German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews • Hacker News Board

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#241

Post by Ravus » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 7:42 AM UTC

TZubiri wrote: post #230

Frieren wrote: post #81

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-... 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 achiev…

>How could anything else make any sense? Well, they disclaimed and the user acknowledged Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-QaEB5eXSU Minute 3:00

Disclaimers and user acceptance does not remove liability for slander, particularly against third parties.

In fact, in most EU countries "the user acknowledged" works only for a very small subset of stuff, precisely because our lawmakers know that the strong party in a contract would use that to get away from every legal obligation.

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#242

Post by ychnd » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 7:43 AM UTC

Rekindle8090 wrote: post #107

happymellon wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They decided to hijack search and rewrite other peoples websites as their own. If they want to claim ownership, then they will have to accept responsibility.

Search still works the same you just have to scroll down

"Just".

I.e. not shown by default.

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#243

Post by skeptic_ai » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 7:44 AM UTC

heathrow83829 wrote: post #63

Swizec wrote: post #18

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.

at the scale that google is at, it doesn't make an ounce of sense to hold a company liable for a potential mistruth. what if there's a 1/1000 chance of some error, then the company could be sued millions of times per day. down vote all you want, but I firmly believe this is an example where the user needs to use some judgement on the information they receive and have some critical thinking skills. google would be rig…

So if I make a script to spam everywhere with 0.1% odds that is fake I can’t be sued? Just because I spam millions of times per day means I shouldn’t be liable for what I do right? But someone saying one time should go to prison. Makes sense /s

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#244

Post by majewsky » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 7:45 AM UTC

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #229

Swizec wrote: post #18

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.

> The true mark of AGI is when a company accepts liability and doesn’t bury “for entertainment purposes only” deep in their TOS. I don't think so. It is easy to imagine the following (currently only fictional) scenario: the AGI does give perfectly correct answers (in a suitable sense), but some people in power consider these answers to be too dangerous, so they sue the company behind the AGI on terms of liability (i.…

If the system cannot adjust its answers to the role it's currently serving, then it would evidently be significantly less intelligent than a human.

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#245

Post by happymellon » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 7:45 AM UTC

Rekindle8090 wrote: post #107

happymellon wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They decided to hijack search and rewrite other peoples websites as their own. If they want to claim ownership, then they will have to accept responsibility.

Search still works the same you just have to scroll down

So search doesn't still work the same.

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#246

Post by 3form » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 7:50 AM UTC

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #229

Swizec wrote: post #18

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.

> The true mark of AGI is when a company accepts liability and doesn’t bury “for entertainment purposes only” deep in their TOS. I don't think so. It is easy to imagine the following (currently only fictional) scenario: the AGI does give perfectly correct answers (in a suitable sense), but some people in power consider these answers to be too dangerous, so they sue the company behind the AGI on terms of liability (i.…

This doesn't disagree with the poster above: they're saying that taking liability is a sign of belief in AGI. You're saying that lack of liability doesn't mean there's no AGI. Logically these two are not exclusive. p => q doesn't mean q => p.

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#247

Post by streetfighter64 » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 7:53 AM UTC

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-defa...

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#248

Post by TonyTrapp » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 7:55 AM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #240

hypfer wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if you hold that position, you also have to be fine with companies not offering products and services in your country. Well.. I mean.. yeah? I don't think this is as bad as you think it is. Have you looked at SV and its product offerings recently? It's mostly just enshittified gamified value extraction that doesn't respect the user at all. "If you do not let us do all this the way we want, we will take away you…

I'm half-remembering a now-old satire along the same lines has Germans wondering why having Google Street View work in their area also requires internal photos of their apartments.

This one? :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMFBuHsKXb0

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#249

Post by gblargg » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 7:55 AM UTC

sham1 wrote: post #202

gblargg wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Google labeled its AI summary with a disclaimer already. I don't want companies to be forced to only offer safe-for-children services.

There is a disclaimer, yes, but you have to admit that it's pretty shit, innit? I mean for one, it's about the size of a human hair, and at least when I tried it, the disclaimer came up only when I clicked the "Show More" button. It might admittedly show up earlier if the response is shorter, admittedly I don't know. Also personally I'm a bit uneasy with the idea that just with a simple disclaimer they could avoid an…

Yeah, they could make it more prominent at the top. I would be fine if it said that "AI may give totally wrong answers" but that would never happen.

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#250

Post by streetfighter64 » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 7:59 AM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #35

Doesn't libel require to be deliberate? Ie you can't sue for libel if the author admits a mistake and corrects it?

Libel/defamation laws vary wildly across different countries. Sometimes true statements can be considered defamation, sometimes not. The same goes for intent.