Goodbye to Google News? The test, the impact and publishers’ reactions
Goodbye Google News? For the past few days, 1 percent of users in eight European countries, including Italy, can no longer find results from Union publishers in Google News, Discover and even Google Search. This is not a mistake, but a test by Google, which chose to suspend the visibility of European newspapers on its main services for a selected sample. The stated goal is to assess the impact that editorial content has on user experience, traffic to news sites and, more generally, on the entire ecosystem of information digitization. This unilateral and apparently unforeseen choice has provoked the concerned reaction of publishers, who also in the past saw Google as a kind of competitor for traffic. In short, the new chapter in the dispute opens new scenarios on the now frayed relations between Big Tech and the publishing world, which we try to shed light on by analyzing tensions, numbers and future prospects for news publishers.
Google News Europe: what’s going on
On Nov. 14, 2024, Google launched a test involving 1 percent of users in eight European Union nations-Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain.
During the experiment, content from EU-based publishers will be excluded from the results of Google News, Discover and Google Search.
According to Google’s statement, the test is intended as an experiment to gather data on how news influences the use of Big Tech products and traffic to publishers’ sites. While this is a relatively small sample, the decision to completely exclude references and snippets to European sources calls into question the delicate balance that governs the relationship between publishers and search engines. And indeed, the initiative, though limited in time and scale, has provoked deep reactions from both the publishing industry and the political world because of its potential implications for the visibility and traffic of news sites.
Moreover, again to clarify the broader context, this test comes at a time of increasing tension in the context of digital copyright regulations : while digital giants continue to be needed for the volumes of traffic they generate, their decision-making independence puts publishers in an increasingly fragile position, which the regulations try to strengthen.
The explanations: why the test on Google News
In a post published on the company’s official blog, Managing Director of News and Publishing Partnerships, Sulina Connal, explained that the move comes in response to direct requests from publishers and regulators. The goal, according to the company, is to provide more in-depth and concrete data on how editorial content affects users’ search experience and the traffic generated to news sites, so as to provide more transparency on the mutual benefits between Google and publishers.
However, the way the experiment was structured-with no prior consultation and an independent choice of how to implement it-has drawn strong criticism. The lack of dialogue, according to publishers’ associations, is a violation of the principle of transparency that should guide all activities with major repercussions on an already vulnerable industry. In addition, there is no shortage of doubts about the real purpose of this test: many suspect that behind the initiative is an attempt to show publishers their bargaining power with a view to future negotiations on fair compensation under the European Copyright Directive (EUCD).
What changes for Italy and the other countries involved
In practical terms, the test changes the browsing experience for a small percentage of users in the countries involved: if we are part of it, we will not find results related to European publishers in Organic Search, Google’s News tab or Discover feed. Instead, any content from publishers from non-EU nations – such as the United States or Asian countries – will continue to appear normally. Although the numbers of the experiment are limited, the potential consequences are significant, considering that a significant portion of digital traffic to publisher sites has historically depended on Google.
In countries like Italy, where publishers’ dependence on traffic flows generated by the search engine is particularly high, the prospect of even temporary removal of European news is a troubling prelude. The effects will be measurable both in terms of immediate loss of visibility and in the perception of users, who may begin to replace traditional sources with other online or non-European platforms.
The peculiarities of the French case: the suspension forced by the Paris court
A case in point is France, initially included in the experiment, but then excluded following the intervention of the Paris Commercial Court. The test was suspended on French territory because it was deemed in violation of commitments Google had made to the authorities on the transparent management of relations with publishers. The Syndicat des Éditeurs de la Presse Magazine (SEPM) appealed to the court, obtaining a measure forcing Google to stop the test, under penalty of a 900,000 euro per day fine .
The court justified the decision by stating that the experiment threatened to alter the balances established by the European Copyright Directive, undermining the fragile agreement negotiated on the regulatory sidelines. For France, which represents one of the most prominent publishing markets in Europe, this decision represents not only a legal success, but also a clear message to the U.S. company: unilateral changes to the digital landscape will not be tolerated without the involvement of local players.
The tensions in France show how complex the relationship between digital giants and traditional publishing is now . Although Google has tried to demonstrate its commitment to the European directive through tools such as the Extended News Previews (ENP) program, which involves more than 4,000 newspapers in 20 countries, it remains a fragile path to follow. The test would now appear to be part of the larger clash between Big Tech and Europe, where any move can set precedents destined to profoundly affect the future of the continental publishing market.
The citation of the Paris Commercial Court decision.
