodic reporting” to the CMA, but little detail on how frequently this will be and what will be provided to prove it is remaining in compliance with its obligations.
“It is not all good news,” says Cowen, who along with the Independent Publishers Alliance (IPA) and the Foxglove campaign group filed a complaint to the CMA about Google’s AI Overviews last July. “Where the devil in the detail is that we can see Google exploiting the vagueness of what gets reported and when. The worry is Google will slow roll this. And the question now forced back on publishers is what to do about licensing.”
Publishers are attempting to address this through the formation of SPUR – the so-called “Nato for news” coalition formed earlier this year that includes the BBC, Guardian, Financial Times, Telegraph and Sky.
The group added another 20 major publishers this week as it seeks to strike better AI deals by agreeing common standards and content usage rights.
Are publishers and AI companies talking?
Publishers have signed deals with AI firms. For instance the FT and Washington Post have reached agreements with OpenAI, the developer of ChatGPT, over using their content in responses. The Guardian has signed deals with a variety of businesses including OpenAI, Google, Amazon and Microsoft to allow those companies to use its journalism in some GenAI products.
