Google can be directly liable for false claims in AI Overviews, a German court ruled. The Regional Court of Munich found that AI-generated summaries are Google’s own content and not protected as traditional search results are.
The court issued a temporary injunction barring Google from repeating false claims about two Munich publishers, according to The Decoder. This case centered around AI Overviews wrongly linking the publishers to scams, subscription traps, and questionable business practices.
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.
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.
- The court rejected that argument. Unlike traditional search results, which direct users to external pages, AI Overviews generate new substantive statements from multiple sources.
- The court also rejected Google’s claim that users could verify the information by reviewing the cited links. It found the AI Overview stood on its own and presented its claims as a complete answer.
Why we care. The ruling doesn’t treat AI Overviews like neutral search links. If an AI-generated summary makes false claims about a company, Google may be directly liable for those statements.
Wrong links, wrong claims. The court found that the AI Overview conflated information about other companies with that of the two publishers and created unsupported connections to the source material.
- Because the linked sites didn’t make the disputed claims, the publishers would have had no clear third party to sue if Google were treated only as a search intermediary.
- The court said Google can compare AI-generated statements with underlying sources, at least in cases like this.
Google must stop repeating the claims. The injunction bars Google from repeating most of the challenged claims, including allegations involving scams, subscription traps, questionable company ties, phone calls that allegedly never occurred, and lack of availability.
- Google must pay 80% of the legal costs. Each publisher must pay 10%.
- The court said the risk of repeat violations remains because Google did not provide a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause, and the same algorithms could generate similar claims again.
- The ruling is temporary and may still be challenged. However, it gives publishers and brands a path to challenge false AI Overviews as Google’s own statements rather than merely search results.
Search Engine Land is owned by Semrush. We remain committed to providing high-quality coverage of marketing topics. Unless otherwise noted, this page’s content was written by either an employee or a paid contractor of Semrush Inc.