The appeal filed by SEPM was upheld by the French courts extremely quickly. The core of the legal challenge was that the test devised by Google violated the agreements negotiated with French anti-competition authorities in 2022, when the market on the redistribution of revenues from publishing content was opened. According to the order issued by the court, the test would have had a direct impact on the presentation, indexing and ranking of protected content, representing an explicit violation of Google’s binding commitments.
To underscore the seriousness of the situation, the court ordered a fine of 900,000 euros for each day of active testing, with a requirement for immediate suspension until a later decision. These figures are commensurate with the economic impact that a content removal could have generated, both in financial terms and in terms of the balance between publishers and technology platforms. Google, noting the decision, has suspended the test “for the time being,” highlighting that it is working to evaluate new ways of dialogue with the parties involved.
The legal reasons behind the suspension
The legal framework that supported the suspension of the test has deep roots in the European Copyright Directive and French regulations protecting the publishing market. France was one of the first countries to implement the EU Directive back in 2020, requiring Big Tech to pay for the use of online publishing content. This legislation was accompanied by numerous regulatory decisions, culminating in the 2022 agreement between Google and several publishing agencies.
The test announced by Google, according to the French courts, not only undermined the soundness of these agreements, but posed the risk of undermining equal access to the information market. The temporary elimination of European news content would have created an asymmetrical condition between EU publishers and other international news providers (such as those in the United States), fostering an imbalance in traffic flows that would be difficult to recover even later.
Further contentious was Google’s lack of transparency , which was accused of failing to communicate the plan to publishers in advance. This lack of consultation was deemed incompatible with the existing legislative framework and, above all, with the intent of the Copyright Directive, which was created precisely to reconstitute a fair dialogue between platforms and content producers.
The decision of the Paris Commercial Court is not limited to a national context, but represents a milestone in what could become a coordinated reaction of other EU member states. France has set itself up as a model to follow, demonstrating that a firm and timely approach can stem initiatives perceived as destabilizing or punitive by Big Tech. For the countries involved in the Google test, the French affair opens up significant questions: will it be possible to take similar measures to protect local publishers and safeguard market balance? Or, on the contrary, is there a risk of moving toward discordant approaches lacking a common vision?
This case also raises broader reflections on the role of European institutions: it could indeed accelerate interventions by the European Commission aimed at unifying regulations and preventing unilateral tests like Google’s from altering the fragile relationship between digital platforms and the publishing ecosystem. Until then, the “France case” remains an example of effective resistance, but it also highlights the urgency of finding harmonized protection mechanisms at the European level to ensure a sustainable future for digital information.
Publishers’ reactions: accusations of lack of transparency and fear of a dangerous precedent
The editorial response against Google’s decision to launch a test without directly involving industry players has been firm and decisive. The main associations representing European publishing-European Magazine Media Association (Emma), European Newspaper Publishers’ Association (Enpa) and News Media Europe (NME) -were quick to point the finger at the lack of dialogue, calling the initiative a dangerous maneuver, capable of jeopardizing the very economic model on which many newspapers and magazines are built. The main accusation is that this unilateral and unsupported decision sets an alarming precedent, amplifying the power of a dominant platform like Google at the expense of Europe’s fragile publishing ecosystem.
Emma, Enpa and NME: a defense of the publishing business model
In a lengthy official statement, the three associations stressed the gravity of the situation. The complaint is on two main fronts: first, the lack of transparency with which Google has dropped the test from above, without giving advance notice or detailed explanation of its implications; and second, the real risk that the move poses a direct threat to the viability of the European publishing industry. Publishers believe that, despite the proclamations about improving transparency through the data gleaned from the experiment, the move was designed to strengthen Google’s negotiating position and not to truly support the news system.
To bet everything on digital traffic patterns is to depend directly on the flows generated by search engines. Emma, Enpa, and NME have united on this principle, clamoring not only for the suspension of the test, but also for the initiation of a structured discussion with European publishers and stakeholders to prevent similar decisions from causing irreversible damage. The protection of informational pluralism, for the associations, passes through the defense of their business model, which risks being crushed by Google’s disproportionate influence on the digital landscape.
Google’s unilateral decision: specific strategies and accusations
The most recurrent criticism from publishers is directed at the method adopted by Google: a unilateral decision, not contextualized and potentially vexatious to a market already characterized by deep fragilities. For the associations, the test has the appearance of a strategic maneuver designed to show publishers how dependent they are on Google for visibility and traffic to their content. In fact, publishers perceive the initiative not as a neutral experiment, but rather as a clear warning: without Mountain View’s ecosystem, the survival of digital journalism could be even more complicated.
