The UK competition regulator has unveiled draft obligations targeting Google’s use of publisher content in the era of generative AI, aiming to enhance transparency, attribution, and publisher protections amid increasing AI-driven search features.
The UK competition regulator has set out draft obligations aimed at rebalancing how Google uses publisher content in the age of generative artificial intelligence, proposing new controls, disclosure duties and attribution requirements for material surfaced via AI-driven search features. According to the government announcement, the Competition and Markets Authority’s designation of Google as a firm with strategic market status in search gives it powers to impose targeted measures intended to protect choice and transparency for publishers and users.
Under the measures the CMA has published for consultation, Google would need to provide publishers with effective tools to prevent their Search Content being used to train or ground broader generative AI systems and the company’s own AI search features, with obligations to update those controls as the technology evolves. The proposals also address portability of data, fairness in ranking and how user-choice settings are presented. Industry briefings note the SMS designation covers AI Overviews and similar features while excluding some standalone assistants for separate review as markets change.
The regulator is also seeking much greater transparency from Google. The draft requirements would oblige the company to publish clear explanations of how publisher material is used for training and grounding across generative services and to supply publishers with detailed, verifiable metrics on user engagement where their content appears in AI-driven overviews. Government commentary accompanying the CMA decision signals consultations will follow to shape any final interventions.
On attribution and factual integrity, the CMA’s draft would require Google to take reasonable steps to ensure that Search Content is properly credited when incorporated into generative search outputs, and to disclose the processes used to assess and assure factual accuracy. Legal and regulatory analyses of the SMS designation have highlighted that such targeted duties are a core tool regulators are using to address the specific risks posed by combining dominant search platforms with generative AI features.
The Professional Publishers Association responded by welcoming the direction of travel while stressing publishers need concrete, auditable guarantees on visibility and traffic. Sajeeda Merali, PPA, CEO said: “Publishers are looking for proof, proper checks, and practical enforceability. The wish list is simple: clear data on how AI affects visibility, reliable guarantees that opting out won’t disadvantage them, and an auditable system so we can independently verify what’s happening in practice.
On visibility, publishers want to know when their content is used in AI overviews, how it is attributed, and what traffic patterns follow. It’s vital that Google builds a reporting infrastructure that delivers the granular, auditable data that publishers are looking for.
This means providing verifiable, like-for-like performance data covering both classic search and AI overviews. Publishers will need to see stable indexing, unchanged rankings, and no reduction in referral quality or volume. Anything less leaves too much uncertainty for an already fragile digital advertising environment.
Self policing alone would not be sufficient. These measures only work if they are backed by clear obligations, external oversight, and enforceable consequences for non-compliance. That’s precisely why the CMA’s proposed conduct requirements matter: it introduces independent scrutiny for the first time and must be supported by an infrastructure that will enforce the requirements.
Opt out is an essential safeguard, but it doesn’t resolve the wider value exchange question. AI Overviews still replace clicks in many contexts, and without a clear model for licensing, the commercial imbalance remains. Today’s proposal is a major step forward, but it is not the end of the conversation on publisher compensation.
Overall, this consultation provides an encouraging foundation for a fairer digital marketplace. We will continue to engage constructively with the CMA and our members throughout the upcoming consultation period to ensure the final requirements deliver the clarity, safeguards, and accountability that publishers urgently need.” The PPA said its Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Eilidh Wilson, will lead its formal response to the CMA’s consultation, which closes on 25 February 2026.
The CMA is inviting views on the draft conduct requirements as it prepares to convert the proposals into enforceable obligations. Legal commentators and market-watchers say the consultation represents a significant step in regulators’ attempts to square platform power with the commercial and informational interests of content creators, though they note further detail will be critical on enforcement mechanisms and how attribution, opt-outs and any licensing arrangements will operate in practice.
Source Reference Map
Inspired by headline at: [1]
Sources by paragraph:
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The article references recent developments, including the CMA’s designation of Google with strategic market status in October 2025 and the ongoing consultation on conduct requirements. ([gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-confirms-google-has-strategic-market-status-in-search-services?utm_source=openai)) However, the article’s publication date is not provided, making it challenging to assess its freshness accurately. Given the context, the content appears current, but without a clear publication date, there’s some uncertainty.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The article includes direct quotes from Sajeeda Merali, CEO of the Professional Publishers Association (PPA), and references to government commentary. While these quotes are attributed, the absence of direct links to the original sources raises concerns about their verifiability. Without access to the original statements or press releases, it’s difficult to confirm the accuracy and context of these quotes.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The article is hosted on the Professional Publishers Association’s website, which is a reputable industry body. However, as the PPA is directly involved in the subject matter, there may be a potential for bias or a lack of complete objectivity. Additionally, the article relies on information from government announcements and other sources, but without direct links or citations, it’s challenging to assess the independence and reliability of these sources fully.
Plausibility check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims about the CMA’s designation of Google with strategic market status and the proposed conduct requirements align with publicly available information. ([gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-confirms-google-has-strategic-market-status-in-search-services?utm_source=openai)) However, the article’s reliance on unattributed quotes and the lack of direct links to original sources make it difficult to fully verify the accuracy of all claims. The absence of a publication date also raises questions about the timeliness of the information presented.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The article discusses the CMA’s designation of Google with strategic market status and the proposed conduct requirements. While the content aligns with publicly available information, the absence of a publication date, direct links to original sources, and reliance on unattributed quotes and potentially biased sources raise concerns about the article’s freshness, verifiability, and independence. These factors contribute to a medium level of confidence in the article’s overall reliability.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
