The UK Wants Publishers to Be Able to Opt Out of AI Overviews. Should You?

For two years, publishers have had an uncomfortable choice with Google's AI features in search: accept that your content may be summarized in AI Overviews, or use blunt controls that also limit how you appear in regular results. On January 28, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority proposed a package of conduct requirements for Google Search that would change that. The consultation closes on February 25. On the same day, Google said it was exploring updates to its controls to let sites specifically opt out of search generative AI features.

Nothing is final yet, and the proposal applies in the UK. But the direction is clear enough that every news and local publisher should start thinking about what they would do with an opt-out if they had one.

What the CMA proposed

The CMA designated Google as having strategic market status in general search in October 2025, which allows it to impose specific conduct requirements. The January package covers four areas:

• Publisher controls. Google should give publishers a meaningful choice about how their content is used in AI-generated responses, within search and outside it. Publishers would be able to opt out of their content being used to power AI features such as AI Overviews, or to train AI models outside of search. Google would also have to be more transparent about how publisher content feeds AI responses and properly attribute it.
• Fair ranking. Google would need to show that it ranks results fairly and transparently, including in AI features, with a process for businesses to raise concerns.
• Choice screens. Users on Android and Chrome would get choice screens that make it easier to switch search services.
• Data portability. Users would be able to move their search data to authorized third parties.

The CMA said Google handles more than 90 percent of UK search queries, which is why these requirements carry weight well beyond the UK debate.

Why the current controls fall short

Publishers today have a few tools. The Google-Extended control lets sites manage whether their content is used for Gemini models, but it does not remove content from AI Overviews in search, because those are treated as part of Search. Snippet controls such as nosnippet and max-snippet can limit what Google displays, but they also affect how pages appear in regular results, which can cost traffic. The CMA's proposal targets exactly that gap: an opt-out from AI features that does not penalize a site's regular search presence.

Should you opt out? The trade-offs

If a targeted opt-out arrives, the right answer will differ by publisher. Here is how to think about it.

Arguments for opting out

• If your content is mostly answerable facts, such as scores, weather, hours, schedules, or simple explainers, AI summaries can satisfy the query without a click.
• Opting out signals that your content has commercial value, which may matter in licensing negotiations with AI companies.
• You keep more control over how your reporting is represented, which matters for accuracy-sensitive coverage.

Arguments for staying in

• Being cited in AI answers may still send some traffic and builds brand visibility. For smaller outlets, being absent entirely could mean competitors are cited instead.
• If the opt-out is feature-specific, staying in may keep you eligible for citation links that do send engaged readers.
• Your audience may skew toward people who want the full story, who will click through regardless.

Local publishers have a specific calculation

Local news sites often own content no one else produces: council meetings, school board decisions, local business openings, high school sports. That exclusivity is leverage. It also means an AI summary of your reporting may be the only version of that story in the answer. Whether that is good exposure or lost revenue depends on whether the citation actually drives visits. Measure it before deciding.

What to do now

1. Measure what AI features are doing to your traffic

Segment Search Console data by query type and page type. Look at impressions versus clicks over time for queries where AI Overviews typically appear. You are looking for pages where impressions hold steady but clicks fall. That is the content most exposed.

2. Connect traffic to revenue

Not all search clicks are equal. Look at revenue per session from search visitors by content type. A high-traffic explainer that monetizes poorly matters less than a smaller set of pages that drive engaged, high-value sessions.

3. Respond to the consultation if you operate in the UK

The consultation is open until February 25. Evidence from real publishers about traffic and revenue effects is exactly what regulators need. Industry associations will respond, but specific data from your own site carries weight.

4. Plan for a decision, not a reaction

If an opt-out arrives, decide in advance which sections you would test it on and how you would measure the result. A staged test on one content type, with a clear before-and-after comparison, is far better than flipping a switch sitewide.

5. Keep building direct audience

Newsletters, apps, alerts and homepages that readers visit directly are the traffic that no search interface change can take away. For local publishers especially, direct relationships are the base the ad business sits on.

The bigger picture

The CMA's proposal is the first time a major regulator has moved to give publishers specific control over AI features in search. Whatever the final version says, it will set expectations elsewhere. Publishers who understand which of their content earns traffic and revenue, and which content is being summarized away, will be ready to use that control well. Those who do not will be guessing.