"As AI summaries summarise information directly within search results, they can significantly reduce traffic to news publishers. Evidence suggests users are less likely to click through to original sources when AIOs are present on Google, threatening the financial viability of journalism. These impa ... cts from AI summaries and AIOs in particular are unlikely to be evenly distributed and will play out in different ways across the news sector across Europe, with smaller and ad-funded outlets particularly vulnerable, raising concerns about declining media plurality. At the same time, AI-generated summaries often fail to provide accurate and diverse information. Research shows that AI tools disproportionately rely on a narrow set of sources, marginalising smaller publishers. In addition, persistent issues with accuracy – including misleading or incorrect outputs – risk distorting public understanding and weakening trust in information systems. Current regulatory frameworks in both the EU and UK are struggling to address these challenges effectively. While multiple legal instruments are relevant and already in place – including competition law, platform regulation, copyright, and AI governance – none are fully equipped to respond quickly and comprehensively to the harms of monopolisation and the lack of remuneration for media outlets posed by AI summaries. We argue that competition policy offers the most effective and immediate route to intervention, with digital regulation serving as a secondary lever. The UK’s approach, based on flexible, case-specific competition rules, enables faster action through tailored conduct requirements for dominant firms like Google. In contrast, the EU’s framework is broader but slower, relying more heavily on traditional, time-intensive antitrust investigations and ongoing debates around copyright and remuneration for publishers. Both systems offer complementary strengths, and policymakers should learn from each other’s approaches. We therefore recommend a “competition-first” policy package to ensure fairer outcomes. Key measures include enforcing fair ranking and attribution practices, preventing unauthorised use of publisher content, and potentially requiring platforms to compensate news organisations. However, competition policy alone is not the key. We therefore propose additional long-term interventions, including greater transparency through “nutrition labels” for AI-generated content and increased public or democratic funding for journalism. These measures aim to strengthen the resilience and independence of the news sector, ensuring that trustworthy information remains accessible in an information ecosystem shaped by AI. more

"AI-driven search-summary features, with Google's AI Overviews (AIOs) being the most promiment example, are rapidly transforming how people access news, with profound implications for our information ecosystem. While AI holds potential to improve access to information, its current deployment risks u ... ndermining the sustainability, diversity, and reliability of news. As AI summaries summarise information directly within search results, they can significantly reduce traffic to news publishers. Evidence suggests users are less likely to click through to original sources when AIOs are present on Google, threatening the financial viability of journalism. These impacts from AI summaries and AIOs in particular are unlikely to be evenly distributed and will play out in different ways across the news sector across Europe, with smaller and ad-funded outlets particularly vulnerable, raising concerns about declining media plurality. At the same time, AI-generated summaries often fail to provide accurate and diverse information. Research shows that AI tools disproportionately rely on a narrow set of sources, marginalising smaller publishers. In addition, persistent issues with accuracy – including misleading or incorrect outputs – risk distorting public understanding and weakening trust in information systems. Current regulatory frameworks in both the EU and UK are struggling to address these challenges effectively. While multiple legal instruments are relevant and already in place – including competition law, platform regulation, copyright, and AI governance – none are fully equipped to respond quickly and comprehensively to the harms of monopolisation and the lack of remuneration for media outlets posed by AI summaries. We argue that competition policy offers the most effective and immediate route to intervention, with digital regulation serving as a secondary lever. The UK’s approach, based on flexible, case-specific competition rules, enables faster action through tailored conduct requirements for dominant firms like Google. In contrast, the EU’s framework is broader but slower, relying more heavily on traditional, time-intensive antitrust investigations and ongoing debates around copyright and remuneration for publishers. Both systems offer complementary strengths, and policymakers should learn from each other’s approaches. We therefore recommend a “competition-first” policy package to ensure fairer outcomes. Key measures include enforcing fair ranking and attribution practices, preventing unauthorised use of publisher content, and potentially requiring platforms to compensate news organisations. However, competition policy alone is not the key. We therefore propose additional long-term interventions, including greater transparency through “nutrition labels” for AI-generated content and increased public or democratic funding for journalism. These measures aim to strengthen the resilience and independence of the news sector, ensuring that trustworthy information remains accessible in an information ecosystem shaped by AI." (Executive summary) more