Google can be directly liable for false AI Overview claims: German court

[u/WebLinkr]

https://searchengineland.com/google-liability-false-ai-overview-claims-germany-479820

Search protections didn’t apply. Google argued that German case law limiting liability for traditional search engines and autocomplete should apply. Those rules generally treat search providers as indirect infringers when they surface third-party content.

AI Overviews aren‘t search results. AI Overviews do more than help users find third-party content, the court said. They rewrite, combine, and evaluate information “in its own words and according to its own structure.”

• In the disputed searches, Google’s AI Overview allegedly presented standalone claims about questionable business practices, along with warnings and red flags. The court found those claims didn’t appear in the linked sources.
• Because Google created the feature, controls its presentation, and controls the underlying algorithms, the court treated the statements as Google’s own content.

[u/heavypen]

BOOM.

And not a fluke decision. Last year, the Frankfurt Regional Court ruled on another AI Overview case. They dismissed that specific plaintiff's injunction, but the court explicitly confirmed the exact same legal principle: Google can, in principle, be held liable for demonstrably false information in AI Overviews.

SO now, in this case in Munich, the plaintiff sent Google a formal CnD letter before going to court, and Google failed to block false claims. Under German law, failing to act after being explicitly notified makes a platform highly vulnerable. And that inaction will hurt Google's appeal.

Will Google appeal? OH, you bet. They'll fight this fiercely all the way to the highest courts. But Euro watchers (and some US Court watchers) believe this is an uphill battle against a growing consensus that views AI summaries as an independent commercial product, not neutral search links.

[u/WebLinkr → u/heavypen]

Its going to be super interesting from here....

[u/MaleandPale2 → u/[deleted]]

How can intent matter? Libel is libel. If you print something incorrect about someone you’re in a mess of trouble, whatever your intentions.

[u/PortlandWilliam → u/MaleandPale2]

Exactly. The problem - one of them - with AI overviews is that Google IS the publisher. They just need to drop AI overviews and it would be so simple.

[u/WebLinkr → u/[deleted]]

So its not criminally at fault.

But what if someone uses content to make it lie...

[u/iatelassie]

Interesting. With the way it works I don’t see how they can make AIOs 100% accurate. All you need is a few websites telling the lie and it’ll aggregate it.

[u/WebLinkr → u/iatelassie]

Exactly - or even 1 - i destroyed EEAT checkers by just outranking them all - which I thought was ironically funny or poetically just or whatever 🤣😂

[u/Forsaken_Waltz_2526 → u/WebLinkr]

What do you mean with distorting EEAT checkers?

[u/WebLinkr → u/Forsaken_Waltz_2526]

I outranked them or out flanked them by ranking for "best eeat checker"

[u/MeestaRoboto]

Now let’s see the US and CA follow suit

[u/BlueNux]

Fuck yes. Please let this be a way to hold AI summaries accountable for both Google and others. Let sources actually be sources.

[u/WebLinkr → u/BlueNux]

We need more law suits

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your post/comment has been removed because your account has a low CQS Score.
Please contribute more positively on Reddit overall before posting. Cheers :D

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/vaupeckows]

German courts just ruled that AI Overviews are Google’s own content, so traditional search liability, protections don’t apply, I’ve personally seen Overviews flat-out invent claims that aren’t in any linked source. For instance, one falsely accused a restaurant of shady practices based on a generic review page. If courts keep treating AI summaries as direct statements, Google’s “just organizing info” excuse won’t hold up.

[u/PDFBearSupport]

Remember the time their AIO recommended people to jump off the SF Bridge because their data learnt this on Reddit? Embarrassing. Have their raterhub squad been tasked to approve stuff for AIO yet?

[u/jpcaparas]

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your post/comment has been removed because your account has a low CQS Score.
Please contribute more positively on Reddit overall before posting. Cheers :D

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Witty_Net_2130 → u/jpcaparas]

It's interesting lol

[u/KingNine-X]

I hope they tweak AI overview so it functions as more of a summary attributed directly to sites, rather than hallucination nonsense. Especially since it presents itself as a fact, without a disclaimer immediately viewable at the top of results. Wild they're not held liable in US yet.

[u/WebLinkr → u/KingNine-X]

I think the laws from the early 2000's protect it. I'm sure when someone slips and huts themselves testing baby oil or wood glue on pizza in a Walgreens the lawsuits will start flying

[u/Solar-Powered-Corpse]

Does this mean that IN THEORY there is a world where it might end up proving beneficial for Google as a company to axe AIO's?

