German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews
German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews
德国法院裁定：谷歌需对 AI 概览中的虚假回答承担法律责任
Landmark German ruling declares Google’s AI Overviews are Google’s own words and makes it liable for false answers. 德国一项里程碑式的裁决宣布，谷歌的“AI 概览”（AI Overviews）内容被视为谷歌自己的言论，因此谷歌必须对其产生的虚假回答承担法律责任。
A German regional court has ruled that Google is directly liable for false claims in its AI-generated search overviews. In this case, Google’s AI had wrongly linked two publishers to scams and shady business practices. The court treated the AI overviews as Google’s own content and rejected Google’s argument that users were responsible for fact-checking the results themselves. 德国一家地方法院裁定，谷歌对其 AI 生成的搜索概览中的虚假陈述负有直接责任。在此案中，谷歌的 AI 错误地将两家出版商与诈骗及不正当商业行为联系在了一起。法院将 AI 概览视为谷歌的自有内容，并驳回了谷歌关于“用户应自行负责核实结果”的辩解。
A German court has ruled that Google is directly liable for what its AI search overviews say. Previous case law shielding search engine operators from liability doesn’t apply to AI overviews. The Regional Court of Munich hit Google with a temporary injunction barring the company from spreading false claims about two Munich-based publishers through its AI-generated search overviews (case no. 26 O 869/26). 德国法院裁定，谷歌必须对其 AI 搜索概览的内容承担直接责任。此前保护搜索引擎运营商免责的判例法并不适用于 AI 概览。慕尼黑地方法院对谷歌下达了临时禁令，禁止该公司通过其 AI 生成的搜索概览传播关于两家慕尼黑出版商的虚假指控（案件编号：26 O 869/26）。
The court classified Google as a direct infringer because the “AI overview” is its own content, not just a list of search results. Google’s AI overviews had falsely tied two publishing companies to scams, subscription traps, and shady business practices for certain search queries. According to the court, the AI mixed up information about other, genuinely sketchy companies with the plaintiffs and drew connections that didn’t appear in any of the linked sources. 法院将谷歌定性为直接侵权者，因为“AI 概览”属于其自有内容，而不仅仅是搜索结果列表。在特定搜索查询中，谷歌的 AI 概览错误地将两家出版公司与诈骗、订阅陷阱及不正当商业行为联系起来。法院指出，AI 将其他真正存在问题的公司的信息与原告混淆，并得出了在任何链接来源中都不存在的关联结论。
AI overviews aren’t search results
AI 概览并非搜索结果
Google’s AI overviews work nothing like traditional search results, the court argues. The AI rewrites and judges results “in its own words and according to its own structure,” the ruling says. In the case at hand, for example, it opened with confident claims like “Yes, [company] is known for dubious business practices,” then built its own structure with a summary, red flags for the alleged scam, and tips for users. 法院认为，谷歌的 AI 概览与传统的搜索结果完全不同。裁决指出，AI 是“用自己的语言并按照自己的结构”重写和评判结果。例如在本案中，它以“是的，[公司名]以可疑的商业行为而闻名”等自信的断言开头，随后构建了自己的结构，包括摘要、所谓诈骗的危险信号以及给用户的建议。
The court also found that the AI overview made claims “that are not even made in the search results.” None of the linked sources drew any connection between the plaintiffs and the shady companies the AI mentioned. The court called these “the defendant’s own statements.” Google built the AI, Google offered it to users, so Google owns what it produces, “because it alone has influence over the AI’s offering and the algorithms with which the AI operates.” 法院还发现，AI 概览做出的陈述“在搜索结果中根本不存在”。所有链接来源均未将原告与 AI 提到的那些可疑公司联系起来。法院称这些为“被告自己的陈述”。谷歌构建了 AI，并将其提供给用户，因此谷歌对其产出拥有所有权，“因为它独自掌控着 AI 的提供方式以及 AI 运行所依赖的算法。”
Search engine liability rules don’t apply to AI “search”
搜索引擎免责规则不适用于 AI “搜索”
The court also examined existing rulings from Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (BGH), which gave traditional search engines and autocomplete limited liability. The BGH had argued that search engine operators were only liable as indirect infringers because they merely made third-party content findable. A proactive duty to check results would threaten how search engines work. 法院还审查了德国联邦最高法院（BGH）现有的裁决，该裁决赋予了传统搜索引擎和自动补全功能有限的责任。BGH 曾认为，搜索引擎运营商仅作为间接侵权者承担责任，因为它们只是让第三方内容变得可被检索。如果要求其主动核查结果，将威胁到搜索引擎的运作方式。
