16 ms·

German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

• benoau 4mo ago
  > In this case, Google's AI had wrongly linked two publishers to scams and shady business practices. Guess that's the end of their AI overviews in the EU!
  • donaldjbiden 4mo ago
    It depends if Google feels the profit is worth the risks. What profit? I don't know either but they enabled this for a reason right?
    • input_sh 4mo ago
      The reason is to keep you on Google and not have you click away from Google. This is the third iteration of the same concept, after AMP and Instant Answers, but somehow with even less of a pushback than with the previous ones.
  • incompatible 4mo ago
    You'd think so, along with other countries that have defamation laws. But there's no indication of any penalty, and Google wasn't even made to pay all the legal fees. Perhaps their business model (if there is any) can cope.
    • dawnerd 4mo ago
      And lawyers will use this case to build a better defense next time.
    • CamperBob2 4mo ago
      In sane countries, it's enough for them to post a disclaimer ("This is AI. AI can make mistakes. Check all results.") Which is what they do. Overregulation, at best, is a good way to guarantee that your country won't have access to interesting and useful features and technologies. At worst, it's a good way to guarantee that the twenty-first century will belong to the US, if not to China.
      • tadfisher 4mo ago
        Okay then, CamperBob2 is a scammer. Many users report this person has stolen money. (+3 sources) I can make mistakes. It's on you to fact-check my claims. Do you think these are harmless statements? Does the disclaimer suffice? If I was Google's AI Overview, do you think 100% of people will check those sources? There is nuance here, and it's not going away because AI and innovation.
        • CamperBob2 4mo ago
          Do you think these are harmless statements? Yes, I do. An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, whether it comes from Google or from you. If you demand perfection, you will receive nothing. Why is that so hard for people to understand? The world simply cannot work the way you say it should.
          • oaiey 4mo ago
            If it is shown to millions, everyone who is interested in you, they are factually not fact checking and you can do nothing against it. It can destroy you. You are analyzing this on the assumption that people are rational and have capacity to do the check. They have neither.
            • CamperBob2 4mo ago
              (Shrug) That sounds like their problem, if they reflexively believe everything Google's AI tells them. No one I respect, care for, or work with would believe such a thing without additional justification. Anyone who does accept Google's AI output blindly will soon find that their mistaken opinion of CamperBob2 is the least of their problems. There is a reason Google goes (well) out of their way to warn people that the results may be wrong. That should be sufficient warning for reasonable people of good faith.
              • wsng 4mo ago
                The ones who were defamed are companies, and the ones who don’t check the AI generated response are their potential customers which won’t buy from them. It is obvious that the defamed companies are the ones having a problem, not the ignorant viewers. Why should those companies not hold Google liable for that outcome?
  • oowa 4mo ago
    that would be hela curryketchup nice
• maxdo 4mo ago
  Their digital sovereignty
• tristanj 4mo ago
  Anyone know if this ruling applies to answers generated by AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT/Gemini/Claude? All three have the ability to perform a web search, then compose a reply based on the search results. Pretty much the exact thing that Google AI Overview does. This ruling may make them liable for false answers.
  • incompatible 4mo ago
    I don't see any reason why it wouldn't.
  • Kina 4mo ago
    > Pretty much the exact thing that Google AI Overview does. No, the article implies the court’s logic is that the AI search results are presented as search results and that’s a big part of why they are liable. It seems like the court (again, according to the article) does not find the disclaimers that Google has slapped on the AI results compelling because again, it chose to represent these as a summary of search results and it is aware of the failure rate. > 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." Google does not, as a general rule, control the actual content of search results, but usually there’s a distinction between the ranking and presentation of the results vs. the actual content. In this case, the court is basically saying, “You sold this to people as a search summary, you know it might be full of crap and you chose to do it anyway. No, you don’t get to claim the equivalent of a US safe harbor defense.”
    • incompatible 4mo ago
      Apparently, if they were search results, they wouldn't have been liable, since there's an exception to defamation laws. Without any exception, defamation is defamation, it doesn't matter how it's presented.
• keyle 4mo ago
  I'm surprised this is even a thing. After all, you go to Google not for the truth, but to search Google. Since when is truthiness the "guarantee of service"? You're not even paying for a google service, search is free... You might be the product, and your data, but you didn't directly pay for a service and they didn't sell you a fake service. I'm not taking Google's side, this isn't about whether it's right or wrong to rob websites of traffic, this is about AI's returning search metadata. But I'm surprised that they lost this argument, and the line they took in the first place. The Internet isn't made of fact checked data, it's crowd sourced. How can anyone be liable?
  • sourcegrift 4mo ago
    Nothing is free. Google benefits off you when they show you search page. Either today (ads) or later
  • cortesoft 4mo ago
    That is exactly the point of the ruling, though... they are saying that AI summaries are NOT the same as search. If Google was just returning search results, and then users clicked on a website and read the content there, Google is not responsible for the content. If instead Google gives you an answer right there on google.com, without going to another site, they ARE responsible for it. That makes sense to me?
    • foolfoolz 4mo ago
      why? tons of websites push misinformation intentionally. is there a truth requirement anywhere? i don’t get why this is a thing at all
      • burpingtree 4mo ago
        What don’t you understand? Those websites that defame a company are liable for that defamation. In this case Google defamed a company in its AI summary and is this liable for that defamation.
