For the first time, website owners have a way to exclude their content from Google’s AI search features without sacrificing their presence in standard search results. The development arrived through two separate channels on the same day: the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority imposed a legally binding conduct requirement on Google, and Google simultaneously began testing a new Search Console toggle that lets publishers opt out of AI Overviews, AI Mode, and AI Overviews in Discover at the domain level. The catch is that the data needed to make an informed opt-out decision remains incomplete.
Google’s new AI performance reports in Search Console show impressions — how often a site’s content appears in AI-generated search responses — but do not yet show clicks, click-through rates, or any engagement metrics. The CMA’s interpretive notes, published alongside the conduct requirement, explicitly call for Google to provide click-through data, click-through rates, and data separated from organic search results. None of that information is available in the reports today.
Publishers now face a practical dilemma. They have an exit door but cannot fully assess what they would be leaving behind.
How the Opt-Out Option Emerged
The path to this week’s announcements began in October, when the CMA designated Google as having strategic market status in UK search services under the new Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. That designation gave the regulator authority to impose conduct requirements on Google’s search business. In January, the CMA opened a public consultation on proposed conduct requirements, and on the same day, Google said it was “exploring updates” that would let websites opt out of Search generative AI features. By March, Google’s formal response to the CMA consultation had shifted its language from “exploring” to “developing” those controls.
Before this week, no straightforward mechanism existed for keeping website content out of AI Overviews while preserving full participation in standard search. A tag called Google-Extended allowed sites to opt out of AI model training and grounding, but it did not prevent content from appearing in AI Overviews or AI Mode. The nosnippet tag affected both AI Overviews and AI search simultaneously, meaning publishers could not opt out of one without losing the other. The lack of granular control left many publishers with no viable option beyond accepting whatever role their content played in Google’s AI-generated responses.
In May, Google introduced a series of AI search changes at its I/O developer conference. The CMA’s final decision on the conduct requirement, published in June, states that the regulator will “actively monitor” those changes. That same month, the conduct requirement was formally imposed, and Google was already testing its Search Console controls with a subset of UK website owners.
Google has not stated whether the Search Console toggle is designed to satisfy the CMA requirement. The company says it is engaging with regulators like the CMA and testing the feature first with UK websites. The result is that the UK has become the first market where both a regulatory mandate and a voluntary platform control for AI search are live simultaneously — a situation that regulators and publishers in other jurisdictions are watching closely.
Three Changes Arrived This Week
The developments that landed this week fall into three distinct categories, each with its own scope and implications.
The CMA’s conduct requirement is a legal obligation. It requires Google to let publishers withhold their content from AI search features and from AI model training. Google must clearly attribute domains in AI responses with links that allow users to reach the source website. Critically, the requirement stipulates that Google must not penalize websites that exercise the opt-out — meaning opting out of AI features cannot be used as a negative ranking signal for standard search results.
Google’s Search Console toggle is a voluntary product change, not a regulatory response — at least not officially. It allows publishers to exclude their entire domain from AI Overviews, AI Mode, and AI Overviews in Discover. Google has confirmed that it will not use the opt-out as a ranking signal for standard search. Page-level controls are not yet available. The CMA has given Google until March 2027 to implement them, a nine-month window that points to early 2027 for granular opt-out capabilities.
Google also began rolling out AI performance reports in Search Console. These reports show how often a site’s pages appeared in AI features, broken down by page and by country. Google has said it will add more data over time but has not specified what those additions will include or when they will arrive.
Where the Data Falls Short of What Publishers Need
The AI performance reports represent a step forward, but they do not yet deliver the information the CMA says publishers require to make meaningful decisions about opting out.
The CMA’s interpretive notes list three categories of data Google should provide. The first is impressions — showing when a publisher’s content appears in AI features. Google’s reports cover that, and the data is useful for establishing a baseline of visibility.
The second category is engagement data, described in the notes as “including data on click-throughs to the publisher’s website from links in search generative AI features and a means by which publishers can easily identify those clicks, and therefore assess their ‘quality’.”
The third is click-through rate, defined as “the percentage of users who click on a link to that publisher within a Google search generative AI feature.” The interpretive notes also specify that this data should be separated from organic search results and delivered through a commonly accessible platform, such as Google Search Console.
Google’s reports currently cover only impressions. Click-throughs and click-through rates are absent. Whether Google will add click and CTR reporting before the CMA’s imposed deadlines remains an open question, and the answer will determine how useful the opt-out tool actually is for publishers trying to weigh their options.
Industry reaction reflects the gap. SEO consultant Aleyda Solís noted on LinkedIn that the reports do not “seem to include prompts / topics information or clicks data but … it’s a start.” Joy Hawkins, owner of Sterling Sky, was more pointed on X: “I can only imagine why they wouldn’t include clicks.” Glenn Gabe, president of G-Squared Interactive, captured the broader sentiment: “AI reporting coming to GSC! Awesome! No click data. NOT Awesome.”
This is not a new complaint. Google has been adding more links to its AI search results for months without releasing corresponding click data. Google VP of Search Liz Reid has described AI Overviews as removing “bounce clicks” rather than useful traffic, framing the change as a net positive for publishers. Without click data for AI features, publishers have no way to test that claim or quantify the actual traffic impact. The difference now is that the missing data sits inside a formal regulatory process, not just an industry feedback loop.
What Publishers Face Now
Freelance SEO consultant Natalie Arney connected both announcements on LinkedIn with a succinct framing: “One gives publishers the exit door. The other shows what it would cost to walk through it.”
That captures the decision publishers face today. The opt-out exists, but the data to evaluate it is incomplete. A publisher that opts out before looking at AI visibility data may be giving up traffic it cannot yet measure. A publisher that stays in gains more from the new reports — a baseline of impressions — but must make decisions using only half the picture.
For agencies and consultants, the AI performance reports provide the first dedicated view of how a client’s site shows up in AI search responses. That baseline did not exist a week ago. Once click data arrives, the analytical picture will shift substantially, and agencies may be asked to help clients evaluate AI search participation across markets, content types, and what the reports reveal about actual user engagement.
The CMA’s goal extends beyond the opt-out mechanism itself. Its final decision describes the conduct requirement as intended to put publishers “in a stronger position to negotiate content deals with Google.” A publisher armed with visibility data and a working exit option holds more leverage than one locked into the system with no alternative. That dynamic has implications not just for the UK market but for the broader global conversation about how AI-generated search results redistribute traffic and value.
Global Implications and the Road Ahead
The CMA’s requirements apply to results shown in the UK, and Google is testing the Search Console controls with UK sites first. But Google has indicated that it plans to roll both the controls and the reporting out globally. The EU’s Digital Markets Act covers some of the same territory around platform fairness and publisher rights, and the DOJ’s proposed remedy in the US antitrust case against Google included a publisher opt-out provision. How the UK implementation unfolds will inform all of those conversations.
The conduct rule takes effect immediately, while other obligations begin in December. The nine-month implementation timeline for page-level controls points to early 2027. The CMA has announced that it will take further action on Google’s search business in the coming weeks, and the interaction between regulatory requirements and voluntary platform changes will continue to evolve.
Google’s AI performance reports currently cover impressions, but the CMA expects click-throughs and CTR. Whether the reporting catches up in time for publishers to make informed decisions will determine how helpful the tool actually is. For now, publishers have an exit they cannot fully evaluate, a visibility baseline they can study, and a regulatory process that is watching closely to see whether the data gap gets filled.