The Munich court found that this reasoning doesn’t apply to AI overviews. A regular search engine just points to outside websites. But AI overviews generate “independent, new, and substantive statements” by evaluating and combining content from various third-party sites. And only Google can check those statements, the court said, “at least by comparing the underlying third-party websites with its own statements based on them.” 慕尼黑法院认为，这一逻辑并不适用于 AI 概览。普通搜索引擎只是指向外部网站，但 AI 概览通过评估和整合来自不同第三方网站的内容，生成了“独立的、新的、实质性的陈述”。法院表示，只有谷歌能够核查这些陈述，“至少可以通过将底层的第三方网站与基于这些网站生成的自身陈述进行比对来实现。”
The court also noted that the AI overview is “by no means absolutely necessary” for using the internet. Traditional search results already help users sort through information, the AI overview is just an extra feature. 法院还指出，AI 概览对于使用互联网来说“绝非绝对必要”。传统的搜索结果已经能够帮助用户筛选信息，AI 概览仅仅是一项附加功能。
Google’s “users can check for themselves” defense falls flat
谷歌“用户可自行核实”的辩护站不住脚
At the hearing, Google argued that users could check the linked sources themselves to verify whether the AI summary was correct. Users generally knew “that information generated with AI should not be blindly trusted,” the company claimed. That’s a remarkable statement given the scale at which Google serves AI overviews. It’s also not entirely true, since the connection between sources and generated content isn’t always there. 在听证会上，谷歌辩称用户可以自行查看链接来源，以核实 AI 摘要是否正确。该公司声称，用户通常知道“AI 生成的信息不应被盲目信任”。考虑到谷歌提供 AI 概览的规模，这是一个令人震惊的声明。而且这并不完全属实，因为来源与生成内容之间的关联并不总是存在的。
The court rejected this. The possibility of disproving a statement through further research doesn’t “regularly exempt from liability for this statement.” The AI overview was “understandable on its own” and contained “a self-contained statement with independently understandable content and no reference to other possible interpretations or even unreliable content.” 法院驳回了这一说法。通过进一步研究来反驳某项陈述的可能性，并不能“常规性地免除对该陈述的责任”。AI 概览是“独立可理解的”，并且包含“一个自成一体的陈述，具有独立可理解的内容，且没有提及其他可能的解释或不可靠的内容。”
Studies show that users almost never click on sources in AI overviews, which supports the court’s reasoning. The court drew a parallel to press law, where publishers are liable for teasers that are understandable on their own, even if readers never read the full article. Google’s own argument would also “significantly diminish” the benefit of the feature, the court noted, if the overview were “generally recognized as unreliable.” 研究表明，用户几乎从不点击 AI 概览中的来源，这支持了法院的推理。法院将其与新闻法进行了类比：出版商必须对那些本身即可理解的导语（Teaser）负责，即使读者从未阅读全文。法院指出，如果概览被“普遍认为不可靠”，谷歌自己的论点也会“显著削弱”该功能的价值。
The court also pointed to a protection gap. If Google were only liable for obvious violations, victims would have no real legal recourse when the AI makes false claims. The third parties whose websites served as sources hadn’t even made the statements in question. So victims couldn’t sue the sources, and under existing rules they couldn’t effectively sue Google either. As a result, Google couldn’t invoke host provider protections under the Digital Services Act or fall back on the standard notice-and-take-down process for search engines. 法院还指出了一个保护缺口。如果谷歌仅对明显的违规行为负责，那么当 AI 做出虚假陈述时，受害者将没有真正的法律救济途径。作为来源的第三方网站甚至根本没有做出过相关陈述，因此受害者无法起诉这些来源，而在现有规则下，他们也无法有效地起诉谷歌。结果就是，谷歌既不能援引《数字服务法案》（DSA）下的托管服务提供商保护条款，也不能退回到搜索引擎标准的“通知-删除”流程中。
AI-generated opinions get less free speech protection
AI 生成的观点享有的言论自由保护较少
As if the rest wasn’t bad enough for Google, the court also went after free speech protection for AI-generated content. An AI’s opinion is “not the expression of an acquired conviction of the persons expressing it, but the result of an algorithm,” the court wrote. Offering AI-powered research is “above all an expression of Google’s business activities” and “at most a secondary expression of an interest in being able to freely express one’s opinion and beliefs.” 仿佛上述情况对谷歌来说还不够糟糕，法院还针对 AI 生成内容的言论自由保护提出了质疑。法院写道，AI 的观点“并非表达者所获得的信念的表达，而是算法的结果”。提供 AI 驱动的搜索结果“首先是谷歌商业活动的表现”，并且“充其量只是对能够自由表达个人观点和信仰的利益的次要表达”。