Google tried to overturn a landmark Munich ruling on liability for AI search summaries by appealing, then quietly settled. Now a second court has applied the same reasoning. Google's AI answers count as the company's own content, and Google is responsible for them.
In late May, the Munich Regional Court I ruled in a widely watched case that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI-generated search summaries. Google's AI had falsely linked two Munich-based publishers to fraud schemes. The judges classified AI Overviews not as mere search results but as Google's own statements, meaning the company itself has to answer for them.
Instead of hiding behind the role of a neutral middleman passing along third-party information, Google would have to own the unlawful statements its AI produces. For a search feature that constantly generates new answers, that's a legal risk that's hard to quantify. If this view holds up, it could call into question the entire business model of AI search in Germany and shape the debate in other countries too.
The distinction between a search reference and original content could also have consequences beyond false factual claims. If AI answers count as Google's own content, the publishers whose texts Google uses to generate those answers might eventually assert their own claims. That wasn't part of the Munich case, but it's a logical next step.
As THE DECODER has learned, the appeal Google publicly announced was never carried through to a decision. The case ended in a settlement instead, meaning no higher court ever weighed in on the Munich reasoning. Why the settlement was reached and whether money changed hands is unknown. Neither Google nor the affected publisher would comment. The court also declined to weigh in on the broader significance of its own ruling beyond this specific case.
A settlement can't erase the Munich court's reasoning
The Munich judges' legal reasoning isn't dead, though. In a decision dated September 24, 2026, the Aachen Regional Court barred Google from spreading certain false statements and explicitly relied on the Munich ruling's reasoning. Google can challenge the injunction. The decision isn't final yet.
In this new case, a physician in Aachen fought back against serious false claims in Google's "AI Mode" search feature. The doctor had worked as chief physician and professor of neuroradiology from 2010 until late June 2026. On August 28, a colleague alerted him that Google's AI was explaining his departure by citing an alleged sexual assault against his secretary. When users ran additional searches using terms like "suspension," "termination," and "court proceedings," AI Mode returned detailed, multi-paragraph fabrications. It even invented a complete legal aftermath.
None of the allegations or proceedings had anything to do with the doctor. The AI had taken events involving a different former university professor and pinned them on him, something the Aachen court could confirm from its own records since the criminal case had actually been brought against someone else. Cases of AI misattribution like this have been documented before.
Google refuses to delete the content and risks steep fines
Even though the doctor described the mix-up in detail in late August and asked Google by email to remove the content, the company said in mid-September that it would take no action. A formal legal demand sent the same day also went nowhere. Google confirmed receiving it, but according to the court, the false AI-generated texts were still live.
The Aachen Regional Court then banned further spread of the three disputed text variants. Because the false claims could seriously damage the doctor's professional reputation, the court acted on an emergency basis without hearing Google first. If Google violates the order, it faces fines of up to 250,000 euros per violation.
The most significant part of the Aachen decision is how closely it tracks the Munich reasoning, suggesting a consistent legal view is forming across German courts. Google uses its AI to produce its own statements rather than simply making third-party information findable. "The respondent provides AI-generated search and is therefore also responsible for the answers generated in this context," the court wrote.
Aachen even cites the Munich ruling directly, noting that Google's AI produces "independent, new, and substantive statements based on an evaluation and combination of content from various third-party websites."
Google could check such statements, the court said, for example, by comparing AI output against the source websites it used. The Aachen judges added that had Google confronted its own AI with the doctor's objections, the system would have caught the errors itself.
The stakes go far beyond individual false claims
Both cases raise the question of what long-term legal strategy Google is pursuing with its AI search features. If German courts keep classifying the company as a publisher of false statements and Google keeps dodging precedent through what are likely financial settlements, that creates a perverse incentive.
For specialized law firms and affected parties, it could turn into a lucrative business model. They could probe AI search with targeted queries until the language model stitches together false, potentially defamatory statements, then file for an injunction and negotiate a settlement. These systems are easy to manipulate.
Of course, Google can afford to make individual cases disappear this way for years, since binding precedent only happens when at least one side pushes the legal process all the way to the end. But Google's motivation likely goes well beyond liability for individual false claims. If a top court were to rule that AI answers count as original content, the publishers whose texts feed those answers could assert their own claims too. In the most extreme scenario, Google would have to compensate the creators behind its sources for every AI-generated answer. That would upend the economics of AI search entirely.
AI News Without the Hype – Curated by Humans
Subscribe to THE DECODER for ad-free reading, a weekly AI newsletter, our exclusive "AI Radar" frontier report six times a year, full archive access, and access to our comment section.