Poland has opened another European front in the argument over what Google owes news publishers — but this case is not primarily about setting a price.

It is about the information behind the price.

On 5 October 2026, Poland’s competition authority, UOKiK, announced charges against Alphabet Inc., Google LLC, Google Ireland Ltd and Google Poland.

The regulator suspects Google abused a dominant position during negotiations over remuneration for press publications appearing through Google Search, Google News and Google Discover.

UOKiK’s central allegation is that publishers were not given enough information to test Google’s offers.

That includes information about how press content is used, the revenue Google earns from it, the parameters behind its remuneration calculations and documents that would allow publishers to verify those calculations.

These are allegations.

Google has not been found to have breached the law in Poland, and no fine has been imposed.

UOKiK says the negotiation problem is information asymmetry

Poland amended its copyright framework in 2024 as part of implementing the EU’s Digital Single Market Copyright Directive.

That created a remuneration framework for press publishers when their publications are used by online platforms.

UOKiK says the negotiation process only works if publishers can understand how an offer was calculated.

Its concern is that Google’s information advantage may have made the negotiations largely one-sided.

The regulator says publishers were not given sufficient information about:

  • how Google uses their press publications;
  • revenue connected with that use;
  • the parameters used to calculate remuneration;
  • supporting documents that could verify the calculation.

That is important because the case is not simply asking whether Google’s proposed rate was high or low.

UOKiK says it is not the authority responsible for deciding the correct remuneration.

Its competition case is about whether the negotiating process itself was distorted.

The regulator says a maximum fine could reach 10% of turnover if an infringement is ultimately established.

Google says it uses the same methodology across Europe

Google disputes the implication that Polish publishers have been treated unfairly.

In a response reported by PAP and Wirtualnemedia, Google said it has licensing arrangements covering more than 5,500 European news sites, including more than 70 in Poland.

Google also said it has agreements with more than 20 Polish publishers, including PAP.

It claims those arrangements cover around 60% of news content in Poland and that its agreements across 26 EU countries cover more than 80% of the short news excerpts European users encounter.

Those figures are Google’s own claims.

They should not be treated as independent measurements.

Google also says it uses the same remuneration methodology across Europe.

That defence makes the Polish case more interesting rather than less.

If the methodology is genuinely standardised across markets, scrutiny of what information accompanies that methodology in Poland could become relevant to publishers elsewhere.

The regulator will not set the publisher rate

There are two separate regulatory tracks in Poland.

UOKiK can investigate whether Google’s behaviour during negotiations breaches competition law.

It does not decide what publishers should ultimately be paid.

If publishers and Google cannot agree on remuneration, the president of Poland’s electronic communications regulator, UKE, can determine the rate under the national framework.

That distinction matters.

A future UOKiK decision could potentially address Google’s negotiating conduct without determining the monetary value of press content.

UOKiK’s president said in a 7 October interview that the competition case is likely to take at least months.

Possible outcomes include an infringement decision or a commitments decision.

Google has also referred publicly to an ongoing arbitration, although the precise scope and parties to that arbitration have not been established in the material NEMO reviewed.

France offers the closest European comparison

Poland is not the first European market to challenge Google’s approach to publisher remuneration.

France has already spent years litigating and enforcing neighbouring-rights obligations.

In March 2024, the French Autorité de la concurrence fined Google €250 million for failing to comply with commitments made in 2022.

Those commitments included providing publishers with information needed for transparent remuneration negotiations and using transparent, objective and non-discriminatory criteria.

The French authority also examined Google’s use of publisher content in Bard, now part of Gemini.

It found that Google had used content from publishers and news agencies to train or operate the service without properly informing them and initially without providing an opt-out that did not affect visibility across Search, Discover and News.

Google did not contest the facts in that French proceeding under the settlement procedure.

Poland’s case is different in law and status.

There has been no Polish infringement decision.

But both cases show why information disclosure has become almost as important as the headline remuneration figure.

Issue Poland — UOKiK 2026 France — Autorité 2020–2024 European Commission AI case
Main surfaces Search, News, Discover Search, Discover, News AI services including AI Overviews / AI Mode
Core issue Information supplied during publisher-pay negotiations Compliance with neighbouring-rights commitments Use of publisher content in AI services
Information transparency Central allegation Central part of commitments Different investigation
AI directly in scope? No Bard/Gemini became part of enforcement history Yes
Current status Charges €250m decision in 2024 Investigation
Rate setter? UOKiK does not set the rate Different French framework Not a remuneration-setting proceeding

The Commission’s AI case is separate

The temptation will be to merge all three disputes into one “Google versus publishers” case.

That would be misleading.

UOKiK’s announced Polish case concerns Search, Google News and Google Discover.

It does not say UOKiK is investigating AI Overviews or AI Mode.

The European Commission has a separate competition investigation into Google’s use of publisher content for AI services.

UOKiK says the division between the Polish case and the Commission’s AI work has been coordinated with Brussels.

That distinction is useful for anyone following Google’s regulatory position in Europe.

NEMO’s Google DMA Search tracker separates the DMA fight from national competition proceedings for the same reason: several regulatory systems can affect Google simultaneously without being the same case.

The Polish investigation should therefore not be added to the DMA timeline.

What publishers should document now

Publishers do not need to wait for a final Polish decision to improve their evidence.

Five things are worth keeping.

1. Remuneration offers and methodology documents

Archive every version of Google’s offer, methodology explanation and supporting calculation.

A later dispute is much easier to evaluate if the information available at each stage is preserved.

2. Where content appears

Document important publisher content across Search, News and Discover separately.

Those are the surfaces UOKiK names.

Do not assume evidence from one Google product automatically describes another.

3. Impressions, clicks and referral trends

Track whether news-query impressions, Discover exposure and referral clicks move differently over time.

The existence of snippets or summaries does not prove they caused a traffic change, but the records become useful evidence if negotiations later depend on platform usage.

4. Robots and AI-control settings

Record Googlebot, Google-Extended and any relevant robots.txt configuration.

Do not describe Google-Extended as a general Search opt-out. Search crawling and AI-training controls are different mechanisms.

NEMO’s coverage of the Munich AI Overview dispute makes a similar distinction between a specific national proceeding and broader claims about Google’s AI surfaces.

5. Regulatory chronology

Keep separate timelines for UOKiK, UKE, the European Commission and any arbitration.

Combining them into one chronology makes it easy to attribute a decision to the wrong authority.

This could become a European publisher-pay tracker

For now, Poland is a standalone regulatory case.

But the broader pattern is becoming trackable.

France has a multi-year enforcement history.

Poland now has competition charges.

The Commission is separately investigating publisher content in Google’s AI products.

One more material national or EU development could justify turning this into a permanent NEMO tracker covering platform remuneration and publisher-content disputes across Europe.

Until then, the most important factual guardrail is simple:

Poland has charged Google with suspected abuse of dominance. It has not found Google guilty, fined the company or decided what publishers should be paid.

Sources