The accusations levied against Google are not just about the lack of notice or the methodology of content exclusion, but directly affect the power asymmetry that characterizes the relationship between the platform and news outlets. With this choice, Google seems to want to reaffirm its dominant position, showing how it can decisively influence organic traffic and, consequently, the advertising revenues of many publishers.
International precedents: parallels with Spain, Canada and Australia
This is not the first time that Google has faced controversy and challenges in the area of managing and paying for editorial content. A case in point occurred in Spain in 2014, when the government introduced legislation requiring digital platforms to pay publishers for the use of their content. Google’s response was drastic: completely shutting down Google News in the Iberian country, with devastating effects especially for small publishers, who experienced a substantial drop in organic traffic, estimated at around 20 percent.
A similar episode occurred in Australia, where the government imposed a law that made it mandatory to negotiate fees for editorial content used on digital platforms. After threatening to shut down the search engine in the country, Google eventually opted for direct deals with large publishing groups, but left major concerns about the fate of independent media. Canada, on the other hand, has seen Google respond by instituting temporary restrictions on news links as resistance to regulations on redistribution of advertising revenues.
These cases only highlight how delicate the balance is between global platforms and local publishing. And the European test seems no stranger to this dynamic of conflict and negotiation, which often sees Google dictating the terms of discussions.
The fear of “implicit blackmail” in the publishing industry
Between the lines of the accusations made against Google, a shared fear emerges: that the experiment could represent a kind of strategic show of strength. The perceived goal of the publishers would not only be to collect useful data, but also to emphasize – implicitly – how vulnerable they are without the platform’s support.
The idea that Google could calculate the exact loss of traffic caused by the absence of content on News and Discover is seen as a message intended to reinforce the company’s negotiating role in future trade deals or in the enforcement of the EUCD. This fear reflects an underlying dependence that many publishers feel they can no longer ignore: Google and other platforms are not mere aggregators, but true digital gatekeepers, capable of defining the future of the online news industry.
In light of all this, as we said, the publishers’ appeal points not only to the immediate suspension of the test, but more importantly to a comprehensive review of the dynamics governing the relationship between large technology platforms and digital publishing.
Goodbye Google News: the impact on organic traffic for sites that produce news
The test initiated by Google is not just a technical experiment, but an event that can significantly affect the online news ecosystem. For sites that produce news, the temporary removal of content from the top 1 percent of Google News, Discover and Search results in the EU countries involved is a test case that generates concern about the immediate implications and future scenarios.
Past experiences in Europe, particularly in Spain and Germany, offer valuable insights into what happens when Google reduces or removes support for editorial content. In the Spanish case, Google’s decision to shut down Google News in 2014 in response to mandatory snippet pay legislation resulted in a dramatic loss for many news sites. Estimates speak of a 20 percent drop in total traffic for smaller publishers, penalized by the lack of an interface capable of directing readers to their articles. In fact, the flow of organic visits is heavily dependent on aggregators, and their lack has resulted in lower advertising revenue and loss of competitiveness with large publishing groups.
In Germany, where Google had initially restricted snippets to avoid the fees charged by publishers, a similar impact quickly became apparent. The resulting decline in organic traffic, generated by the absence of previews in search results, prompted publishers to back off, waiving fee demands in order to restore initial visibility and minimize economic damage.
Figures provided by Google: value per click and monthly traffic flows
Adding further weight to the effects of the test are the numbers accompanying Google’s impact on the dynamics of news sites. According to data shared by the company itself, more than 24 billion clicks are directed to news sites worldwide each month, generating an average value of 7-9 cents per click in a mature market such as Europe. This flow, when translated into advertising revenue and visibility, becomes crucial to the sustainability of many news outlets. For some small publishers, these revenues represent an essential slice of overall returns.
Traffic from Google is not only quantitative, but qualitatively crucial in building a site’s authority and relevance. Being visible among the top Google Search results forms the heart of the SEO strategy of publishers, who rely on a mixture of quality content and technical optimizations to intercept readers. Without this primary source of audience access, it would become increasingly difficult to remain competitive in a landscape where news consumption fragments across multiple platforms.
The strategic weight of Google News for digital publishing: advantages and dependencies
Google News, like Discover and the main search engine, has over time assumed a strategic yet controversial role for the digital publishing ecosystem. On the one hand, the service gives readers quick access to a wide variety of sources and generates visibility for publishers; on the other, its centrality in distributing traffic has created a structural dependence that is difficult to shake.
For digital media, especially smaller media or those focused on local markets, Google is often the main source of traffic, leaving few alternatives for reaching audiences and effectively positioning their content. However, concentrating that power in one platform exposes publishers to high risk when the rules of the game change. The current test further highlights this dynamic: the temporary removal of content from the search engine demonstrates how fragile is the position of those operating within a digital economy regulated by the algorithms of the big tech giants.
How TikTok, Facebook and other platforms are reshaping the role of online news
While 2010 was the decade of Google and Facebook’s centrality, today the digital news landscape is evolving, driven by the emergence of platforms such as TikTok. In the U.S., more than 40 percent of TikTok users say they use the app not only as a means of entertainment, but also as a channel to inform themselves about the news. This trend, which is also growing in Europe, highlights a fundamental shift in news consumption: readers, especially younger ones, are moving to alternative, more dynamic sources based on short visual and narrative formats, in line with the logic of social media.
Meanwhile, Meta (with Facebook and Instagram) has also gradually reduced the visibility granted to journalistic content in feeds, further penalizing media that once relied on referral traffic generated by social networks. The descent of journalistic content in traditional channels, combined with the rise of native video formats such as TikTok’s, is thus reshaping the role of online news, forcing publishers to rethink their distribution strategies.
These changes make even more pressing the need for media outlets to diversify their traffic sources, as we were also saying when discussing how to do SEO today: opening up to a more diverse ecosystem is no longer an option, but a compulsory path to sustain the present and build a future less exposed to the balance of power imposed by the big tech players.
Google and Europe: the long conflict over news
The relationship between Google and European publishing is a complex web, built on more than a decade of tensions, compromises, and moments of strong opposition. This bond has become symbolic of how the big digital players have progressively redefined the value and dynamics of online content distribution. From the first publisher protests in 2014 to the most recent copyright regulations, the shared journey between American Big Tech and European institutions offers a glimpse into the new challenges governing the relationship between platforms and content producers.
2014 marks a turning point in relations between European publishers and Google. Concerns expressed in an open letter by Axel Springer and other major publishing groups, denouncing the platform’s hegemony in content distribution, opened a season of intense confrontations. At the heart of the issue was, then as now, the issue of the economic value of publishing content, which publishers said was being cannibalized by news aggregation services and search results, depriving publishers of adequate compensation.
The European Union’s response was not long in coming. The approval of the European Copyright Directive (EUCD) in 2019 is the culmination of this long confrontation. Thanks to this directive, editorial content published online gains new protection, requiring digital platforms to pay publishers compensation for the use of snippets, previews and links. However, the path to practical implementation of the rule has been far from simple. Resistance on the part of Big Tech, Google foremost among them, and divergent interpretations across EU states have exposed weaknesses in a regulatory environment that is still in flux.
The blocking of Google News in Spain and the ENP program: evolution of the relationship
One of the most emblematic events of the conflict is the blocking of Google News in Spain, which occurred as mentioned in December 2014.
The tug-of-war with the tech giant was resolved to the detriment of small and medium-sized content providers, who saw a significant drop in organic traffic and advertising revenue, and thus provided a very clear answer to the question of “who loses the most when Google decides to pull out?”
While Spain has been excluded from the Google News ecosystem for years, other markets, such as Germany, have tried to find a compromise, albeit with considerable friction. It is from these experiences that the introduction of the Extended News Previews program, a direct response by Google to the Copyright Directive, was born. Launched in 2021, ENP allows publishers to receive specific licenses to allow previews of editorial content to be published on Google’s platforms. Currently, more than 4,000 titles in 20 European countries participate in the program, benefiting from fees based on criteria such as viewing frequency and advertising revenue generated by the pages where the content is shown.
While ENP represents progress toward greater equity, it has not resolved all tensions. For many publishers, the terms of the agreement still do not guarantee rewards commensurate with the real economic value Google derives from editorial content. Moreover, concerns remain that tools such as ENP are a tactical solution to prevent the legal enforcement of heavier penalties.
The 2024 French case: fines and penalties of 250 million euros
France represented another epicenter of the clash between Google and European publishing. In 2024, the French Competition Authority imposed a €250 million fine on Google for failing to meet its commitments in the negotiation of copyright-related rights. Investigations had revealed that despite agreements with French publishers, Google had acted in a non-transparent manner, exploiting editorial content without providing adequate remuneration.
The French case is not an exception, but a clear example of how many European states are taking a stronger stance against technology platforms. Just as was the case with the Paris Commercial Court’s blocking of the test, France demonstrates that strict enforcement can counter abuses of dominance, although there remains room for improvement to ensure uniform regulation at the EU level.
A difficult coexistence model: between mutual benefits and continued friction
Despite the conflicts and controversies, it is undeniable that the relationship between Google and publishers is symbiotic. On the one hand, Google provides publishers with unprecedented visibility and steady streams of traffic, turning it into an indispensable source of readers; on the other hand, publishers provide the quality content that Google uses to keep its offerings relevant on platforms such as Google News and Discover. This interdependence, however, creates an unbalanced dynamic in which publishers’ autonomy is often subordinated to the platform’s strategic choices.
The test currently underway in Europe is nothing more than a new chapter in a narrative already seen, in which Google’s every move seems aimed at highlighting how dependent publishers are on the search engine in terms of both economics and reach. The possibility of greater regulatory control over the big tech players, as well as a redefinition of how advertising revenues are distributed, will be the test case for whether the current model is truly sustainable for both sides. Until then, the coexistence between Google and European publishing will remain marked as much by mutual benefits as by the ongoing frictions and legal battles that characterize their path.
What publishers have learned (and not learned) from these experiences
The experiences in Spain and Germany deliver some key lessons to European publishers, but they also show how challenges continue to remain, particularly in terms of more sustainable economic models.
The first major lesson relates to dependence on traffic generated by a single platform: in both Spain and Germany, publishers demonstrated how vulnerable they are to decisions that exclude or limit the visibility of their news on Google. This centrality of a single actor calls into question the ability of publishers to maintain their economic autonomy and makes it essential to develop traffic diversification strategies that include other channels such as social networks, newsletters, or emerging platforms such as TikTok.
Another key aspect is the difficulty of building equal negotiation. The German case highlights that even when a publisher-friendly law is introduced, the economic and strategic impact of reduced traffic often generates an inevitable backtrack. This trade-off underscores that the power asymmetry between platforms and content producers is deeply rooted and not easily resolved.
However, it appears that in some circumstances publishers have failed to adequately plan for the future, continuing to rely on business models built around outdated dynamics. If there is one concrete lesson that publishers can learn from these two cases, it is that without stronger control over how their content is produced, distributed, and monetized, they will remain exposed to the unilateral decisions of the web giants.
What this situation teaches digital newsrooms
The debate around the Google test makes it clear how one of the key issues for digital newsrooms is access to audiences. The current structure of digital traffic is based on three basic pillars: search engines, social media and direct access . However, the dominance of Google and, to a lesser extent, Facebook has created a critical dependency that manifests itself whenever these players revise the rules of their algorithms or restrict access to specific content.
However, this affair offers an important point of reflection: how can newsrooms improve their ability to intercept profiled audiences and keep their attention without relying too heavily on external traffic flows? The answer would lie in a combination of SEO optimization, use of advanced data analysis tools, and multi-channel distribution that includes proprietary channels (such as newsletters and apps) and emerging platforms.
In addition, Google’s experiment emphasizes the importance of thoroughly understanding one’s users. For many news outlets, building content that responds to accurate analysis of audience preferences can make all the difference, both in terms of engagement and retention. Knowing who users are, how they browse, what they read, and what value they assign to editorial content is the first step in building editorial strategies that are more independent of the unilateral decisions of tech giants.
Strategies to avoid dependencies and diversify sources of visibility
One of the most relevant lessons from this affair is the need for digital newsrooms to diversify their traffic sources. Relying solely on Google (or any other single platform) exposes newspapers to significant risks, not only economic but also related to visibility and editorial autonomy.
Thus, strategies that go beyond the search engine, favoring a more balanced mix of traffic sources, become crucial. The main options include:
- Direct access, stimulated through proprietary tools such as dedicated apps or newsletters that allow building a loyal audience.
- Diversified social media, with a particular focus on emerging platforms such as TikTok, which are seeing growth in use to discover informative content.
- Internal industry collaborations, such as hosted content and partnerships with other industry publications or bloggers, which can expand the readership base without having to go through the search engine filter.
In addition, focusing on more direct interaction with the audience is not only an opportunity to consolidate one’s position, but also a chance to reduce the role of intermediaries such as Google in connecting newsrooms and readers. The goal is to build loyalty that does not depend solely on the attractiveness of snippets or algorithmic ranking, but is based on a true relationship of trust between brand and audience.
From this perspective, the Google test case can be read not so much as a crisis, but as a wake-up call for the industry. Investing in an integrated SEO strategy and promoting source diversification is not only a beneficial option, but a necessity to ensure a future for digital publishing in an increasingly competitive and fragmented environment.
