Google is paying almost no publishers almost nothing for content used in AI answers

Google is paying 100 digital publishers for content used in AI Overviews, AI Mode, and the Gemini chatbot. Some publishers say they don't know how their payments are calculated.

The pilot program launched less than a year ago, according to The Information . Publishers can track how often Google uses their content and how much they earn in Google Console.

The publication reports wide differences in payments. For several small and midsize blogs and websites, they amount to less than 0.1 percent of ad revenue. One publisher received $50,000 to $60,000 over a few months, while another earns more than $1 million a year. Small sites received less than $1,000 over several months.

Payments depend on how much each source contributes to an AI answer, but some participants told The Information they don't know how Google calculates them. They also said payments can change from month to month without explanation. According to the report, content on niche topics with strong followings, such as anime and gaming, appears to earn more.

Publishers hold out for higher payments as traffic falls

Some larger publishers are refusing to join the program to push Google to pay more, according to The Information. Their traffic is already falling, and multiple studies show AI Overviews sharply reduce visits to the open web .

In July 2025, independent publishers filed a complaint with the European Commission over AI Overviews. That September, Rolling Stone parent Penske Media sued Google over lost traffic and ad revenue.

The European Commission opened an antitrust investigation in December 2025 . It is examining whether Google imposes unfair terms by using publishers' content for AI features without adequate payment or a genuine way to opt out .

A German court has also ruled that AI Overviews are Google's own content , not summaries of existing material. If that interpretation gains wider acceptance, publishers would have a legal basis to demand licensing fees whenever Google uses their work in an AI answer. That would pose a serious financial risk for Google. Tracking each source's exact contribution to an answer would be difficult, if not impossible, managing those payments would add overhead, and the fees themselves could cut substantially into Google's margins.

For now, though, Google sets the terms through selective licensing deals, an opt-out feature, and a payment model that lets it decide what content is worth. This divide-and-conquer approach creates a prisoner's dilemma for publishers . A few benefit, while most get little or nothing. Publishers that walk away put little pressure on Google because other sources fill the gap, while those that stay accept its rates.

Individual deals keep publishers negotiating separately rather than collectively, which is undoubtedly what Google wants. That strategy has served the company well for decades as it has drawn more content from the web to monetize within . AI Overviews push that trend much further, much faster.

AI News Without the Hype – Curated by Humans