A Court Has Ruled That Google Is Liable for False Statements Generated by AI Overviews
A Court Has Ruled That Google Is Liable for False Statements Generated by AI Overviews
法院裁定：谷歌需对 AI Overviews 生成的虚假陈述承担法律责任
A local court in Germany has issued a ruling that could reshape the operation of search engines and artificial-intelligence-based chatbots worldwide. The Munich Regional Court preliminarily ruled that Google is liable for a series of false statements generated by its AI Overviews feature, requiring the company to prevent the dissemination of erroneous or inaccurate claims through its search engine.
德国一家地方法院近日作出的一项裁决，可能会重塑全球搜索引擎和人工智能聊天机器人的运营模式。慕尼黑地区法院初步裁定，谷歌需对其 AI Overviews 功能生成的一系列虚假陈述承担法律责任，并要求该公司防止其搜索引擎传播错误或不准确的声明。
The ruling stems from a case first reported by the Decoder, in which two publishers discovered that Google’s AI-generated summaries linked them, in certain searches, to questionable business practices, scams, and subscription-related frauds, without any basis for doing so.
该裁决源于《Decoder》首次报道的一起案件。两家出版商发现，谷歌的 AI 生成摘要在某些搜索结果中，将他们与可疑的商业行为、诈骗及订阅欺诈联系在一起，而这些指控完全没有事实依据。
Earlier this year, the affected companies sent the tech giant a cease-and-desist letter, according to the report. Google denied liability, arguing that its automatic summary feature warns users that the information may contain errors and should be independently verified.
据报道，今年早些时候，受影响的公司向这家科技巨头发送了停止侵权函。谷歌否认承担责任，辩称其自动摘要功能已向用户发出警告，提示信息可能包含错误，应进行独立核实。
The court’s analysis concluded that Google’s AI combined information corresponding to other companies that had been flagged for possible illicit practices with data from the plaintiffs, generating associations that did not appear in any of the sources linked by the search engine.
法院分析认为，谷歌的 AI 将其他被标记为可能存在非法行为的公司的信息，与原告的数据进行了合并，从而生成了在搜索引擎链接的任何来源中都不存在的关联信息。
The authorities found that, unlike traditional search engines, which merely display lists of links with statements made by third parties, Google’s tool produced “independent, new, and substantial statements” based on a misinterpretation of information available on the internet.
当局发现，与仅展示第三方声明链接列表的传统搜索引擎不同，谷歌的工具基于对互联网现有信息的误读，产生了“独立、全新且实质性的陈述”。
According to the court, correcting misinformation is not the responsibility of third parties. Google is the only entity with the ability to modify the technology underpinning its AI-generated summaries and, therefore, “must be held accountable.” Furthermore, the court found that Google’s line of defense lacked merit, since the challenged summary “contains statements that do not appear at all in the search results.”
法院认为，纠正错误信息并非第三方的责任。谷歌是唯一有能力修改其 AI 生成摘要底层技术的实体，因此“必须承担责任”。此外，法院认为谷歌的辩护理由不成立，因为被质疑的摘要“包含了在搜索结果中完全不存在的陈述”。
A New (and Forceful) Interpretation of AI on the Web
对网络 AI 的一种全新（且强力）解读
The court’s interpretation of AI’s role in presenting search results could make this case a historic precedent. It finds a large tech company responsible for the influence of its most advanced developments on widely used platforms.
法院对 AI 在呈现搜索结果中所扮演角色的解读，可能使本案成为一个历史性的先例。它认定一家大型科技公司必须对其最先进技术在广泛使用平台上的影响负责。
Until now, in most legal systems, search engines have been considered tools that merely facilitate access to content created by third parties and available on the web. This status has afforded them a certain level of protection when the published information is false, inaccurate, misleading, or even defamatory.
在此之前，在大多数法律体系中，搜索引擎被视为仅提供访问第三方创建并存在于网络上的内容的工具。这种地位使它们在所发布的信息虚假、不准确、误导性甚至诽谤时，享有一定程度的保护。
However, the German court held that this safeguard no longer applies when search engines incorporate generative AI systems. According to its reasoning, this technology is capable of producing nonexistent claims based on multiple sources and, consequently, the companies responsible for operating it must assume liability for the resulting content.
然而，德国法院裁定，当搜索引擎整合了生成式 AI 系统时，这种保护措施不再适用。其理由是，该技术能够基于多个来源编造不存在的声明，因此，负责运营该技术的公司必须对由此产生的内容承担责任。
The judges also concluded that while Google encourages users to verify information due to the potential for hallucinations inherent in AI models, this warning does not absolve the content distributor of liability. Otherwise, they argued, victims of false statements would be virtually defenseless, since the original sources never made those statements and, therefore, could not be subject to legal action.
法官们还得出结论，尽管谷歌因 AI 模型固有的“幻觉”风险而鼓励用户核实信息，但这种警告并不能免除内容分发者的责任。他们认为，否则虚假陈述的受害者将几乎无法自卫，因为原始来源从未发表过这些言论，因此无法对其采取法律行动。
Likewise, the court held that results generated by an AI system cannot be protected under the principles of free speech, as they are the product of an algorithm designed, trained, and managed by a company, and not the expression of an individual opinion.
同样，法院裁定，AI 系统生成的结果不能受到言论自由原则的保护，因为它们是由公司设计、训练和管理的算法产物，而非个人观点的表达。
As a precautionary measure to prevent possible recurrence, the ruling required Google to remove a large portion of the statements deemed defamatory in this case, and to cover 80 percent of the legal costs arising from the proceedings.
作为防止此类事件再次发生的预防措施，裁决要求谷歌删除本案中被认定为诽谤的大部分陈述，并承担诉讼产生的 80% 的法律费用。
A company spokesperson, quoted by Ars Technica, suggested that the decision could be appealed. “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,” the statement says. “We’re carefully reviewing this decision, which is not yet final.”
据《Ars Technica》援引的一位公司发言人称，该决定可能会被上诉。“我们投入大量精力提升 AI Overviews 的质量，以确保绝大多数回复提供准确信息，且它们旨在反映网络上已有的信息，”声明称，“我们正在仔细审查这一尚未最终生效的决定。”
The German court’s ruling could have global repercussions for the artificial intelligence industry. Companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Perplexity AI also warn their users that the responses generated by their systems may contain errors or be misleading and, like Google, recommend verifying the information before using it. This warning is typically found in the terms of service that users agree to when creating an account on a platform.
德国法院的这一裁决可能会对人工智能行业产生全球性影响。OpenAI、Anthropic 和 Perplexity AI 等公司也警告用户，其系统生成的回复可能包含错误或具有误导性，并像谷歌一样，建议用户在使用前核实信息。这种警告通常出现在用户在平台上创建账户时所同意的服务条款中。
However, this case argues that such warnings are not sufficient to exempt developers from liability. The ruling holds that when an AI generates new statements that do not appear directly in its original sources, the company that designs, trains, operates, and manages the system must assume legal liability for any damages caused by those statements.
然而，本案提出，此类警告不足以免除开发者的责任。裁决认为，当 AI 生成了在原始来源中并未直接出现的全新陈述时，设计、训练、运营和管理该系统的公司必须对这些陈述造成的任何损害承担法律责任。