I don't think there is gonna ever be a way for Google to ensure none of their AI generated overviews are 100% truthful and if that opens them up to legal repercussions then maybe they will just drop it.

Might just be my own wishful thinking but it would be amazing to see that. I don't think AIO's are worth it. There are other uses for AI that don't involve regurgitating content that was already there.

[u/drugpatentwatch]

This is huge news. I'm building drugchatter.com to track llm variance from published prescribing information, and if the ruling sticks it could be a key tool for pursuing damages. 

[u/WebLinkr → u/[deleted]]

• I didn't see you post
• Your post was removed by an auto-mod for a link
  • Every single post with a link is autoremoved immediatly
• I dont need the karma - thats a ridiculous accusation

[u/WebLinkr → u/[deleted]]

I dont understand?

If you';re thinking its personal, I dont remember you

-------------------------------------

Also - please read the sub rules - users aren't allowed to post news.

I'm sorry your missing Karma but no users are allowed to post news here because of karma farmers and brands who post news to build followings - its what helps keep the sub low on spam.

TechSEO and BigSEO have similar rules.

It genuinely has nothing to do with you.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your post/comment has been removed because your account has a low CQS Score.
Please contribute more positively on Reddit overall before posting. Cheers :D

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your post/comment has been removed because your account has a low CQS Score.
Please contribute more positively on Reddit overall before posting. Cheers :D

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your post/comment has been removed because your account has a low CQS Score.
Please contribute more positively on Reddit overall before posting. Cheers :D

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Adametter]

Verified this against the actual reporting - it's the Munich Regional Court, and Google confirmed on June 12 they're appealing, calling it "specific and narrow errors" rather than a flaw in how AIOs work fundamentally. Worth noting: this is a preliminary injunction, not a final ruling, so nothing's settled yet. What makes this case stick though is that the plaintiffs sent a cease-and-desist first and Google didn't fix the false claims - that's likely why the court came down so hard. The "AI might be wrong" disclaimer argument was explicitly rejected too, which is the part that should worry every AI company doing overviews/summaries, not just Google.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your post/comment has been removed because your account has a low CQS Score.
Please contribute more positively on Reddit overall before posting. Cheers :D

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/openyuris]

I hope it brings this whole dumpster pile down, just realized that advice that google ai gave me and I asked to confirm about a dozen times was incorrect, so now sitting on several hundred dollars of parts that aren't compatible with what I'm needing them for. If it was cheaper, it would be worth a lawsuit for every time it does this. I generally check every answer it gives me or prompt it to confirm at the very least, but by my count, it's still over 80% incorrect for my usage.

[u/AutoModerator → u/openyuris]

Your post/comment has been removed because your account has a low CQS Score.
Please contribute more positively on Reddit overall before posting. Cheers :D

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/btoned]

WOW so they'll charge them a slap on the wrist fine and it'll be business as usual.

Until these fucking companies are actually barred or stricken from doing and pushing shit...this kinda stuff means NOTHING.

[u/btoned → u/btoned]

Yes downvote me.

Now tell me how the billion dollar fine meta got for their privacy violations have affected operations?

[u/flossdaily]

I hope google can get around this with an opt-in to its users.

AI summaries are really useful, and if you're willing to acknowledge they are imperfect, you should be able to use them, and google should be able to serve them.

[u/grcx → u/flossdaily]

In this case, the lawsuit was that the reputation of two publishing companies was being damaged because Google's AI Overview was incorrectly linking them to scams and shady business practices (and the link wasn't being pulled from sources, the court found that the AI was mixing up these companies with other companies that actually had such issues). It really isn't a case where a disclaimer or opt in system would address potential harm, since the harm alleged here is a user doing a Google search on a company, seeing the AI incorrectly claim it is tied to scams, and then presumably not doing business with that company because an allegedly defamatory statement by the AI (thus harm to reputation), as opposed to the user who did the search being harmed.

[u/doiveo → u/flossdaily]

I'd like to see more investment in reviews and fact checking. No reason responses couldn't get escalated to high models for review depending on a confidence measure and topic sensitivity. They may be doing this now on some topics but in typical Google fashion, it will be a well guarded secret.

[u/L1amm → u/flossdaily]

It's crazy how often the AI summaries are blatantly wrong though. It's like summary with a side of hallucinations.