• unliftedq 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• Swizec 4mo ago
  Good. The true mark of AGI is when a company accepts liability and doesn’t bury “for entertainment purposes only” deep in their TOS. Same as it works with employees. Same for self-driving. Your car is not self-driving until it accepts liability and you count as just a passenger. But watch as Germany soon loses AI Google results.
  • deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  • MichaelZuo 4mo ago
    Nearly the entire American tech industry has been super heavily selected for people who undervalue the legal language with crazy implications buried everywhere. Otherwise most of it would not even exist. Everyone would have continued paying out the nose to the IBM’s of the world year after year (who had unusual willingness to sign short ambiguously worded custom contracts to their own disadvantage, if paid vast amounts of money). And be on mainframes to this very day… maybe Y combinator and HN wouldnt even exist in that world.
    • deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
    • eqvinox 4mo ago
      > Nearly the entire American tech industry has been super heavily selected for people who undervalue the legal language with crazy implications buried everywhere. A lot of people in IT seem to think law and contracts are in a sense mathematical. They aren't; they're more like a high school book report - to be interpreted, as objectively as possible, but definitely also establishing the intent behind the letters. Particularly contracts - no, you can't trick your way into things in most cases. "Surprising" clauses are invalid in most legal systems, in particular if one party to the contract is a layperson.
      • Terr_ 4mo ago
        I sometimes wonder how much blame should be placed at the feet of cartoons which teach viewers that invisibly-small print is legally binding, and that any term is enforceable. I mean, it's not like most people have any kind of curriculum to fix those early assumptions.
• Heirlomb 4mo ago
  Some digital matters concern the state and others are private and there should be no sovereignty of the state over private matters.
  • kg 4mo ago
    Who will adjudicate private disputes between citizens if not the state?
    • l23k4 4mo ago
      Not all disputes need to be adjudicated. It's undoubtedly a fact that the German concept of "defamation" primarily relates to situations that should never be adjudicated by any third party. Genuinely, by far the most common situation where claims of defamation arise in Germany is any less than 5 star review left to a business on google maps.
      • nixass 4mo ago
        The good thing is that google in Germany now shows how many reviews were removed due to deflamation. That should be enough for people to make their judgement when checking how many stars a place has
        • l23k4 4mo ago
          That's just the tip of the iceberg though. Google is the only party who meaningfully communicates this, and it took them years and years to introduce any meaningful transparency. It's not like this exclusively affects restaurant reviews, every corner of German society is subject to this same evil censorship mechanism.
          • nixass 4mo ago
            I completely agree.
• weird-eye-issue 4mo ago
  I have a business where our support email is recommended when people are searching for how to cancel a completely unrelated scam subscription that is showing up on their bank or credit card charges. We get emails almost daily from confused people.
• cmiles8 4mo ago
  Companies generally are liable if their product doesn’t perform. No reason AI should be any different.
  • clear-octopus 4mo ago
    That’s not very typical in software. Especially software you don’t pay for (with money)
    • NegativeK 4mo ago
      That's apparently already changing in the EU, where software vulnerabilities mean the company is liable for damages. The only way out is to straight up not make any money (not just from direct sales) from the software.
      • ssttoo 4mo ago
        Is the burden of proof on me, the developer? Do I need to prove in perpetuity that I didn’t get a job or a free flight to talk at a conference because of my free software? (Which had a flaw that hurt someone)
        • deleted 4mo ago
          [deleted]
        • NegativeK 4mo ago
          I have no clue. But I do think that this is a much better start than letting companies ignore the impact to software consumers or having open source devs be on the hook for volunteer work.
      • 9dev 4mo ago
        That is a misrepresentation. You are obligated to actually put effort into securing your products, which is the only sensible stance to take.
        • 4mo ago
• tjpnz 4mo ago
  Does this extend to ads displayed in search results? Because they absolutely should be liable for the scams they advertise also.
  • JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > Does this extend to ads displayed in search results? Probably not, for the same reason search results aren't an issue.
    • tjpnz 4mo ago
      Search engines have that exemption for results because they don't control the content of the sites they index. That's not the same for ads - Google can and should have more stringent review and KYC processes - but it seems they choose not to.
• cm2187 4mo ago
  Doesn't libel require to be deliberate? Ie you can't sue for libel if the author admits a mistake and corrects it?
  • razorbeamz 4mo ago
    That's just America.
  • asdfaoeu 4mo ago
    In this case it looks like they were notified and didn't do anything.
  • bmandale 4mo ago
    It requires the claim to be made with "willful disregard for the truth". Notifying someone, especially with a cease-and-desist on fancy letterhead, makes it legally clear that they know better, and thereafter would be definitely libelling you (assuming the claims are in fact untrue and harmful). But you can still sue them for the claim prior to the notice, you just have to prove they should have known better prior to making the claim.
  • streetfighter64 4mo ago
    Libel/defamation laws vary wildly across different countries. Sometimes true statements can be considered defamation, sometimes not. The same goes for intent.
