In a landmark case with significant implications for journalism and democracy, Emmerich Newspapers Inc., Helena World Chronicle and Boone Newspapers have joined forces in a class-action lawsuit against Google, challenging what they describe as an unfair “tying” relationship. Filed in December 2023, Helena World Chronicle LLC v. Google LLC alleges that Google’s control over search and content indexing is undermining publishers’ abilities to attract traffic and monetize content independently. In this interview, Wyatt Emmerich, president of Emmerich Newspapers, shared insights into the lawsuit’s motivations, the road ahead, and what’s at stake for the news industry.
A struggle against monopoly power
The lawsuit follows a recent decision by a district court in Washington, D.C., which found Google to be a monopoly under U.S. antitrust law. For Emmerich and his co-plaintiffs, this ruling bolstered the viability of pursuing damages and royalties from Google, citing the corporation's control over news publishers' ability to reach audiences through online search and indexing. “Our lawsuit aligns with the government’s findings but aims for something different — damages and ongoing royalties to sustain journalism,” Emmerich said, explaining the private lawsuit’s goals. He clarified, “We’re not looking to break up Google; we want compensation for the value they extract from our content without returning it to the publishers.”
Emmerich emphasized the fundamental unfairness of the situation, as Google reportedly uses publishers’ content to attract users and then channels that traffic to its own advertisements and information products, often at the expense of the news outlets themselves. “This tying relationship — using our content to drive their profits without returning value — is central to our argument,” Emmerich said. “They take our work, display their AI summaries, and users don’t even get to our sites.”
Rallying publishers to join the fight
Emmerich and his legal team are encouraging more publishers to join the lawsuit and strengthen their case. The goal is to gain class certification, allowing the plaintiffs to represent every news publisher in the U.S. “If we get certified as a class, we will represent every news producer in the country,” he explained. “This could be a mega-lawsuit with major implications for our industry.” Emmerich described the legal team as “the best in the country” in antitrust law, underscoring the lawsuit’s strong potential.
Despite the potential benefits, Emmerich acknowledged that some publishers are reluctant to join due to fears of retribution from Google. “There’s a sense of the ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ — a kind of dependency on Google for traffic that makes publishers hesitant to push back,” he said. Emmerich added with a wry smile, “We’ve been held hostage so long that when our captor offers us a glass of water, we thank them.”
The “tying” relationship: Control over content and monetization
Central to the lawsuit is the concept of a “tying relationship.” Emmerich explained that Google initially benefited news publishers by indexing their content, which increased visibility and drove traffic to publisher websites. But over time, the relationship shifted. “Now, Google scrapes our content, rewrites it using AI, and places those summaries above the original links,” Emmerich explained. He argued that this setup results in users staying on Google’s platform rather than clicking through to publisher sites, eroding the publishers’ ability to monetize their own content.
Emmerich suggested that this evolution of Google’s practices is not just an unfair business practice but a broader threat to democratic information flow. “When one company controls 95% of searches in the U.S., they’re controlling the flow of information, and that’s dangerous,” he warned. “Beyond the survival of the news industry, this is about the survival of democracy.”
The broader impact: Setting a precedent for AI and future legislation
If successful, the lawsuit could set a critical legal precedent, impacting not only Google but other technology companies using AI to interact with publisher content. The case aligns with similar efforts, such as the News Media Alliance’s lobbying for the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, which has faced significant resistance from tech lobbyists. Emmerich hopes the judicial route will be more fruitful: “In court, you can’t win by lobbying,” he pointed out. “The legal system is built to protect the rights of those who may not have the financial power to fight back.”
Emmerich expressed his frustration with the legislative approach, describing how tech companies’ lobbying has stalled efforts in Congress. “We have laws that should protect us, but Google’s lobbying makes it impossible to push through,” he explained. “This lawsuit is our way to challenge that.”
A call to action: “It’s a no-brainer.”
In his plea to other publishers, Emmerich framed the lawsuit as an essential stand for the industry’s future. Speaking to other media leaders at the America’s Newspapers Conference, he urged them to consider the advantages of joining the case: “This is the biggest no-brainer of my career,” he recalled, quoting a fellow newspaper executive. Emmerich added, “If you’re not joining, you’re nuts.”
The lawsuit’s contingency-based model allows newspapers to participate without upfront costs, making it accessible to even the smallest organizations. “You can join, stay in and see where it goes. It’s a collective effort,” he said. He emphasized that the more publications join, the stronger the case becomes, ensuring that top antitrust attorneys remain committed to the cause.
A vision for journalism’s future
Reflecting on the bigger picture, Emmerich underscored the lawsuit’s significance for the sustainability of journalism. With Google dominating online content discovery, publishers are left in a precarious position, struggling to maintain readership and ad revenue on their platforms. Emmerich’s vision is for a news ecosystem where publishers have fair compensation and control over their content. “We’re building a resistance,” he said. “This is our chance to preserve the role of independent journalism in a democracy.”
He closed by affirming his commitment to the cause, even as it presents personal and professional challenges: “On the panel, someone called me courageous, but I said, ‘No, you’re confusing desperation with courage.’” For Emmerich, the lawsuit is not just about dollars and cents but about taking a stand in an industry under siege.
Final Thoughts
As Helena World Chronicle LLC v. Google LLC progresses, Emmerich remains hopeful that the industry will rally around this legal effort. By challenging Google’s monopolistic practices, the plaintiffs are taking on one of the world’s largest corporations to secure a future for journalism. Emmerich’s words resonate as a call to arms: “If we don’t stand up now, we risk losing the very foundation of journalism and democracy. The industry deserves better, and it’s time we fight for it.”
 |
 |
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here