Nobody needs AI to search the Internet, court says in ruling against Google
Nobody needs AI to search the Internet, court says in ruling against Google
法院裁定：没人需要 AI 来搜索互联网，谷歌败诉
Potentially impacting all AI search engines and chatbots known to poorly paraphrase source links, a German court has ruled that Google is liable for false statements in AI Overviews. The preliminary ruling came in a case flagged by The Decoder, where two publishers found that Google’s AI Overviews incorrectly linked them to scams and other sketchy business practices.
德国一家法院近日作出裁定，认定谷歌需对其 AI 概览（AI Overviews）中的虚假陈述承担法律责任。这一裁决可能会影响所有因拙劣改写源链接而闻名的 AI 搜索引擎和聊天机器人。该初步裁决源于《The Decoder》报道的一起案件：两家出版商发现，谷歌的 AI 概览错误地将他们与诈骗及其他可疑商业行为联系在了一起。
After smearing publishers by making affirmative statements like “Yes, [it] is known for dubious business practices and is often perceived as a scam,” Google failed to correct the misleading output, even after the publishers sent a cease-and-desist letter earlier this year. Google tried the usual arguments to shield itself from liability for false statements in AI Overviews, such as arguing that most users understand that AI outputs aren’t always accurate and must be verified.
在发表了诸如“是的，[该公司]以可疑的商业行为而闻名，常被视为骗局”这类肯定性陈述从而抹黑出版商后，尽管出版商在今年早些时候发送了停止侵权函，谷歌仍未纠正这些误导性内容。谷歌试图沿用惯常的辩护理由来规避 AI 概览中虚假陈述的责任，例如辩称大多数用户都明白 AI 输出的内容并不总是准确的，必须经过核实。
But the court found that, unlike traditional search engines that merely present lists of links to third-party statements, Google’s tool made “independent, new, and substantive statements” based on its own misinterpretation of links on the Internet. That’s a problem, the court said, because while publishers may have been able to sue to stop third parties from publishing defamatory statements appearing in Google search results, only Google can correct the underlying algorithm and outputs displayed in AI Overviews.
但法院认为，与仅提供第三方声明链接列表的传统搜索引擎不同，谷歌的工具基于其对互联网链接的误读，做出了“独立的、新的、实质性的陈述”。法院指出，这是一个严重的问题：虽然出版商或许能够起诉并阻止第三方发布出现在谷歌搜索结果中的诽谤性言论，但只有谷歌才能修正其底层算法以及 AI 概览中显示的内容。
And because, at least initially, the company did not, it therefore “must be held accountable,” the court ruled. Beyond that, Google’s argument was deemed particularly weak, since the AI overview in this case “contains statements that do not appear in the search results at all.” The court’s order—requiring a temporary injunction barring Google from spreading the false claims in any further AI Overviews—may have global implications, as the court seems to be the first to hold an AI firm liable for AI speech.
法院裁定，由于谷歌在最初阶段并未采取行动，因此“必须承担责任”。此外，谷歌的辩护理由被认为极其薄弱，因为本案中的 AI 概览“包含了搜索结果中根本不存在的陈述”。法院下达的临时禁令要求谷歌停止在后续的 AI 概览中传播这些虚假主张，此举可能产生全球性影响，因为这似乎是首个认定 AI 公司需为 AI 生成内容承担法律责任的案例。
In the past, AI firms have hoped that disclaimers warning about misinformation would protect them from lawsuits over untrustworthy outputs. Last year, one chatbot maker even argued that AI speech is its own category of “pure speech” and the First Amendment should protect it. According to a Google translation of the German court ruling, however, the false outputs were “primarily an expression of the commercial activity of the defendant,” and the AI tool’s “opinions” and false statements were capable of impacting public opinion. The court concluded that, in weighing the balance, publishers’ interest in removing the false information outweighed Google’s commercial speech rights.