• russellbeattie 4mo ago
  I've found a fun and pretty reliable way to get Gemini to output incorrect information: Ask for a chapter by chapter summary of a book. I first tried it to remind me of what happened in a previous book in a series that I was reading. When I realized it was either misstating plot points or straight up hallucinating, I tried it on a bunch more books to amuse myself. Older classics are of course more accurate, but for newer or less popular books Gemini won't shy away from giving you a summary culled from misinterpreted Reddit threads and Goodreads reviews. It's like getting a secondhand account from someone who talked to another person who had read the book a long time ago. You get the general gist of it, but with some added flavor. Even if you upload an entire epub of a book, the results aren't stellar. Rather than a Cliffs Note's quality summary, they're pretty sparse or leave out important bits of information. One chapter summary I got back made a point of describing what one of the characters was wearing, even though it had absolutely zero to do with anything else. Yes, that's technically a "summary", but not quite my tempo. If Google wants to present summaries of websites in anything more than a very, very superficial description, they're going to have to improve their model's ability to understand context and importance. In theory, a novel is a self-contained bundle of text, so pulling accurate information out of it should be straight forward. A website is naturally going to be way more of a challenge. All that said, I find the AI summaries from Google/Gemini to be quite useful and a time saver, but I know to always double check something if it's at all important.
• kevinxsun 4mo ago
  Google generated those content, so Google should be liable to its own product, that's different from the third party links they just simply gathered and displayed, totally different things. If you are a victim too, reply below.
• kevinxsun 4mo ago
  Google generated those content, so Google should be liable to its own product, that's different from the third party links they just simply gathered and displayed, totally different things. I wonder how many victims are there now.
• wyager 4mo ago
  EU countries continuing to ensure the conditions for their future economic competitivity
  • jbxntuehineoh 4mo ago
    mr prime minister, we cannot allow an "automatic libel machine" gap!
• why_at 4mo ago
  I agree with the ruling, but this makes me wonder if it will be possible to have any AI agent at all if it's consistently applied. After all, if I can get ChatGPT or Claude to say something false that should count too, right?
  • eqvinox 4mo ago
    In normal flow yes, but likely not if you intentionally entrap it to say something wrong. A disclaimer and couched language will probably fly through. And it's going to matter what expectations an user could reasonably have, too.
  • necovek 4mo ago
    Due to costs of running frontier models on every search request, Google simply does not: the failure rate is so high when you are just expecting an objective output. Imagine a search for your name resulted in an AI summary saying you are involved with child-trafficking because low capability model linked your first name and perhaps a couple articles on supporting children non-profits to it — and then offering that in a convincing sounding summary right at the top!
    • heisenbit 4mo ago
      And the more you protest the more your name will be associated with child trafficking. Streisand effect multiplied by LLMs being not good in dealing with negative information.
  • themafia 4mo ago
    If you give a language model, empowered through an agent, the ability to publish information on your behalf, and it publishes false information which causes either direct or even indirect harm, and you fail to correct it, then yes.. by every conceivable definition already in law.. you are a criminal. If you knew this was all possible and you did it anyways for personal gain then you are additionally negligent which may add aggravation to your charges.
  • wongarsu 4mo ago
• missedthecue 4mo ago
  If companies can be held liable (in spite of very visible disclaimers, ToS, and usage policies) for the output of non-deterministic software, isn't this just a soft ban on the deployment of non-deterministic software?
  • Frieren 4mo ago
    > (in spite of very visible disclaimers, ToS, and usage policies) If you sell food, in a food stall, labeled as food and you add a disclaimer that it is toxic and will make you sick. You are still selling toxic food and you are liable for it. Google is pretending to give answers to your questions. They offer you a service about answering questions. And then they add a disclaimer "we do not answer questions just write bullshit". That is still fraud and Google should be liable for it. > isn't this just a soft ban on the deployment of non-deterministic software? Tetris is non-deterministic and it is not banned like millions of other programs. I do not follow you.
    • daemin 4mo ago
      To add to this, a Google search now is answering your question in an incorrect way rather than merely bringing you to a site with incorrect information on it. They are also no longer covered by safe harbour provisions because it is them answering it, not some content they refer you to.
  • eesmith 4mo ago
    Where did it say the liability only applied to non-deterministic software?
  • em-bee 4mo ago
    no, just a ban on using non-deterministic software for situations where deterministic responses are expected.
    • Robotbeat 4mo ago
      Deterministic responses are not expected from something clearly labeled able to make mistakes.
• dyauspitr 4mo ago
  So stupid. What is this with making perfect the enemy of good. You can never guarantee the output of an LLM does that mean Germany does get to use them?
  • duskdozer 4mo ago
    No, it means that Google will be held liable for false or libelous information it provides to users by means of generative AI. It's not banned. Of course, if Google decides that its generative AI produces too much false or libelous content, it may choose to stop doing so in Germany, where it will be held liable for damages it causes.
• jjcm 4mo ago
  What constitutes a correct answer though? Is something like, "People online say that x y and z because a b c" a credible, correct answer, even if it isn't because of a/b/c?
  • lithos 4mo ago
    One that doesn't maim/injure/kill you is a pretty good standard. And before you call bs, look at all the foraging and chemistry books that are for sale on Amazon that are AI.
    • jayGlow 4mo ago
      why are those ai chemistry books any different than the anarchist cookbook which can also be bought on Amazon? actually now that I think about it a faulty chemistry book might be less dangerous than a book that teachers readers how to make explosives.
      • lithos 4mo ago
        There's a difference between something that properly advertised itself as dangerous, and something that advertises itself as a professional authority.
  • psychoslave 4mo ago
    Certainly, if this is pointing to the actual pages where the actual people express these things. Otherwise that's equally unfalsifiable claims, could be completely made up or actual truth. One way to formulate things that would be less would be "once support a time, in some fabulated world, it's not impossible that some imaginary character would say something following some reason." But then, of course this is not aligning the the deception scheme pushed by companies putting in their interface that the "machine is thinking hard for you".
