How AI Overviews are crushing click-through rates

The data from late 2025 and early 2026 is consistent across studies: AI Overviews are taking clicks away from organic search results. Position one no longer means what it used to. And publishers are suing Google over it.

This article covers the research findings, the real traffic losses publishers have reported, and the antitrust cases building against Google's AI-generated answers.

The headline numbers

Multiple independent studies have measured the CTR impact of AI Overviews. The findings align.

Ahrefs analyzed 300,000 keywords in December 2025 and found that AI Overviews reduce clicks to the top-ranking organic result by 58%. When an AI Overview appears at the top of the SERP, the traditional position-one advantage drops by more than half.

Seer Interactive tracked 3,119 queries across 42 organizations from June 2024 through September 2025, totaling 25.1 million impressions. Their finding: organic CTR drops 61% when an AI Overview appears. Paid search CTR dropped even more, falling 68% on AI Overview queries.

Pew Research found that CTR drops from 15% to 8% when an AI Overview is present on the results page. That's a 47% decline in likelihood that users click through.

The studies use different methodologies, different sample sizes, different time periods. They arrive at the same conclusion.

What the studies found

The Seer Interactive study

Seer Interactive's longitudinal study is the most comprehensive data on AI Overview impact available. They tracked 3,119 queries across 42 organizations over 16 months, capturing 25.1 million impressions.

Key findings:

Organic CTR fell from 1.76% to 0.61% when AI Overviews appeared (61% decline)
Paid CTR fell 68% on AI Overview queries
The drop affected both branded and non-branded queries
Impact was consistent across industries

The methodology matters here. Seer compared CTR for the same queries before and after AI Overviews appeared, controlling for other SERP changes. This isolates the AI Overview effect rather than conflating it with other ranking factors.

The Ahrefs study

Ahrefs took a different approach. They analyzed 300,000 keywords in December 2025, comparing CTR on queries with AI Overviews versus queries without them.

Their 58% reduction finding specifically measures the impact on position-one results. If you rank first on a query without an AI Overview, you get a certain baseline CTR. If you rank first on a query with an AI Overview, you get 58% fewer clicks.

Ahrefs also found that 76.1% of URLs cited within AI Overviews also appear in the top 10 organic results. This suggests AI Overviews are pulling from the same content that would otherwise receive clicks.

User behavior research

SE Ranking research found that 43% of searches with an AI Overview end without any click, compared to 34% zero-click rate without an AI Overview. The presence of an AI Overview pushes roughly 9% more users toward no click at all.

More concerning for publishers: Pew Research found that only 1% of users click links cited within AI Overviews. Being cited in the AI response provides brand visibility, but the traffic benefit is minimal.

The data suggests users read the AI Overview, get their answer, and leave. The citation links are largely ignored.

The publisher casualties

Abstract statistics matter less than real-world impact. Multiple publishers have disclosed traffic losses attributable to AI search changes.

Named losses

HubSpot reportedly saw 70-80% organic traffic decline, according to Kellogg School of Management analysis. HubSpot's response has been to pivot toward revenue per visitor rather than raw traffic volume.

CNN traffic declined 27-38% according to industry reports, with executives attributing the decline partly to AI-generated search results reducing click-through.

Forbes reportedly saw a 50% traffic decline, though the company has not confirmed specific numbers.

Daily Mail reported CTR on AI Overview searches running 80-90% lower than traditional search results. Their data comes from internal tracking comparing identical query types.

Chegg disclosed a 49% drop in non-subscriber traffic in a single month in early 2025. This data appeared in their lawsuit against Google (more on that below).

The Planet D, a travel blog that had operated for over a decade, ceased publication entirely after reporting a 90% traffic loss following AI Overview rollout to travel queries.

The DCN study

The Digital Content Next (DCN) organization, which represents major digital publishers, commissioned research on AI Overview impact across their membership.

Their findings showed a consistent pattern: informational content is hit hardest. Publishers whose traffic depends on answering factual questions are seeing the largest declines. Publishers with transactional or entertainment content are less affected.

This aligns with what we know about AI Overview prevalence. 88.1% of queries that trigger AI Overviews are informational, according to SE Ranking analysis.

Why some sites are getting hit harder

Industry exposure

AI Overviews have expanded unevenly across verticals. SE Ranking data shows AI Overview growth by industry:

Real estate: +258% increase in AI Overview appearances
Restaurants: +273%
Retail: +206%

If your site covers topics in these verticals with informational content, you're in the highest-impact zone.

Conversely, queries with transactional intent (buy, purchase, order) trigger AI Overviews less frequently. Google appears to recognize that users searching to buy something need to visit a site to complete the transaction.

Informational vs transactional queries

The distinction matters. 88.1% of AI Overview queries are informational. If your content strategy is built around answering questions, you're competing directly with Google's AI-generated answers.

Sites that rank for transactional, navigational, or branded queries see smaller CTR impacts. Users searching for "Nike store near me" or "buy MacBook Pro" are less likely to get their answer from an AI summary.

Mobile vs desktop

The impact is also unevenly distributed across devices. SparkToro analysis found that 77.2% of mobile searches end without a click, compared to 46.5% on desktop.

AI Overviews display prominently on mobile, often occupying the entire visible screen above the fold. Users would need to scroll past the AI answer to see organic results. Most don't.

