From Washington: Google is offering to let publishers opt out of its AI Overviews feature in the UK, the company announced this week in response to the British Competition and Markets Authority's (CMA) proposed conduct rules. But the concession comes with notable hedging, and major questions remain about whether the move represents genuine change or regulatory theatre.
In January, the CMA proposed a package of regulatory measures designed to address concerns that Google's dominance in search, with more than 90 per cent of UK queries, was harming publishers and consumers. The regulator specifically called for publishers to be able to prevent their content from appearing in AI Overviews without losing visibility in general search results. Google has designated as having "strategic market status" since October 2025, giving regulators power to impose conduct requirements.
Google's response, published this week, offers limited detail. The company said it is developing controls that would allow publishers to opt out of AI-driven search features, such as AI Overview, as part of its response to the regulator's suggestions. Ron Eden, Google's principal for product management, stated the goal is "to protect the helpfulness of Search for people who want information quickly, while also giving websites the right tools to manage their content." But the company provided no implementation timeline and used careful language, saying it is "exploring" controls rather than committing to specific changes.
The distinction matters. As recently as May 2025, internal Google documents revealed the company had deliberately decided against giving publishers granular control over AI search features. Now, facing regulatory pressure, Google appears to be reconsidering. Yet its cautious framing leaves publishers and regulators wondering whether the company intends to offer genuine choice or merely create the appearance of compliance.
The underlying problem is concrete. According to data from Chartbeat, search traffic to publishers declined globally by a third in 2025. In the UK specifically, the Publishers Association noted a 19 per cent decline in click-through rates to academic reference services, saying it was "likely to be as a result of Google's conduct in its Search services and AI features." AI Overviews, which display summaries pulled directly from publisher content without requiring readers to click through, have become a core driver of this traffic loss.
Google argues, however, that the problem is more nuanced. As users move from scanning links to consuming direct answers, absence from AI features risks making publishers effectively invisible; "if you won't exist in AI Mode and AI Overviews, you won't exist for users"." This framing inverts the publishers' concern: the company suggests that blocking AI features could harm publishers more than help them by removing a potential traffic source, however meagre.
The CMA's proposal does include real safeguards. Google must not "maintain or introduce ranking signals" designed to downrank in general search results publishers who have opted out of their content being used in AI Overviews and AI Mode. Such publishers should also not have their content "presented or displayed differently" in general search. Those guarantees are significant, at least in theory. But observers remain sceptical.
Separating its crawler isn't a technical issue; it's about whether Google has the business incentive to do it, stressed Owen Meredith, CEO of News Media Association, which counts The Times, The Guardian, and The Daily Mail, among its members. Publishers have called for a complete separation of Google's AI crawler from its search crawler, a structural fix that would give them clean control over which content feeds AI systems and which feeds search. The CMA's current proposals do not mandate this separation.
Although opt-out is an essential safeguard, it doesn't resolve the wider value-exchange question, stressed Sajeeda Merali, CEO of the Professional Publishers Association, which represents approximately 250 media organisations. "AI Overviews still replace clicks in many contexts, and without a clear model for licensing, the commercial imbalance remains," said Merali.
The dispute reflects a genuine tension between competing interests. Consumers may benefit from AI Overviews that provide quick answers without a click. Publishers depend on traffic for revenue and journalistic sustainability. Google benefits from both free content and direct, zero-click engagement. The CMA's task is to find a balance that preserves innovation while preventing abuse of market dominance.
Google's response does signal movement. The announcement marks a notable reversal. As recently as May 2025, internal Google documents revealed the company had deliberately decided against giving publishers granular control over AI search features. But Google has also warned that increased disclosure could enable manipulation, weaken spam protections, and slow product improvements in the UK. Whether those concerns reflect genuine technical constraints or negotiating leverage remains unclear.
The CMA's consultation on these proposed rules closes on 25 February 2026, and a final decision will follow after the regulator reviews responses. What emerges will shape how publishers and platforms interact across the UK and potentially beyond, given Google's historical willingness to apply UK regulatory changes globally. Publishers will need to watch closely to see whether Google's "exploration" becomes binding commitment or well-intentioned but toothless promise.