  • wongarsu 4mo ago
    If people do say that, it's a true statement and thus fine. You are allowed to report that regardless of the truth of x/y/z/a/b/c The instance of this ruling people apparently did not actually say any of the offending claims. '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."'
• Frieren 4mo ago
  How could anything else make any sense? Platforms are getting used to provide dangerous broken products and get away with it. There should be some limit to it. Next do Amazon that is selling AI generated foraging books: - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/01/mushroom-pickers-urged-to-avoid-foraging-books-on-amazon-that-appear-to-be-written-by-ai https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/01/mushroom-... When I was a kid it was possible to buy any foraging books from a store and they had a minimum quality. Is that so difficult to achieve? Is profiteering not punished anymore?
  • Robotbeat 4mo ago
    Should we hold scientists and journalists liable if they say false things or misrepresent things?
    • novemp 4mo ago
      Yes, obviously.
      • Robotbeat 4mo ago
        What if they just make a mistake, unintentionally?
        • 12_throw_away 4mo ago
          Publishing lies that were generated by the plausible-lie-generating-machine is a very intentional action, it's not a "mistake". The legal profession uses the term "reckless disregard", see, e.g., [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
          • Robotbeat 4mo ago
            It’s illegal to make factual errors. Wow, cool, I guess we solved science very easily!
• ggm 4mo ago
  Good. This should be taken as the precedent for all economies: If you promulgate demonstrably false information to somebody's detriment then the owner and operator of the machine has to carry the liability. I very much hope we don't see attempts to re-write T&C to avoid this liability.
  • account42 4mo ago
    > I very much hope we don't see attempts to re-write T&C to avoid this liability. We really should have triple fines or worse for people who try to push the boundaries of the law.
• gmerc 4mo ago
  Choosing the answer for you rather than leaving it to the user is a tremendous power and the court correctly diagnoses it comes with responsibly to minimize harm to others in society.
  • neuroelectron 4mo ago
    Of course, they know this. The entire point is be able to rewrite people's awareness.
    • sheiyei 4mo ago
      I want to add my interpretation of the phrasing "rewrite people's awareness" to make it read less tinfoil-hatted: "rewire brains for AI dependency" (for money and power reasons obvious to everyone). In contrast to "secretly implant an agenda about non-AI subject N", which is complicated enough that AI companies are still too out of control to be attempting yet.
  • Gigachad 4mo ago
    I've also observed that the AI summary on the google search page is incredibly stupid compared to the results in the actual Gemini. The Google search AI is like the dumbest lightest model simply rewording the search results. It will take a random reddit comment, strip it from it's context and present it as absolute fact.
    • snailmailman 4mo ago
      I’ve seen it directly contradict the citation so many times that i disregard the text and just click the citation or scroll past every single time. Just today i caught it making up the date for an event, and the citation had accurate information when clicked through. It’s super easy to catch on dates and numbers, but it gets other details wrong all the time too. But so many people won’t be double checking the results.
    • creesch 4mo ago
      > compared to the results in the actual Gemini. Even those results have a lot to be desired, it is just buried deeper in the insanely verbose research report and impressive looking amount of sources you see move past. I recently have had a close look at the various "deep research" options the big three (Anthropic, OpenAI and Google) offer. None of them are exactly transparent about how they perform searching other than the "research plan" the present upfront the and shitload of sources they show you (which, to be frank, seems to be clever UX/marketing to make it look extra legitimate and impressive). Which is already a worrying sign to me, as you can't audit the process itself properly. But even with the lack of information available on the front-end I can still see enough that worries me. A few examples: - "Sources" are taken at face value almost no critical look at the validity of the source, the context it is placed in, etc. - A lot of sources I know are legitimate are rarely included while a lot of listicles, low effort "reviews", etc do make the cut. - In multiple instances when looking closer at the research plan and the "hints" they show during searching it becomes painfully clear that often enough they start with an answer in mind based on training data and try to validate that rather than actually researching the data itself. - Subtly different prompts that by all means should still produce the same factual outcome actually provide wildly different results. This one probably relates to the other points. In addition to all of this, I also am 100% convinced that AI powered search is incredibly expensive[1], more so than traditional search. In my mind this increased cost eventually will need to be paid by someone, which likely is going to be the user. Since the process is non-transparant I am not confident that the results will not end up being polluted by sponsored deals, etc. There is simply no way in my mind that this is going to end up well for us users. [1] A while ago I have experimented with creating my own deep research flow with the idea that I might be able to do something with local models. To limit costs I used a SearXNG instance for searching, setup playwright for browsing sources. Using an agentic flow with agents making all the various calls and dispatching other agents ended up eating A LOT of tokens. Even when I did switch to a non agentic flow where each step is orchestrated by code calling on LLMs with simple prompts to validate results still ate a metric ton of tokens for the simplest search query. Mind you, this was not even doing actual deep research but only a few simple search queries. Ironically, google models also did seem to have more trouble coming up with good search queries compared to other models.
• sinuhe69 4mo ago
  Oh, I just found out that my Google search doesn't show AI summary anymore! I tried many search queries which typically will show an AI summary, but it only flicked on briefly then disappear entirely. Obviously, Google has reacted quickly on this ruling!
• feverzsj 4mo ago
  Just ban AI in search engine.
