The Regional Court of Munich has issued a preliminary injunction against Google, establishing that the company can be held liable for defamatory information generated by its “AI Overviews” search feature. The court ruled that the AI-generated summaries do not qualify for the traditional intermediary liability protections typically afforded to search engines, as they constitute “independent, new, and substantive statements” rather than mere indexes of third-party content.
Investigation And Legal Ruling
The legal action was brought by two Munich-based publishers who alleged that Google’s AI feature falsely associated them with scams, subscription traps, and other fraudulent business activities. During the proceedings, Google argued that the responsibility for verifying information rests with the user; however, the court rejected this defence. Consequently, the court ordered Google to cease the dissemination of the disputed claims and ruled that the company must cover 80% of the associated legal costs.
Legal Implications For AI Transparency
This ruling marks a significant departure from the established legal framework that has long protected search engines by categorising them as passive conduits of information. By classifying AI-generated summaries as editorial statements, the court has effectively placed the burden of accuracy for “hallucinations”—the tendency of AI models to generate false or misleading facts—directly onto the developers of the technology. “The Munich court has sent a clear and important signal that providers cannot hide themselves behind AI in the event of misrepresentations,” said Bernhard Buchner, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs.
Responding to the decision, a Google spokesperson stated: “We invest deeply in the quality of AI Overviews to ensure that the overwhelming majority of responses provide accurate information, and they are designed to reflect the information that exists on the web. We’re carefully reviewing this decision, which is not yet final.” The ruling is expected to face further scrutiny as the case progresses, with potential widespread implications for the future deployment of generative AI tools in the European market.