The inflection point arrives quietly in regulatory form. Today, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority opened a formal consultation on potential new requirements for Google Search's AI features. Google's immediate response—announcing it's developing opt-out controls specifically for generative AI features—signals the platform is moving from voluntary feature management to anticipated regulatory compliance. This isn't speculation about future rules; it's Google preparing infrastructure before enforcement demands arrive.

The moment is smaller than it first appears, which is exactly why it matters. Google published a policy response to the UK Competition and Markets Authority's formal consultation on Search AI controls. No dramatic announcement. No earnings call. Just Ron Eden, a principal product manager, laying out Google's approach to website opt-outs from AI-generated summaries.

But read it as a regulatory inflection point, and the transition becomes visible.

Google isn't announcing new controls because regulators asked nicely. The CMA's consultation exists because the regulator designated Google Search as a "core digital service" under the UK's new pro-competition regime. That designation opened the door to mandatory requirements. Google's response—"we're now exploring updates to our controls to let sites specifically opt out of Search generative AI features"—is pre-emptive compliance architecture.

This matters because it shows how AI features are moving from innovation cycles into governance cycles. Search AI Overviews launched roughly two years ago. For 18 months they operated as a voluntary feature with limited publisher controls. Publishers could already use robots.txt or metadata tags to block their content from Featured Snippets, which applied to AI Overviews too. But that wasn't enough.

The CMA consultation forced specificity. And Google's response shows they anticipated that move. They're not waiting for enforcement. They're building the opt-out framework now, signaling to regulators that compliance is possible without fragmenting Search functionality across different regions.

This is the pattern we've watched with data protection regulations. When GDPR arrived, tech companies first argued compliance would break their products. When that failed, they built infrastructure. The infrastructure became global standard. Now it's baked into product design. Google's move here follows that playbook exactly: acknowledge the consultation, announce you're working on controls, frame compliance as technically feasible and user-friendly.

What makes this inflection point real is the asymmetry. Publishers have been asking for opt-out controls since AI Overviews launched. Google resisted for 18 months. Now, with regulatory pressure applied, the same opt-out controls suddenly become feasible to build and "simple and scalable for website owners." The technology didn't change. The regulatory environment did.

The immediate stakes are narrow. The CMA consultation is just that—a consultation. Google has a window to respond, show good faith, and participate in rule-making. But the consultation outcome determines everything else. If the CMA mandates opt-out controls, they typically extend across UK-regulated entities. If UK enforces requirements, EU often follows, especially given the Digital Markets Act framework. If EU requires opt-outs, Australia and Canada eventually mirror the requirement.

For publishers, the timeline matters now. Right now, before opt-outs are mandatory, they can negotiate with Google on control availability. Once controls are regulatory-required, the negotiation window closes. Publishers stop bargaining for features they'll get by legal mandate.

For enterprise decision-makers evaluating search visibility, this signals that AI-generated overviews will become publisher-controlable in regulatory jurisdictions. That's different from assuming AI Overviews are permanent, immutable features. If your company's SEO strategy depended on unavoidable AI summary placement, the assumption is shifting.

For Google, the calculation is different. Opt-out controls reduce traffic to websites that block AI feature inclusion. That's a real cost. But the cost of fighting the CMA is higher—fines, forced divestitures, or worse, losing the Search designation appeal. Google's choosing to compete on search quality while accepting publisher choice on AI participation. That's the regulatory compromise.

The next threshold arrives when the CMA releases interim guidance or timeline projections. That determines whether this becomes binding within months (aggressive timeline) or years (extended compliance period). Every month of delay benefits Google, since more users adopt and expect AI Overviews. Every month of delay hurts publishers losing traffic to those summaries.

Google's response to the CMA consultation marks the transition from AI feature innovation to AI governance phase. For decision-makers: the next 8-12 weeks determine whether publisher opt-outs become regulatory mandate or remain voluntary. For publishers: negotiate control scope before compliance becomes binding. For professionals managing search visibility: assume AI-generated summaries will become publisher-controllable in EU/UK markets, plan content strategy accordingly. For investors: watch CMA timeline—acceleration signals regulatory risk to Search AI expansion globally. The inflection point isn't enforcement itself. It's the moment a company chooses compliance before enforcement arrives, signaling what's coming for entire platforms.