• jacknews 4mo ago
  We should be teaching people to be cynical of AI answers. Even if the answers are correct, they could still be biased, incomplete, misleading, and all the other media-literacy things people should be looking out for. This ruling seems to go the opposite direction; 'I am legally obliged to give correct answers, so I am always right, trust the AI'.
  • pacman1337 4mo ago
    First comment that makes sense. Of course AI needs to be verified. Of course it gives bs answers. The answer is to educate the public not try to daddy then. I hope AI is completely banned from Germany for their protection since apparently their government doesn't believe its people know how to question AI.
• ApolloFortyNine 4mo ago
  Unless the courts here made the ruling incredibly narrow somehow (only referencing search engines maybe?), how does this not just ban AI in Germany overnight? Every AI model can make something up sometimes. Over millions of daily calls, it's essentially impossible for the technology to be guaranteed correct 100% of the time.
• mmmpetrichor 4mo ago
  This makes sense to me. AI is amazing tech, but it's being oversold to naive public, either on the back of hype, or cynically, knowing they can do it with inpunity, (I'm not sure which). HN users have a way better than average grasp of what AI is and we can be skeptical of results, the general public has no clue.
  • sheiyei 4mo ago
    100% cynically. It's a game of infinite money glitch (also known as "grab as much as you can before it's over") and has been at least since GPT-3.
    • leodavi 4mo ago
      How does that apply to AI Overview in Search, though? As far as I can tell it's pure spend on every search, which I know adds up even for nano models.
• keithnz 4mo ago
  The irony of an article that makes a false claim about what Google was found liable for.... and that very few are fact checking it :) The law they broke was a law protecting personal and business reputation against false statements of fact. Essentially no one can say I might be wrong, check yourself, but X is Y if that claim is essentially defamatory. This is pretty good, I hope googles approach is to make sure they don't end up making statements of fact like they did and use more appropriate wording like according to X.... with direct disclaimer that they can't verify it. Even better that they look court documents to find any legal ruling and point people to that too.
  • csomar 4mo ago
    How much does Germany follow case law? If this could set a precedent, it's worth noting that anyone can generate these AI overview responses and they're wrong like 9 times out of 10 only.
    • zerobees 4mo ago
      In common with most of Europe, German legal system is not based on case law. It's more firmly rooted in formal laws and regulations and judges are not required to follow precedent.
      • kuerbel 4mo ago
        They don't have to follow it but leading decisions (Grundsatzentscheidungen) still influence how a lower court judge might interpret the same law. Based on providing legal certainty instead of stare decisis though. It's not a must, more of an... aid
        • isaacfrond 4mo ago
          This is not such a decision though; it's a first instance decision at a lower court.
          • 4mo ago
• hanwenn 4mo ago
  Curiously, if you look for "geramond verlag betrugsmasche", or "verlagshaus24 betrugsmasche", it will now tell you that there are no indications it is a scam, but "significant organizational problems and extremely bad customer support lead to (list of bad experiences)". Also, each purported fact now has a direct link to the source of the fact, that is more clearly visible than the previous chain icon.
  • jolmg 4mo ago
    Do the links actually support the statements? When I've followed such links, it's generally been a roll of the dice on whether they do support the AI's statements.
    • hanwenn 4mo ago
      Yes. The links are to isolated threads on a rail (model) forums (apparently, this publisher markets books/magazines related to railway models). It's hard to see if the individual complaints really support a general problem, or if this simply the only result that talks about "scam + business-name". Probably, the latter. The same problem happens on google search, if you look "<obscure false fact>", you'll get pages mentioning that false fact. If you fall into the trap of confirmation bias, it leads you to think the false fact is in true.
  • josefx 4mo ago
    The result I get has an entire section dedicated to scammers using the company name. The only links in that section go to a wikipedia page that doesn't mention any scams and a police help page that doesn't mention the company.
• tehjoker 4mo ago
  Finally, a sensible ruling based in the interests of the public rather than expediency for corporations
• l23k4 4mo ago
  Wow, you guys really think this is good? Because of the same rules, German restaurants also get to pick and choose which reviews stay up. They can literally take down any specific reviews they like. A restaurant that mostly gets 1 star reviews will still show up with 5 stars on Google maps, as they will simply delete the reviews with less than 5 stars as defamatory. Here's a couple of examples: https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/1peujau/google_reviews_defamation/ https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/1peujau/google_rev... https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/18z4shs/legal_threat_over_restaurant_review/ https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/18z4shs/legal_thre... https://www.reddit.com/r/frankfurt/comments/1lox7ha/bad_review_removed_for_defamation_is_this_normal/ https://www.reddit.com/r/frankfurt/comments/1lox7ha/bad_revi... https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/1iiaco8/restaurants_keep_reporting_my_reviews_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/1iiaco8/restaurant... https://www.reddit.com/r/AskGermany/comments/1ha7sxf/why_do_businesses_in_germany_have_such_fragile/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskGermany/comments/1ha7sxf/why_do_... https://www.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/comments/1t613w7/it_was_fine_restaurant_review_in_germany_deemed/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/comments/1t613w7/it_was_fin... https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/1l98608/threatening_food_reviewer_with_legal_action/ https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/1l98608/threatenin... https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/1sw34jc/can_you_get_sued_over_a_bad_review/ https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/1sw34jc/can_you_ge... https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/1sw34jc/can_you_get_sued_over_a_bad_review/ https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/1sw34jc/can_you_ge... https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/10kmn66/writing_an_honest_bad_review_is_it_illegal_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/10kmn66/writing_an... tl;dr Germans are particularly bad at coming up with reasonable rules to handle these situations
  • Phelinofist 4mo ago
    But it also shows the number of removed reviews (in a range like 0-50, 50-100 and so forth). If you encounter a restaurant with 5 starts but a lot of removed reviews you know whats up.
