The Pew Research Center just published a study confirming what the SEO community has been screaming about for over a year: AI Overviews are stealing clicks from websites. The Pew Research Center is not the only organization to reach this conclusion. Multiple independent analyses in 2025 point to the same outcome. For example, a study by Search Engine Land and UX researcher Kevin Indig found that desktop click-through rates fell by around 50% when an AI Overview was present, while mobile clicks declined by about a third. Authoritas reported that traffic to top-ranked news sites dropped as much as 79% when their link appeared below an AI Overview. A large-scale study by Ahrefs, spanning 590 million searches, observed AI Overviews appearing for about 9.46% of desktop keywords and indicated a 34.5% reduction in clicks. These studies reinforce that the Pew findings are part of a growing body of research highlighting the same trend.
Surprise, surprise, Google immediately fired back, claiming the research methodology was flawed.
Anyone who’s been paying attention saw this coming from a mile away.
The Numbers Don’t Lie (Even If Google Does)
The Pew study found that users click on links just 8% of the time when they encounter an AI summary, compared to 15% when they don’t. Even worse, only 1% of users actually click on the sources cited within the AI summaries themselves. That means Google is essentially serving up content from publishers while keeping users locked in their own ecosystem. A user-experience study summarized by Search Engine Land found that citation links inside AI Overviews were rarely clicked (about 19% on mobile and 7.4% on desktop), the median scroll depth inside the overview was only 30%, and overall clicks to websites dropped sharply when an overview appeared. Semrush, using Datos clickstream data, also found that AI Overviews rose from 6.49% of queries in January 2025 to 13.14% in March 2025 and that, for the same keywords before versus after AI Overviews appeared, zero-click rates declined slightly from 38.1% to 36.2%. This nuance reinforces that visibility inside the overview is becoming a critical KPI.
But here’s the kicker: 26% of users end their browsing session entirely after seeing an AI summary, compared to just 16% without one. Google isn’t just intercepting clicks; they’re killing user journeys altogether.
Google’s Predictable Response: Attack the Messenger
Instead of addressing these findings honestly, Google’s spokesperson trotted out the same tired talking points we’ve been hearing for months. They claimed the study used “flawed methodology” and a “skewed queryset” while insisting they “consistently direct billions of clicks to websites daily.”
This is classic Google gaslighting. When presented with data that contradicts their narrative, they don’t engage with the substance. They attack the methodology, question the sample size, and deflect with vague statements about “billions of clicks.”
The Real World Tells a Different Story
While Google disputes the Pew findings, SEOs and publishers know better. At Whole Whale, we’re seeing decreased clicks year-over-year across our own site and multiple client accounts. We now have over a year’s worth of AI Overview data, and Google has combined AI mode and AI Overview clicks/impressions into traditional Search metrics in Search Console. This obscures what we call our AI Brand Footprint, which is our way of measuring a brand’s presence inside AI answers and citations across AI surfaces, and it makes reliable measurement difficult. Until they separate this data, we are left piecing together patterns ourselves, and those patterns are clear.
Scroll through LinkedIn. Check any SEO community forum. Talk to publishers. The story is the same everywhere: significantly fewer clicks, declining Organic traffic, and users getting their answers without ever visiting the source websites.
The Search Central Live Contradiction
This latest gaslighting attempt is particularly frustrating when you consider what Google representatives were telling us just months ago at Search Central Live. They stood on stage claiming AI Overviews bring more traffic to smaller websites, and that the traffic from AI features is somehow “more meaningful.”
When pressed for data to support these claims, Google’s response was essentially “trust us.” They refused to provide separate AIO reporting in Search Console, claiming the feature is “still experimental and changing too much.” Yet they’re confident enough to roll it out to millions of users and make bold claims about its benefits.
The Transparency We Deserve
Here’s what’s really infuriating: Google has the data. They know exactly how AI Overviews impact click-through rates. They know which sites are losing traffic and which ones are gaining traffic. They could easily separate AIO metrics in Search Console to give publishers the transparency they desperately need.
But they won’t. Because the data would likely confirm what the Pew study found and what the SEO community has been saying all along.
“You can fool some people sometimes, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.” — Bob Marley
A Pattern of Deflection
Google’s response to the Pew research follows a predictable pattern. When faced with criticism or data that challenges their narrative, they:
- Attack the methodology rather than address the findings
- Make vague claims about overall traffic without providing specifics
- Shift focus to hypothetical benefits rather than measurable impacts
- Refuse to provide the data needed for independent verification
It’s the same playbook they’ve used for years, and frankly, we’re tired of it.
The Bottom Line
Whether the Pew research methodology was perfect or not isn’t really the point. The study confirms what thousands of SEOs, publishers, and website owners have been experiencing firsthand: AI Overviews are reducing clicks to websites, period.
Google can dispute sample sizes and question methodologies all they want. But until they provide transparent, separated reporting for AI Overview interactions, their rebuttals ring hollow. We have over a year of real-world data showing declining click-through rates coinciding with the rollout of AI features.
The SEO community isn’t asking for much. We just want honest data about how these features impact our sites so we can adapt our strategies accordingly. While clicks are critical, impressions are now more important than ever. Even without a click, being visible in an AI Overview, mentioned in AI mode, or cited within a large language model’s response can build brand authority and trust. In today’s search landscape, visibility is survival. Better to be present in the AI answer than absent altogether. Instead, we get deflection and claims that contradict our lived experiences.
Google built their empire on the backs of content creators and publishers. The least they could do is be honest about how their new features are affecting the ecosystem they depend on. But based on their response to the Pew study, it seems we’ll be waiting a while for that honesty.
Fighting Back Against AI Traffic Loss
While Google continues to gaslight the SEO community, we’re not sitting around waiting for transparency that may never come. That is why we do not just track clicks; we measure and grow our AI Brand Footprint, focusing on tracking presence inside AI answers and citations across AI surfaces. At Whole Whale, we’ve developed proven methodologies for adjusting to new AI Search features from Google’s AI tools using Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) and LLM optimization (LLMO) techniques.
Instead of hoping Google will play fair, we’re adapting our strategies to thrive in this new AI-dominated search landscape. If you’re tired of watching your click-through rates decline while Google makes empty promises, it’s time to take action. Learn how to optimize your content for AI citations and discover the technical implementations that are actually working in 2025.