Um, not quite, if read with one possible interpretation. (IP lawyer here.)
The patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12536233B1/en — see the claims, which are in the right-hand column of this Web page.
The patent means only that Google can sue people who practice the claimed subject matter without Google's permission.
That doesn't mean there wouldn't be other prohibitions and restrictions.
Example: Suppose you were to invent a drug that boosted IQ by 50 points, and body strenth and endurance by 80%, for 12 hours. You might be legally entitled to a patent for it. But you'd still have to get FDA approval to market the drug. (And your patent might be sidelined before issuance under a secrecy order because of the potential military applications — see, e.g., "The Rush to Patent the Atomic Bomb" (NPR.org 2008). https://www.npr.org/2008/03/28/89127786/the-rush-to-patent-t....)
And as others are pointing out, practicing the claimed method might constitute copyright infringement.
Once you have damages you can sue.
If they’re changing the content of my website before showing it to viewers without my permission that also gets into copyright, tortious interference, possibly trademark, and maybe even CFAA causes.
I imagine this would be an opt-in service. Either the user uses a special browser that’s clearly marketed to do exactly this as opposed to the original content or the website operator opts in to having their content updated on the fly for users like this.
I also don't think regular users just want AI summaries of everything. That sounds like eating plain oatmeal for breakfast every morning. Devoid of fun and flavor.
I’m sure Google understands this, but the author of the article over at Forbes seems oblivious to a company’s own interest in delivering their content to their audience.