    • l23k4 4mo ago
      That's a fairly new workaround that took Google years to come up with.
• msiemens 4mo ago
  Link to the ruling (in German, obviously), since the page seems have to been hugged: https://the-decoder.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/26_O_869_26_begl_Abschrift_Urteil_v_28_05_2026_Geschwaerzt_Geschwaerzt_Geschwaerzt.pdf https://the-decoder.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/26_O_869_2...
• simianwords 4mo ago
  Overviews is not a good product idea and I think it was done for other deeper reasons. AI shouldn’t be pushed on people because AI can be high variance — it takes time to get adapted to this.
• nullbio 4mo ago
  Maybe Google's models will start to suck less as a result. Excellent.
• shevy-java 4mo ago
  Excellent. Even more so with the hostile orange man - Europeans really need to get going.
• heisenbit 4mo ago
  I just tried Google search in Germany on my iPhone: AI results AND the disclaimer was behind a „show more“ button i.e. the may not be any disclaimer (and when shown it was in a small font).
• Hfuffzehn 4mo ago
  If I get it correctly I like the ruling. So Google has established a product called Search. For that product rules have been established. Google has monopolized that product. Now Google is replacing that product with a new product. But they keep calling it the same thing. Because they want to keep their monopoly. That is what has been deemed illegal. Gemini is not illegal. Pretending the worst version of Gemini is Search is illegal, because it breaks the rules established for Search. But IANAL.
  • brainwad 4mo ago
    It has nothing to do with monopolies. Google was protected from defamation law with search because the page title and snippets were direct quotes from the linked result page. Whereas with AI overviews, the copy is written by a Google-controlled LLM.
    • andai 4mo ago
      Making the response consist entirely of direct quotes sounds like a better user experience than what they're doing now.
    • Terr_ 4mo ago
      I recall "Large Libel Models" was one of the sobriquets going around. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4546063 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4546063
      • smcin 4mo ago
        Brilliant
    • Hfuffzehn 4mo ago
      Yes, the monopoly is not relevant for the court. It is relevant for Google though, because they want to transfer it to another product. And the court is saying that whatever that new product is, Google is not allowed to mislead the public by pretending it is search.
• Suppafly 4mo ago
  Their AI overviews are pretty commonly wrong, so this seems like it might hurt them a bit. Guessing they'll just block them in Germany or throw a bunch of disclaimers around the statements.
• trilogic 4mo ago
  https://hugston.com/news/ban-european-account-pay-billions https://hugston.com/news/ban-european-account-pay-billions https://medium.com/@klaudibregu/google-greedy-gets-karma-8aebeeb89bcb https://medium.com/@klaudibregu/google-greedy-gets-karma-8ae...
• streetfighter64 4mo ago
  Not exactly false answers. As far as I gather this is the same issue that prevents customers from making negative reviews about businesses. The business can just threaten a defamation suit and then the platform (Google Maps, Trustpilot, etc.) are pretty much required to remove the review [0]. So the only thing happening here is they consider Google to be the author of the AI answers and apply a similar sort of anti-defamation law. Perhaps it's a good consequence but the law that allows for this seems to be quite broken. [0] https://www.settle-in-berlin.com/google-reviews-removal-defamation-in-germany/ https://www.settle-in-berlin.com/google-reviews-removal-defa...
• kevinxsun 4mo ago
  Regardless the scale, big or small, if you produce and spread untrue information to defame others, you are liable, period. These AI content are purely generated by Google's half baked AI. Not any other third party. So Google is 100% liable here. If you just display third party content, that's one thing, but if you generate content yourself and those content are false, harmful, that's on you. Google should be shamed to do this kind things recklessly and irresponsibly.
  • z3t4 4mo ago
    First they had links to other sites. Then they put the information found on other sites on their own site. Then they took the information from other sites, trained a LLM with it, and put it on their own site without even linking to the source.
• pembrook 4mo ago
  My feelings about this rest of the scope of liability. From my understanding, Google is now liable if making false claims about a personal/business reputation. I like this idea in theory (key word). However, I can easily see the slippery slope where in practice this means providing any AI response becomes too risky, and it becomes another money club used to extract wealth from big tech due to the current hysterical anti-AI moral panic. Which would ultimately kill the ability of the German people to get access to competitive AI models. I'm sure many anti-tech/anti-civilization doomers on HN will cheer this on. However, in reality it would do nothing to stop Germany falling behind, and continue its economic malaise/low productivity growth and social welfare collapse. When things in Germany get bad, Germans historically have tended to...ummm...cause issues for Europe. I would not take this lightly given the current rise of more polarized political rhetoric and German economy pivoting hard into weapons manufacturing.
  • kevinxsun 4mo ago
    It is not anti-AI, it is anti misusing AI. Clearly you are trying to manipulate the situation here. If your AI is half baked and produce garbages, you should be liable for the damage of those garbages, that applies to any product or service on this planet, not only just AI.If your product or service is defect, that causes harm, you are liable.
