Google sued by Chegg over AI Overviews hurting traffic and revenue

In a way this is also a renewal of an older pre-LLM tension, a disturbance in the informal equilibrium between summarizing (and pointing-to) someone else's page versus supplanting it.

On one hand, the publisher has an interest in ensuring any summaries that appear don't ruin the purpose of getting visitors, and on the other hand the search engine has an interest in ensuring some floor of accuracy.

If you told me that I absolutely had to use an LLM somewhere in there... I'd probably display summaries provided by the page (e.g. meta tags) and then score or badge the result based on whether the LLM's description of the contents was similar.

Can they solely attribute this to Google? How many of us skip search and goto ChatGPT and friends directly?