What the CMA's new Google rules mean for content licensing

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority’s recent conduct requirement aims to give publishers more control over how Google uses their content in its generative AI. What it didn't give them is a right to be paid. That distinction is the real story here, and it's the reason regulation alone won't settle the standoff between publishers and the platforms using their content.

The CMA is the UK's competition regulator with new powers over Google

‍

The CMA is the UK’s principal competition regulator. In October 2025, it imposed Strategic Market Status (SMS) on Google. Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, a company must satisfy three criteria in relation to digital activities in order to qualify for SMS: It must have UK turnover of more than £1 billion or global turnover of more than £25 billion, substantial and entrenched market power, and a position of strategic significance. Google’s SMS applies to both its general search and advertising services as well as its mobile platforms. 

Strategic Market Status (SMS) gives the CMA authority to impose conduct requirements on Google

‍

An SMS designation unlocks a number of statutory powers for the CMA, including the ability to impose conduct requirements. These seek to govern how the company acts in relation to the relevant digital activity. 

Google must now give publishers control over AI use of their content

‍

In this case, the conduct requirement obliges Google to:

• Give publishers meaningful control over the use of their search results in generative AI;
• Explain in clear and user-friendly terms how Google uses publishers’ search content in its generative AI;
• Give publishers clear and detailed metrics on user engagement with their search content in Google’s generative AI features;
• Make sure that search content is attributed clearly and accurately in general search, and that end users have a clear means to access that search content; and
• Provide transparent explanations for its approach to attribution.

Subsequent conduct requirements seek to force Google to increase transparency surrounding its search rankings and enhance data portability. 

‍

Together, these interventions mark the CMA’s first-ever use of its powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. They have the advantage of being legally enforceable, raising the possibility that Google could face legal sanctions for non-compliance. 

The conduct requirement addresses control, not compensation

In a press release that accompanied the AI-related conduct requirement, the CMA characterized it as “a world first” that would “put publishers, like news organizations, in a stronger position to negotiate content deals with Google.” As Ronan Scanlan of Steptoe notes, this approach goes beyond what’s required by the neighboring European Union’s Digital Markets Act. 

It also reflects the changed dynamics of search in the AI era. Previously, publishers and Google had a mutually beneficial relationship since Google’s indexing ultimate drove traffic to the publisher’s site. But Scanlan observes that this is no longer the case in the age of AI since search results are increasingly mediated through the filter of AI. 

This leaves less of an incentive for the searcher to visit the original site (assuming they even know where the information came from). But the conduct requirement will allow publishers to opt out of the use of their content in AI. Moreover, Google can’t use search rankings to punish publishers for opting out. While this is definitely a step in the right direction, it’s not a silver bullet. Scanlan points out that the conduct requirement doesn’t impose any kind of compensation requirement. 

Reaction from publishers has been generally positive. The Publishers Association and the New Media Association broadly welcomed the conduct requirements. However, the Professional Publishers Association called attention to the lack of granularity: “[P]ublishers will not be able to manage participation across individual AI search products separately. Instead, a single control will apply across AI Mode, AI Overviews and other AI-powered search features. Similarly, a single control will apply across crawling, training and grounding activities, rather than allowing publishers to make separate decisions for each use case.”

Google faces similar antitrust pressure in the EU, US, and beyond 

The CMA’s actions are just the latest in a global effort to deal with Google’s dominant position in the industry. In the EU, the European Commission recently fined Google €2.95 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules in the advertising technology industry. The Commission has also launched a number of investigations into possible violations of the bloc’s Digital Markets Act by Google. Google is also facing antitrust actions in the US, Canada, Japan, India, and Australia.  

Ultimately, the success of the CMA’s conduct requirement may hinge on the willingness of companies to enforce its provisions by filing lawsuits alleging that Google has violated its provisions. If there’s reluctance to commit to the time and expense of litigation, Google may be able to flout its provisions with relative impunity. 

But while control and attribution are necessary, they don’t put money directly into creators’ pockets. Publishers also need to have a mechanism that guarantees they will be compensated for how their content is used. Conduct requirements like this one are a step in the right direction, but they’re not a silver bullet.

This conduct requirement is unlikely to be the last word on the subject, however. Publishers will likely continue to press for additional restrictions, and the conduct requirement itself will be formally reviewed within a few years’ time. The CMA also has other tools in its arsenal that it can apply if it decides that the conduct requirement isn’t achieving the desired results.

‍