    • pembrook 4mo ago
      I agree with this, in theory. But to loudly proclaim your love for this idea as most have here seems a bit premature given there are potentially massive downsides to applying legal liability to an AI model, if not done extremely carefully. I'm just trying to move a bit beyond the emotional first order thinking. You might see this as manipulation if you love just swimming in emotional vibes, but I find this website becoming quite boring lately due to the lack of debate beyond this first-order thinking. As someone living in Europe, watching a bunch of rich American engineers fanboy European over-regulation which they aren't actually being subjected to, is super cringe. It's the epitome of the principal-agent problem.
  • sham1 4mo ago
• 3vo-ai 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• zkmon 4mo ago
  The confusion is due to blurring of distinction between the roles: Tool, Tool user and Tool provider. Traditionally, a human-agent who can have an intent and trigger an action is held liable for the consequences of the actions, not the tool. That human agent can be the tool user or tool provider. Tool user is liable in the case of misuse unintended purpose of the tool. Tool provider is liable when the use of the tool, by design, causes unintended effects despite proper use of the tool. A simple "AI may make mistakes" line under the box will not help while the box contains false information. The specific information (lines or words) should not be provided if that's a mistake of false.
  • pnt12 4mo ago
    The article shows a really good point: statements must be accountable on their own, and cannot rely on "further research". This makes complete sense: at what point can I libel someone, and then dodge consequences with "if you do your research, you can get the facts"? Another point from the article: they are not just aggregating content, but generating it. If you generate falsehoods, that are not even stated by your sources, of course you're responsible. This can have significant impact to AI in Germany and the rest of Europe, but it's good to question it and hold people accountable.
• kevinxsun 4mo ago
  We are actually a victim too, in the same situation as these two publishers. Google's AI makes up false accusations in search result AI overview about our business. We have sent countless feedback to Google in the past 4 months, contacted their legal team 3 times, all got ignored. Google's AI just pukes untrue, misinformation about us, every time the page is refreshed, AI just makes up new accusations and false information, links us to bad actors baselessly, if you refresh the page 10 times, there are 10 different versions, seriously damaged our revenue and reputation. We have filled complaint with the state AG's office, FTC and DOJ. If anyone in legal can help us, please reach out. Thanks. kevinsuntopdev@gmail.com
  • z3t4 4mo ago
    And people even here on HN actually thinks that AI/LLM are factually correct... The more cases like this the easier it will get to sue them (IANAL)
  • trumpdong 4mo ago
    Why should Google do anything unless not doing anything costs them money? Record the behavior, then contact a lawyer.
• _ink_ 4mo ago
  I don't fully understand it. Are they liable for content made up by their AI? Or are they now liable for content written by others and summed up (correctly) by their AI?
  • deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  • lolc 4mo ago
    From my reading the German court's ruling is that Google are responsible both for claims they made up and claims they rephrase from somewhere else. Because the claims appear as a statement of fact made by Google. If they showed it as "User X on site Y claims Z" they would not be held responsible. Because that's how search engines are understood to work. If they make a wrong quote, they would be responsible for that though. So my understanding is their unreliable AI summaries are a legal liability for Google in Germany and people can request corrections through the courts.
  • nonethewiser 4mo ago
    And doesnt this imply they arent ripping off the underlying information?
• PeterStuer 4mo ago
  So will Google just have to add 'allegedly' to any reply?
• cush 4mo ago
  Poetic.
• UltraSane 4mo ago
  The original Google search that used inverted indexes and page rank and respected boolean operators was very good and let you actually find obscure information. Call this Google Search 1.0 Then in order to increase revenue Google dumbed down search very badly and made it very hard to find obscure information. Whoever decided to delete random search terms is someone I want to punch in the face really hard. Call this Google Search 2.0 But the way Google has integrated Gemini Flash into search is actually pretty good and is definitely an improvement over Google Search 2.0
• FpUser 4mo ago
  Next thing is declare our rulers to be liable for doing things that fuck up people's lives. That'll really wake me up
• waysa 4mo ago
  It makes sense to me. When Google Search is quoting a 3rd-party website that happens to have bad information, that's not on them. Blame shifts to the 3rd-party. This is Google's privilege being a search engine. When Google operates as an answer machine instead of a search engine, the privelege doesn't apply anymore. There's no 3rd-party to take the blame.
  • tantalor 4mo ago
    No that's not what's happening here. > According to the court, the Al mixed up information about other, genuinely sketchy companies with the plaintiffs and drew connections that didn't appear in any of the linked sources. Implying: if the false claim was found in the sources then it would be protected speech. There is nothing special about "answer machine" versus "search engine". You are making that part up.
    • cyanydeez 4mo ago
      You're attacking semantics. the decision is entirely about the reliability and liability./
• ninjagoo 4mo ago
  As the begetter of the AI, the German court held Google liable for its AI's doing. Common sense ruling. The ruling also lessened the free speech rights for AI. This is a big one. In conjunction with holding an operator liable for its AI's doings, that will lead to interesting cases where conduct that would have been previously protected under free speech rights will become a liability. Basically, machine-based cognitive capability becomes a liability when it is customer-facing.
• stego-tech 4mo ago
  Common sense ruling to me. AI != Search, because LLMs are producing statements rather than search results the user has to interpret for themselves. It’s the difference between searching a library’s card catalog for a topic, and a piece of software telling you its answer. The second these things came on the scene and confidently spoke lies at times, I knew this sort of lawsuit would be inevitable. Nice to see Germany got it right.
