THE Where (Administrative Council for Economic Defense) initiated administrative proceedings against the Google through the use of journalistic content in search engines and artificial intelligence generative.
With a unanimous vote from five councilors, the body transformed an administrative inquiry into an administrative proceeding, which could result in sanctions and corrective measures against Google.
According to the vote of interim president Diogo Thomson, there is strong evidence that Google commits “exploitative abuse of a dominant position” by scraping online journalistic content (copying using robots) to feed its search results using artificial intelligence. This without offering an option for media outlets to refuse to authorize the use of content (opt-out) without this implying the outlets’ exclusion from search results.
Exploitative abuse is the conduct by which a dominant company uses its position of strength to extract economic value from consumers or business partners on unfair or disproportionate terms.
In the case of Google, Cade will investigate whether the company is abusing its dominant position in the search market (more than 90%) to benefit from journalistic content without paying press outlets, which would have generated drop in traffic and ad revenue. The situation would have worsened with the use of journalistic content for generative AI models and search results that use AI (AI Overviews).
In a statement, the company stated that the agency’s decision “reflects a misunderstanding about how our products work and the value we deliver to news publishers.”
“AI Overviews is designed to show links to a wide variety of results, creating new opportunities for relevant sites and diverse content to be discovered,” he said. “We will continue talking to Cade to clarify any doubts about our product.”
The case, opened in 2018, began investigating whether Google was doing “scraping” (scraping) of journalistic content. The platform would be displaying excerpts from newspaper articles without directing internet users to the websites of the vehicles that produced them. But the agency’s administrative process expanded the investigation to include use for AI.
“Cade’s decision is a historic milestone for producers of journalistic content, because, for the first time, abuse of power or digital economic dependence will be thoroughly investigated in Brazil”, says Marcelo Rech, president of ANJ (National Association of Newspapers)author of the initial petition.
“With the result of the trial, Cade demonstrates that it is at the forefront of a concern that is not limited to a mere economic issue. The underlying theme is the sustainability of quality information, journalism that serves, without substitutes, local communities and the plurality of visions fundamental in democratic societies.”
Cade assesses whether there is exploratory and exclusionary conduct on the part of Google. As the platform presents an excerpt or summary of journalistic content in searches, many users are satisfied with these results and do not click on the media’s websites, which reduces the audience and, consequently, advertising. The vehicles also accused Google of privileging its own content in search results.
In Thomson’s vote, studies indicating an even more pronounced drop in traffic to journalistic websites with AI search results.
Stella Caram, legal director at Foxglove, an organization that contributed studies and input to the case, states that “the decision reflects what regulators in the European Union and the United Kingdom have already recognized: clear signs of Google’s abusive dominant position in digital news markets that justify an investigation.”
In his 184-page vote, Thomson recommends that Google allow journalistic companies to opt out of having their data used in AI and not be excluded from Google results, which implies serious damage to the traffic of journalistic sites.
It also indicates that a possible corrective measure would be for journalistic outlets to be able to choose whether they want their data to be used only for search results, for AI content generation or others.
Some journalistic companies, among them the Sheethave already closed content licensing agreements with Google and other companies. The agreement of Sheet with Google foresees that the newspaper provides quality journalistic content to help generate and improve the responses given by the Gemini, application artificial intelligence of the company technology.
As agreed, consolidated in 2025, the Sheet provides access to part of its news collection and a real-time text feed. The material serves as a database for composing more up-to-date results for tool users.
Data from Cade’s decision and the conclusion of the administrative process can be used as a precedent in future negotiations and for vehicles that do not yet have agreements.
“The decision to open a lawsuit repositions forces and opens a debate about what guarantees journalism should have in this relationship with search engines, especially when applying generative AI solutions”, says lawyer Francisco Brito Cruz, professor at IDP.
Cade’s administrative processes take 3 to 10 years to complete.
However, for lawyer Camila Pires da Rocha, partner at Brolio Gonçalves Advogados, this case tends to move faster, “because of the dynamism of the market, in the face of technological advances, and the imminent threat of damage to journalism”.
