Live data from Hacker News

German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

the-decoder.com

401–410 of 587 posts

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

#401

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 infor…

Why should Google do anything unless not doing anything costs them money? Record the behavior, then contact a lawyer.

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

#402

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 Se…

I mean was google search responsible for surfacing correct answers? I am not a defend of AI but this seems like a weird piece of legislation.

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

#403
post #369

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 Se…

None of that is in the ruling.

https://the-decoder.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/26_O_869_...

"Tatbestand

Die Verfügungsklägerinnen begehren von der Verfügungsbeklagten die Unterlassung von Darstellungen KI-generierter Antworten in einer Suchmaschine.

...

Die Verfügungsbeklagte betreibt eine Internet-Suchmaschine unter google.de in Deutschland. Dabei werden nach der Eingabe von Suchbegriffen durch eine die Suchmaschine benutzende Person auf den „Suchbefehl“ hin mithilfe bestimmter Algorithmen nach möglicher Relevanz sortierte Ergebnisse angezeigt. Zusätzlich bietet die Suchmaschine auch als unterstützende Funktion ein Suchergebnisformat an, bei dem mithilfe einer generativen künstlichen Intelligenz (im Folgenden:KI) repräsentative Ergebnisse zusammengefasst und angezeigt werden."

No "Suchmaschine" + no „Suchbefehl“ -> no "Tatbestand"

No "search engine" + no "search command" -> no "elements of a crime"

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

#404
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why? tons of websites push misinformation intentionally. is there a truth requirement anywhere? i don’t get why this is a thing at all

And those tons of websites are liable for their misinformation. It's probably not worth suing some random blog because the author probably doesn't have money or lives in Russia. But Google has lots of money and a legal presence in almost every jurisdiction.

It's why people say "Donald Trump was held civilly liable for sexual assault in the E Jean Carroll case" instead of "Donald Trump raped E Jean Carroll"

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

#405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be noted that defamation law has a very low threshold in Germany, to the point that businesses routinely sue Google Maps users for less-than-5-stars reviews. Google had to change their display of reviews because of this. Three stars review is taken down for "libel": https://support.google.com/maps/thread/367778263/google-maps... HNer gets a legal threat after saying that he didn't like a doctor: https://new…

You cannot get sued for a review just because it's lower than 5 stars. But of course if you write something like "I found a dead cockroach in my pizza", or "I hard that they don't clean the dishes enough" in a review without proof, that's defamation. And it doesn't matter if you give 1 or 5 stars with the review.

That is in practice not true. If you leave a fake but glowing 5-star review, no business will challenge it. But if you leave a 1, 2, 3, or even 4-star review, suddenly you're asked to provide proof. Of course, they can legally challenge a 5-star review as well. But in reality they conveniently don't seem to care about those.

Anyway, Germany is probably one of the few places where this happens. The issue isn't necessarily that reviews can be challenged. The issue is that users aren't informed when they leave a review that they may later be required to provide proof of their visit.

I once left a negative review of a very popular touristy business in Germany after a genuinely terrible experience. I included photos and detailed information, yet they still challenged the review, claiming I had never been a customer. Google then required me to provide additional evidence to prove that I had actually visited the place.

What made it even more frustrating is that they challenged the review two years in a row. After the second challenge, I wrote to them that if they continued contesting the review, I would consider it harassment and pursue legal action. After that, they stopped.

What I find pretty shady is that most businesses seem to wait a year or two before contesting reviews. By that point, most people no longer have receipts, invoices, or other documentation. If they challenged reviews immediately, customers would be much more likely to still have that evidence available. In my case, I take photos frequently, so Google accepted my proof and kept the review online.

Ironically, after going through this process myself, I've come to believe that some form of verification should probably be standard worldwide. Requiring reviewers to provide evidence that they were actually customers could help reduce fake reviews. But if that's going to be the standard, it should be clearly communicated upfront, before people submit their reviews.

Another related issue I have with Google Maps is that, at least in my home country, some places have reviews disabled because Google considers them too prone to polarization or controversy. Schools are one example.

Personally, I think that's a terrible idea. I'd rather be able to read the reviews and make up my own mind. Instead, Google, in its infinite wisdom, decides that certain topics are too contentious for users to see feedback at all.

I find that to be one of the worst decisions made by the Google Maps team. Hiding reviews doesn't eliminate disagreement or bias, it just removes information that users could otherwise evaluate for themselves.

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

#406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could challenge the *DCMA* claim in court and win, but you would have to spend a lot of money and time, and the only thing you get back in the end is the right to post the *code to Github*.

The answer is you stay clear of US law jurisdictions and post your code to gitflic.ru Its where the DRM bypass software lives these days, along with Bypass Paywalls Clean.

I've been on the internet for a long time, and it still surprises me that people willingly post emulator code next to their real names on Github.

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

#407
post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI systems will eventually be good enough (in 10-20 years) for companies to be able to deploy such systems with sufficient accuracy to afford the lawsuits. This doesn’t sound convincing. What AI and what company? LLMs don’t seem like they will ever be reliable like that. Self driving like waymo might be?

LLMs will absolutely be like that. The speed this technology is moving at makes me certain, especially over a period of 10-20 years; 20 years ago I was bugging friends for a GMail invite and AI was a joke left to academics. I think it will even be solved soon, like, within the next 18 to 36 months. Hallucinations are the biggest problem consumers have with LLMs and a solution to that would be instantly worth billions…

This is disregarding the entire mechanism by which LLMs work. How close to this ideal are the current frontier level ai is now? If you do a cost/improvement analysis does it look like it can reach a usable threshold?

I don’t know the numbers but as user, it seems impossible for it to be useful without expert review. It is also debatable if it brings any value when you consider the cost of building and using LLMs and the time of expert. Also need to include the opportunity cost the expert is spending on reviewing slop instead of creating work themselves and the long term consequences of this on the expert himself

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

#408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. If Google isn't liable for that content nobody is.

That's probably what they actually think at Google. A lot of the "they're just like people" marketing now seems like responsibility-washing. That despite Google developing the LLM and charging for its use, they treat it less like a piece of software and more like providing access to some guy's answers who has no agency and isn't owned by them. If their software ever messes up and calls you a murderer to a potential employer, or offers dangerous advice, their reaction would be "oh well, that's just too bad isn't it? Well, we wrote that the LLM may not always be right in page 683 of the service agreement, so this is not our problem."

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

#409

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 Se…

I mean was google search responsible for surfacing correct answers? I am not a defend of AI but this seems like a weird piece of legislation.

No, Google search was simply repeating quotes from other websites - those other websites would be responsible for their content. Now that Google is manufacturing answers using their own LLM, they are responsible for whatever results that produces.

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

#410
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a win win to me

To remove the choice from responsible people who can understand that LLM answers are not to be trusted with anything important?

There's plenty of examples of supposedly responsible people using LLM answers verbatim without any kind of overview by themselves e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/06/high-cour...
Post reply on HN