• trumpdong 4mo ago
  I guess there is a small benefit to living in a police state!
• sheepscreek 4mo ago
  This is actually a good thing. Google's official mission is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." Now if that information is BS and cannot be relied upon, that’s really bad. Leading people on and not delivering? Honestly, Google themselves should have been on it and not the German government. It’s a bad look for them. Aside: I’ve noticed their AI mode is pretty pathetic for troubleshooting something. 50% of the times the first response is riddled with inaccuracies and mistakes. Repeat prompting is absolutely necessary (so do not expect to one shot anything). Also I will admit that I still find myself using it because I’m lazy, and it’s easier to talk to AI to get the right answer. Searching organically is hard these days with the volume of content having gone up exponentially.
• h1fra 4mo ago
  People will complain, but eventually Europe will still be in advance regarding this kind of law. It's annoying and sometimes slows down innovation but US companies are just doing whatever makes money without restrictions...
  • lo_zamoyski 4mo ago
    > slows down innovation A return to the classical understanding of the person, society, and the common good is indispensable.
    • hparadiz 4mo ago
      In reality Europe will be left behind as usual.
      • jmcqk6 4mo ago
        Lots of people in the US getting left behind too.
      • GreenWatermelon 4mo ago
        Left behind from the cyberpunk dystopian future of the US?
    • saalweachter 4mo ago
      I don't even know that I would call it slowing down so much as constraining/focusing innovation. There's three basic paths for a company hit by this ruling to comply: 1. Stop showing users generated content. 2. Figure out how to generate the content with more quotes and attribution to source websites, to regain the protection offered to search engines. 3. Figure out the hallucination problem, so that every statement in machine generated content is true, or at least defensible. If this ruling forces companies to put more money into #3, whereas now they're coasting on good enough, I'd say it was speeding up innovation.
      • Terr_ 4mo ago
• classified 4mo ago
  That reminds me of the guy who was declared dead by Google and then miraculously wrote a blog post mentioning that rumors of his death were premature. Google (and others) really should be held liable for the fake news they're spreading.
• hashmap 4mo ago
  god i love the eu regulators they're like the only ones even trying to look out for us
• pacman1337 4mo ago
  Companies should just stop providing AI to police states like Germany. Apparently their citizens believe anything they read.
  • lgrebe 4mo ago
    So if i were to write a false statement about you that would result in legal consequences for you, im not liable?
    • pacman1337 4mo ago
      Good point, I didn't consider that.
• observationist 4mo ago
  This silly game where the EU invents its own rules and tries to impose them globally must stop. Their business is not needed, and the collateral damage with regards to censorship, manipulation, and erosion of fundamental liberties far outpaces any value their continued participation in e-commerce might bring. This sort of paternalistic and insidious bureaucratic encroachment into every aspect of life is completely antithetical to everything the internet should be. We don't owe them anything, and pretending they (and the UK) have some sort of standing in determination of how the world works simply accelerates the degradation. The solution is simple. Block the EU from accessing any of your services. They can make their own search and social media and digital marketing and AI. Good luck to them. VPNs will boom. I can understand the UK struggling with their imperialistic traditions and so on, but you'd think Germans at least would have some humility in trying to project their global ideas and ambitions on the world at this point.
  • wat10000 4mo ago
    How is this an example of trying to impose rules globally? Google is operating in Germany. Their German operations have to follow German laws. That's how every country operates.
  • pesus 4mo ago
    > Their business is not needed, and the collateral damage with regards to censorship, manipulation, and erosion of fundamental liberties far outpaces any value their continued participation in e-commerce might bring. This sort of paternalistic and insidious bureaucratic encroachment into every aspect of life is completely antithetical to everything the internet should be. We don't owe them anything, and pretending they (and the UK) have some sort of standing in determination of how the world works simply accelerates the degradation. Funny, because I would say this applies much more to AI corporations shoving their product into every facet of society without consent or regard for the harm it's causing. I also seriously doubt that people are going to be enraged and boycott an entire continent of 400million+ people and start using VPNs because a corporation worth billions got held liable in one specific case in one specific location over the behavior of their hallucination machine - a machine no one asked for and is being shoved down their throats, mind you. If anything, this is gong to have the opposite effect and give people a little relief from the onslaught of BS and lies.
• ElijahLynn 4mo ago
  Good.
  • nonethewiser 4mo ago
    Doesn't this imply AI constitutes an original work?
• caputchin 4mo ago
  Finally someone is trying to regulate AI
• weavoapp 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• masonwan 4mo ago
  I guess the same rules also applied to OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon?
  • altairprime 4mo ago
    Presumably, yes. Looking forward to the next year of court outcomes!
• Innittech 4mo ago
  It's interesting that the "users can check for themselves" defense was attempted, Google search is so awful now that it's nearly impossible to find anything but ads and ads disguised as links. Even watching people try to use it is infuriating.
• zoetaylor00 4mo ago
  [dead]
• Fire-Dragon-DoL 4mo ago
  I wrote this at work, but the ruling makes total sense. Either: - Google stole the entirety of the world's copyrighted material and it's using it illegally - Or, AI learned, in which case what is writing is the AI's own saying, and since it comes from Google, they are liable for it They are opposite from my perspective, either they accept one or the other.
• adamgreen795 4mo ago
  [dead]