Live data from Hacker News

German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

the-decoder.com

521–530 of 587 posts

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

#521
post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's nothing illegal about emulation, IP theft is illegal. 99%+ of emulator projects are totally legal except in insanely corrupt countries.

> IP theft is illegal

For the plebes, it is a civil tort.

For the AI companies, its required for "training". Rules dont apply to too-large-to-fail professional for-profit pirates.

But damn you if you try to make a Netflix-clone with every video. Wew.

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

#522

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.

So if the actual page is defamatory then Google quoting it verbatim is protected. But if Google accurately summarizes the defamatory page, then the summary is defamatory?

It could presumably accurately summarise it while still sticking to reported speech. In German there is a grammatical tense that is basically only used for this; it's pops up in newspaper reporting a lot where they don't want to endorse the statements they are reporting.

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

#523
post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The source of the accusation is arguably more impactful than the accusation itself. No one with a straight face would compare an AI overview saying someone is an asshole to the New York Times running a story saying someone is an asshole.

If the New York Times wrote someone was allegedly an asshole, and Google Search condenses to presenting that as a fact, I’d bet you my left kidney that the general public would be quick to take that at face value.

And your beef is with the NYT in that case. Not with the neutral aggregator who includes a specific disclaimer that its output may be incorrect due to unavoidable technological limitations.

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

#524
post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 „…

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

I think you have misapprehended the ruling. Of course running an LLM that spits out libel is also a crime outside of search engines. It's just that _this_ crime has those elements. If Meta's LLM defamed a business, then the ruling would instead talk about Whatsapp users and chats, or whatever.

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

#525

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 an…

> 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.

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

#526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Google just removes them as a first step because this is the least amount of work for them. Theoretically there is an Google appeals process. After that it needs to go to court. My guess is that often reviews are generalizing (easy mistake to make). E.g. they say "service is slow", when they should say: "When I was there on Thursday at noon service was slow for my table".

When reading a review, it should always be assumed that it is based off of one "visit". A negative review will probably never have more than a few visits and if they do they'd normally say "I used to come here a lot but after new ownership service sucks!"

We're talking about a country where someone had their house raided and their devices stolen by the police for tweeting "Du bist so 1 Pimmel" (you are such a dick) to a politician.

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

#527
post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the New York Times wrote someone was allegedly an asshole, and Google Search condenses to presenting that as a fact, I’d bet you my left kidney that the general public would be quick to take that at face value.

And your beef is with the NYT in that case. Not with the neutral aggregator who includes a specific disclaimer that its output may be incorrect due to unavoidable technological limitations.

It doesn’t matter who you’re angry with in that case, because you’re going to suffer the consequences regardless. No lawsuit is going to reimburse for that.

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

#528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When reading a review, it should always be assumed that it is based off of one "visit". A negative review will probably never have more than a few visits and if they do they'd normally say "I used to come here a lot but after new ownership service sucks!"

We're talking about a country where someone had their house raided and their devices stolen by the police for tweeting "Du bist so 1 Pimmel" (you are such a dick) to a politician.

This was later deemed inappropriate by courts. Shit happens -- as long as the corrective mechanisms work it is just exceptions.

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

#529
post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't know if you can "fix" hallucinations without changing the fundamental architecture. The other factor in this article is that prior to the AI summary at the top, Google could simply state that it was an error on the part of the website owner. Now it is being held liable for whatever the summary states - even if it's more accurate, it can still be wrong enough times to be expensive.

> I don't know if you can "fix" hallucinations without changing the fundamental architecture.

Exactly. "hallucinations" are not some special case. They are the LLM working as designed.

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

#530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When reading a review, it should always be assumed that it is based off of one "visit". A negative review will probably never have more than a few visits and if they do they'd normally say "I used to come here a lot but after new ownership service sucks!"

> it should always be assumed Who dictates the "should”? The German law simply removes the need to assume anything.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN