Image using Canva elements created by Global Voices.
This post is part of Global Voices’ April 2026 Spotlight series, “Human perspectives on AI.” This series will offer insight into how AI is being used in global majority countries, how its use and implementation are affecting individual communities, what this AI experiment might mean for future generations, and more. You can support this coverage by donating here.
The Administrative Council for Economic Defense (Cade), linked to the Ministry of Justice in Brazil, approved the opening of an administrative process to investigate further Google’s generative AI (Artificial Intelligence) and its use of journalistic content to create automated summaries for searched terms (AI Overviews), which could potentially affect the organic traffic of journalistic platforms, their monetization, and engagement.
It’s the latest chapter in a case that began in 2019 to “investigate the alleged unlawful use of third parties’ news content in the Google Search and Google News platforms.” Last year, the council invited civil society actors, such as unions, associations, and NGOs, to submit their technical and factual analyses before proceeding with the discussion.
Cade aims to “guide, monitor, prevent, and investigate economic power abuse, acting on prevention and repression.” In practice, it operates similarly to the United States’ Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as a competition regulator.
Acting President and Commissioner Diogo Thomson, who voted in favor of opening investigations, considered that the insertion of generative AI functions has “significantly altered the dynamics of access, visibility, and monetization of journalistic content in the digital environment” over the past few years. In this context, he reflected on the possibility that the relationship between Google and publishers “could take on the characteristics of structural dependence” once media outlets increasingly relied on the company’s search engines to reach their audiences.
As reported on Cade’s own website, Thomson also asked whether this conduct “may constitute a potential exploitative abuse of dominance, characterized by the extraction and internalization of economic value from content produced by third parties, without proportional compensation, in a context of asymmetry and the lack of effective alternative arrangements.”
Another commissioner, Camila Cabral Pires Alves, who also voted in favor of the investigation, stressed that “Google uses [the material] without prior authorization from the companies that produce the journalistic content,” according to online news outlet G1.
Brazilian journalism outlet Núcleo explained what the investigation should examine moving forward:
One of the measures in the administrative proceedings will be distinguishing between the traditional excerpts shown by Google (known as snippets) and the AI Overviews summaries. Another point to be examined is the zero-click issue, when users simply read a summary and do not click on reference links, cutting off traffic referrals to news outlets — something critically important for journalism.
Perhaps even more pointed will be the attempt to estimate the value Google retains from digital advertising compared to the editorial costs news outlets bear to produce journalism. That is one of the key breakthroughs of this proceeding, it will effectively put numbers on something the company has never disclosed.
Lastly, CADE will require Google to disclose all of its tests — not just the “selective” conclusions that favor its case.
Journalism organizations supported Cade’s decision. Ajor (Digital Journalism Association) issued a statement calling it “a right step in investigating AI’s impact on journalism”:
A balanced relationship between digital platforms and journalism organizations is fundamental to the flourishing of journalism committed to the public interest. By ensuring a fair competitive environment, Cade directly advances that goal. The decision also underscores the urgency of developing remuneration models that recognize journalism’s social function in combating disinformation and that address the appropriation, by digital platforms, of the content and economic value generated by this work.
Marcelo Rech, president of the National Newspapers’ Association (ANJ), considered the decision a historical mark, saying:
Com o resultado do julgamento, o Cade demonstra que está na linha de frente de uma preocupação que não se limita a uma mera questão econômica. O tema de fundo é a sustentabilidade da informação de qualidade, do jornalismo que atende, sem substitutos, as comunidades locais e a pluralidade de visões, o que é fundamental em sociedades democráticas.
With this decision, Cade demonstrates it is at the frontline of a concern not limited to a mere economic issue. The issue at stake is the sustainability of quality information, of a journalism that answers, without substitutes, to local communities and plural visions, which is fundamental for democratic societies.
Responding to a statement published by G1, one of the main digital news outlets in Brazil, Google said the decision “reflected a mistaken comprehension about how their products work and the value they deliver to news editors”:
Em um mundo onde as preferências dos usuários estão evoluindo, o AI Overviews foi projetado para mostrar links para uma ampla variedade de resultados, criando novas oportunidades para que sites relevantes e conteúdos diversos sejam descobertos. Temos um compromisso com a web aberta e continuamos enviando bilhões de cliques para websites diariamente. Seguiremos dialogando com o CADE para esclarecer quaisquer dúvidas sobre o nosso produto
In a world where users preferences are evolving, AI Overviews was designed to show links with a wide variety of results, creating new opportunities so relevant websites and diverse content can be discovered. We have a commitment with open web and we continue to send billions of clicks to websites every day. We will keep talking to Cade to clarify any doubts about our product.
In 2025, Commissioner Gustavo Augusto Freitas de Lima, the case’s rapporteur, recommended archiving the investigation. He argued that the search could also serve as “free advertising” for media companies and that Cade lacked the authority to set remuneration for them, as its role was to analyse anticompetitive practices. Lima also questioned how prohibiting Google from indexing news could contribute to the spread of misinformation and fake news, and how that would operate alongside other platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp.
Lima has since changed his stance to align with Thomson’s view, given the AI’s role in the current context.
G1 reports that the process shall now investigate Google’s conduct and its effects on the journalism industry. It can lead to administrative sanctions for economic infringement. Cade hasn’t given a deadline for the investigation yet.
