The core legal battle is a referendum on "fair use" for the AI era. If AI summaries are deemed "transformative" (a new work), it's a win for AI platforms. If they're "derivative" (a repackaging), it could force widespread content licensing deals.
This conflict is bigger than business; it’s about societal health. If AI summaries decimate publisher revenues, the result is less investigative journalism and more information power concentrated in a few tech giants, threatening the diverse press that a healthy democracy relies upon.
Beyond revenue loss, AI summaries threaten publishers by stripping context from their work and controlling the narrative. Over time, this trains users to see Google, not the original creators, as the primary source of authority, eroding hard-won brand trust.
AI summaries provide answers directly on the search page, eliminating the user's need to click through to publisher websites. This directly attacks the ad revenue, affiliate income, and subscription models that have funded online content creation for decades.
Content creators are in an impossible position. They can block Google's crawlers and lose their primary traffic source, effectively committing "business suicide." Alternatively, they can allow access, thereby providing the content that fuels the very AI systems undermining their business model.