过去，AI 公司一直寄希望于通过免责声明来警示错误信息，从而保护自己免受因输出不可信内容而引发的诉讼。去年，一家聊天机器人制造商甚至辩称，AI 生成的内容属于“纯粹言论”的独立类别，应受美国宪法第一修正案的保护。然而，根据对该德国法院裁决的翻译，这些虚假输出“主要是被告商业活动的表达”，且该 AI 工具的“观点”和虚假陈述足以影响公众舆论。法院最终认为，在权衡利弊后，出版商删除虚假信息的利益高于谷歌的商业言论权利。
AI is not necessary to search the web
AI 并非搜索网络的必要条件
Historically, any potentially harmful content surfaced by search engines has been protected from direct liability because that surfacing was considered largely unavoidable when helping users sort through an enormous tangle of information online. But the German court emphasized that AI search engines do not enjoy those same protections because AI summaries merely provide “an additional function—one without which the use of the search engine would still be (and is) possible, and without which users are perfectly capable of finding results amidst the ‘flood of data.’”
从历史上看，搜索引擎呈现的任何潜在有害内容都免于直接责任，因为在帮助用户梳理互联网上庞杂的信息时，这种呈现被认为是不可避免的。但德国法院强调，AI 搜索引擎并不享有同样的保护，因为 AI 摘要仅仅提供了一种“附加功能——没有它，搜索引擎依然可以（且正在）正常使用，用户完全有能力在‘数据洪流’中找到结果。”
In other words, nobody needs AI to search the Internet, so AI firms can’t just let their tools attribute false claims to fake sources without assuming any liability. The court also seemed to take a dig at Google for expecting users not to “blindly trust” AI overviews, noting that the AI tool’s utility “would be significantly diminished if the ‘AI overview’ were generally regarded as unreliable and if every single displayed link required independent verification.”
换句话说，没人需要 AI 来搜索互联网，因此 AI 公司不能任由其工具将虚假主张归咎于虚假来源，而不承担任何责任。法院似乎还讽刺了谷歌要求用户不要“盲目信任”AI 概览的做法，指出如果“AI 概览”被普遍视为不可靠，且每一个显示的链接都需要独立核实，那么该 AI 工具的实用性将“大打折扣”。
It seems clear that’s not how people approach AI search tools. The Decoder noted a Pew survey last July showing most people don’t click on AI Overview source links, as well as a May analysis published by The New York Times that showed that AI Overviews with the current Gemini 3 model are inaccurate about 9 percent of the time and include inaccurate source links about 56 percent of the time. Together, these findings suggest that Google’s AI tool may be cranking out millions of wrong answers daily, with few users verifying the information.
显然，人们并非以这种方式使用 AI 搜索工具。《The Decoder》提到，皮尤研究中心去年 7 月的一项调查显示，大多数人不会点击 AI 概览的源链接；《纽约时报》5 月发布的一项分析也显示，当前 Gemini 3 模型生成的 AI 概览准确率约为 91%，且约 56% 的情况下包含不准确的源链接。这些发现共同表明，谷歌的 AI 工具每天可能产生数百万个错误答案，而几乎没有用户会去核实这些信息。
Should other courts agree that tech firms are liable for any defamatory outputs emerging from this experimental period of AI search chaos, the biggest AI leaders could find themselves soon buried in lawsuits. It remains unclear if Google expects to appeal or perhaps start addressing requests to fix false statements in AI Overviews more quickly following the ruling. Google will likely fight the preliminary ruling. Asked for comment, a Google spokesperson told Ars that “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.”
如果其他法院也认同科技公司需对 AI 搜索混乱实验期内产生的任何诽谤性输出承担责任，那么 AI 巨头们很快就会陷入诉讼的泥潭。目前尚不清楚谷歌是否打算上诉，或者在裁决后是否会开始更迅速地处理修复 AI 概览中虚假陈述的请求。谷歌很可能会对这一初步裁决提出抗辩。在被问及评论时，谷歌发言人告诉 Ars：“我们对 AI 概览的质量进行了深入投资，以确保绝大多数回复提供准确信息，它们旨在反映网络上现有的信息。我们正在仔细审查这一尚未最终生效的裁决。”