Desktop users have more screen real estate, making organic results visible alongside the AI Overview. The CTR impact, while still significant, is less severe.

The zero-click acceleration

AI Overviews are accelerating a trend that was already underway. 60% of Google searches end without a click, a number that's been rising for years. AI Overviews make this worse.

The SE Ranking comparison is stark:

34% zero-click rate without AI Overview
43% zero-click rate with AI Overview
93% zero-click rate in Google AI Mode

Google AI Mode, currently in limited rollout, represents the logical endpoint of this trend. When the entire results page is an AI-generated response with collapsible source links, zero-click becomes the default.

For more data on the zero-click trend and AI search adoption, see our AI search statistics for 2026.

Google is being sued over this

The CTR decline isn't just a business concern. It's becoming a legal issue.

Chegg lawsuit (February 2025)

Chegg, the education technology company, filed the first major antitrust lawsuit specifically targeting AI Overviews in February 2025. Their complaint alleges that Google's AI Overviews:

Use Chegg's content to generate answers without compensation
Redirect traffic that would otherwise go to Chegg
Constitute an anticompetitive extension of Google's search monopoly

Chegg pointed to their 49% traffic decline as evidence of harm. The case is ongoing.

Penske Media lawsuit (September 2025)

Penske Media Corporation, parent company of Rolling Stone, Billboard, Variety, and other publications, filed suit in September 2025. Their argument: Google uses their content to train AI systems and generate AI Overviews without licensing or adequate attribution.

The lawsuit seeks damages and potentially an injunction against using Penske Media content in AI responses.

European Publishers Council complaint (February 2026)

The European Publishers Council, representing major publishers across the EU, filed a formal antitrust complaint with the European Commission in February 2026. Their complaint focuses on AI Overviews as an abuse of Google's dominant market position.

European regulators have historically been more aggressive in pursuing antitrust cases against U.S. tech companies. This complaint may receive faster action than the U.S. lawsuits.

Google's defense

Google has pushed back on third-party traffic studies. Their position: overall traffic to publishers remains "relatively stable" year-over-year, and third-party studies use "flawed methodologies" that don't account for the full picture.

Google argues that AI Overviews drive discovery, introducing users to sites they wouldn't have found otherwise. They also point to the fact that AI Overview citations link to source sites, providing attribution.

Publishers counter that visibility without clicks doesn't pay bills.

The citation advantage

The news isn't entirely negative. There's growing evidence that being cited in AI Overviews, while not delivering the clicks of traditional ranking, provides benefits.

Seer Interactive found that brands cited in AI Overviews get 35% more organic clicks than brands not cited. When users do click through, they're more likely to click on brands they saw mentioned in the AI response.

Paid search benefits even more. Cited brands see 91% more paid clicks according to the same study.

This creates a two-tier outcome:

If you're cited: You lose clicks overall but capture a larger share of remaining clicks
If you're not cited: You lose clicks overall and get no AI visibility benefit

The implication for strategy is clear. In an AI Overview world, being cited matters more than traditional ranking position. This is the domain of generative engine optimization (GEO) and answer engine optimization (AEO).

What this means for your strategy

The data points toward several strategic implications.

Accept lower traffic, focus on traffic quality

Some traffic loss may be permanent. Users who previously clicked to find information will increasingly get answers from AI summaries. Fighting this by adding more content may not help.

Instead, focus on traffic that still arrives. AI search visitors convert at 4.4x the rate of traditional organic visitors according to Semrush data. Fewer visitors, but more valuable ones.

Optimize for citation

If AI Overviews are going to answer questions with or without your content, you want to be cited when they do. This means:

Adding statistics and data to your content (AI systems prefer citable facts)
Including expert quotes and authoritative sources
Structuring content so answers are extractable
Keeping content fresh (95% of AI citations come from content updated within 10 months)

For detailed strategies, see our guides on generative engine optimization and answer engine optimization. For a comparison of approaches, see our SEO vs GEO vs AEO breakdown.

Diversify traffic sources

Dependence on Google organic traffic is riskier than it was a year ago. Publishers reducing that dependence are exploring:

Direct traffic through email lists and newsletters
Social platform distribution
Paid acquisition where unit economics work
Content formats AI can't easily summarize (video, interactive tools, original research)

Watch the lawsuits

The antitrust cases against Google may affect how AI Overviews work. If Chegg, Penske Media, or the European Publishers Council prevail, Google may be required to change how AI Overviews use and attribute content.

This doesn't mean waiting to adapt. But it does mean the current rules may change.

Key takeaways

AI Overviews reduce organic CTR by 58-61% according to independent studies.

Zero-click rates increase by about 9 percentage points when AI Overviews appear.

Publishers including HubSpot, CNN, Forbes, and Chegg have disclosed traffic declines of 30-80%.

Mobile users are hit hardest, with 77.2% zero-click rates.

Google is facing lawsuits from Chegg, Penske Media, and European publishers over AI Overview practices.

Being cited in AI Overviews provides 35% higher organic CTR compared to not being cited.

Adaptation means optimizing for citation (GEO/AEO), accepting lower traffic volumes, and diversifying traffic sources.

The click-through rate as a metric for search success is being redefined. Whether that's a temporary disruption or a permanent shift depends partly on the outcome of ongoing litigation, and partly on how publishers adapt their strategies.