Blocking LLMs, is this the next “no-follow”?
Publishers fighting back and it could hurt marketers most (budget/performance etc)
This week’s #SEOForLunch is sponsored by HighOnAI.comUnless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve probably noticed AI has steamrolled its way across the internet—and the world. We’re all stuck in the same loop of cautious optimism and quiet panic over robots taking our jobs, but for online publishers, the bigger question is here and now.
AI is both a source of visibility and the reason click-through rates are tanking. The same technology that amplifies your content is also siphoning off your traffic. And no, don’t buy Google’s cheery spin about clicks being up; they’re gaslighting the industry while the numbers tell a very different story.
So what’s a publisher to do? Options are slim, but one in particular is gaining attention: blocking LLMs (and/or) Google from accessing your site’s content. It might be the only play, but one that could leave marketers paying the price in performance and budgets.
Thank you to this week’s #SEOForLunch sponsorship partner, HighOnAI.com
💡AI SEARCH RANKINGS FOR ONLY $25/MONTH
Track Your AI Search Rankings Instantly
Don’t get left behind. All businesses need to know exactly where they stand across ChatGPT & other AI Search Engines.
With RankHighonAI.com, you’ll get real-time keyword tracking and keyword trends across today’s top AI platforms—updated daily. But we go beyond rankings: see the true revenue potential of every keyword so you can prioritize what pays.
Don’t know where to start? Receive an instant report and get a personalized action plan with your AI Visibility Score, keyword opportunities, and competitor insights.
The WalletHub Bombshell
Blocking Google or locking out LLMs isn’t a brand-new idea. Google has even published documentation on how to do it since AI Overviews launched. But let’s be honest, it’s always felt like a fake choice. What publisher would willingly risk a big chunk of their search traffic to make a point?
Well, WalletHub just did.
Last week, WalletHub announced on X that they had removed 40,000 pages from Google’s index and blocked LLMs, making that content exclusively available to logged-in WalletHub users. Their stated reason? Fighting back against what they call “anticompetitive practices” from tech giants.
It’s a bold move: one part protest, one part power play. In the short term, it’ll deliver some strong PR and earn plenty of backlinks and citations.
The big question is whether this marks a step toward publishers finally being rewarded for their work, or the start of locking content behind walls to survive.
But before you start cheering WalletHub as the hero we’ve all been waiting for, let’s get real…AI Overviews and LLMs aren’t going anywhere.
Don’t get too excited, AI Overviews and LLMs aren’t Going Anywhere, soon.
I get it. Some days, I want to bury my head in the sand and pretend this will all blow over and that SEO will go back to the glory days and live happily ever after. That’s the “loser SEO” mindset I’ve called out before (and yes, I remember your emails/social comments on this topic… thanks for that).
The cold truth? Unless a critical mass of publishers pulls a WalletHub (they won’t) or the pending lawsuits force sweeping changes (don’t hold your breath), AI Overviews will keep evolving toward Google’s endgame: AI Mode as the default search experience.
Scary? Absolutely. But maybe we need that jolt. It’s a reminder that organic visibility can’t live and die at the search bar. If you’re not building brand equity and discovery paths beyond Google, you’re already playing from behind.
Why Blocking LLMs Feels Like the “No-Follow” Moment
Back in 2005, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft introduced the rel="nofollow" tag. The pitch was simple: help control comment spam and shady link schemes by telling search engines, “Don’t pass PageRank here.” It was framed as a win for site owners, with search engines positioning themselves as the good guys.
But like most “good for the web” changes, no-follow quickly morphed into something bigger. SEOs used it for PageRank sculpting. Publishers used it to control where their authority flowed. It wasn’t about spam anymore — it was about control.
Fast forward to today, and blocking LLMs feels eerily similar. Once again, publishers are forced to choose: keep playing nice with platforms that profit off their work, or take back control.
The difference? The stakes are far higher. Blocking LLMs doesn’t just protect rankings — it cuts into AI-driven visibility, referral traffic, and how your brand shows up in the new search experience.
To put it bluntly: this is no-follow on steroids.
Instead of cutting off PageRank, you’re cutting yourself out of the conversation entirely.
Potential Risks for Marketers
Here’s where things get messy: if publishers start slamming the door on LLMs, it’s not just Google or OpenAI that take the hit — marketers will feel it too.
Block your content from AI models, and you instantly shrink your ability to be found. Fewer impressions in AI Overviews, Bing Copilot, ChatGPT Search, Perplexity, you name it. Less exposure means less traffic. And less traffic almost always turns into harder conversations about budgets, ROI, and performance.
Attribution, which is already duct-taped together at best, gets even murkier. Was that lead influenced by your content that never showed up in the AI answer? Or would they have found you anyway? Good luck proving it to your CMO.
And let’s not forget optics. A publisher blocking LLMs might look principled… or they might look like they’re closing off access and being unhelpful to users. Perception matters, and that narrative could cut both ways.
The Publisher’s Perspective
From the publisher’s side, blocking LLMs has some obvious appeal.
First, there’s protecting IP, which is talked about most often. Why keep handing over content for free when billion-dollar AI companies are training on it and repackaging it into answers that cut you out of the clickstream?
Second, there’s the hope of forcing licensing deals. We’ve already seen AP, Shutterstock, and others cut agreements with OpenAI. By shutting the door, publishers gain leverage if AI companies want the content, they’ll have to pay for it. (Although this would only help the established - yours or my content, forget about it)
Third, it helps reduce “free-rider” traffic loss. If AI is already scraping, summarizing, and satisfying queries without sending users through, publishers can argue: why not wall it off and keep the value inside?
And finally, there’s the first-mover advantage. WalletHub’s move might be a test case, but if others follow, it could set a precedent for how the industry pushes back. Early adopters could shape the playbook.
Of course, what looks like control from a publisher’s perspective can look like lost visibility from a marketer’s. That tension is where things get interesting.
So, Where Do We Go From Here?
Blocking LLMs doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing decision. Some publishers may test selective blocking (keeping certain sections closed while leaving others open). Others may try delayed access, letting search engines index content first before opening it to LLMs (although Google/AIO is a package deal which might defeat the purpose of delayed access). And of course, there’s the holy grail: licensing deals where AI companies actually compensate publishers for the content they’re feeding on.
For SEOs and marketers, the takeaway is simple: prepare now.
Audit your traffic sources to understand how much exposure you’re already getting in AI surfaces.
Model what happens if that visibility disappears tomorrow.
Experiment with small-scale tests, like selective blocking, to see the impact before making big moves.
Watch the industry closely. WalletHub might have taken this stand, but they aren’t the first to make moves. Chegg is suing Google for hurting traffic with AI, although my take on Google (not) owing anyone traffic has never been popular.
At the end of the day, blocking LLMs may give publishers a short-term sense of control. But make no mistake: if this trend gains momentum, marketers will be the ones feeling the fallout in performance and budgets… and potentially their jobs.
The question isn’t just whether publishers should block LLMs? It’s also about you being ready for the reality if they do?