this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
709 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

85330 readers
4207 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
709
Nobody needs AI to search the Internet, court says in ruling against Google (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 day ago by tonytins@pawb.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Potentially impacting all AI search engines and chatbots known to poorly paraphrase source links, a German court has ruled that Google is liable for false statements in AI Overviews.

The ruling came in a case flagged by The Decoder, where two publishers found that Google’s AI Overviews incorrectly linked them to scams and other sketchy business practices. After smearing publishers by making affirmative statements like “Yes, [it] is known for dubious business practices and is often perceived as a scam,” Google failed to correct the misleading output, even after the publishers sent a cease-and-desist letter earlier this year.

Google tried the usual arguments to shield itself from liability for false statements in AI Overviews, such as arguing that most users understand that AI outputs aren’t always accurate and must be verified.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 82 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

Minor clarification - the article writer (not the ruling) said: "In other words, nobody needs AI to search the Internet."

The actual ruling was that a search provider is responsible if they inaccurately summarize results. When search results are just links to content related to a topic, the provider isn't responsible for the accuracy of the content, which is created by others. But they are responsible for their own summaries and other provider-created content.

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

This is where the "nobody needs AI to search the internet" part comes from (emphasis mine):

Historically, any potentially harmful content surfaced by search engines has been protected from direct liability because that surfacing was considered largely unavoidable when helping users sort through an enormous tangle of information online. But the German court emphasized that AI search engines do not enjoy those same protections because AI summaries merely provide “an additional function—one without which the use of the search engine would still be (and is) possible, and without which users are perfectly capable of finding results amidst the ‘flood of data.’”

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

When search results are just links to content related to a topic, the provider isn’t responsible for the accuracy of the content, which is created by others. But they are responsible for their own summaries and other provider-created content.

This is clearly a reasonable line to draw. This is not content created by others. It's your robot. Fix your shit.

Saying "I slapped a disclaimer on my libelous robot that says that it may generate libel" doesn't grant you the right to be libelous.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago

Yeah it's not a landmark ruling by any means, it conforms to precedents and follows common sense. Content creators are responsible for what they create.

The clickbait headline tying the author's quote to the ruling was journalistically unprofessional - but headlines are usually written by editors not writers.

[–] owsei@programming.dev 41 points 1 day ago (2 children)

When search results are just links to content related to a topic, the provider isn't responsible for the accuracy of the content, which is created by others.

Maybe google should try to make a service that just shows links to useful pages to answer the search requests.

[–] Darkenfolk@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 day ago

Don't be ridiculous. what's next? Ownership of brought software instead of a License for use?

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

Like the Yellow Pages but for the internet!

[–] kaitco@lemmy.world 32 points 1 day ago

Which is such an amazing detail, and really is the clincher.

They would have to revert their AI “answers” until they can deliver consistent accuracy on their answers. Which isn’t even a possibility with AI.

I hope someone brings this to the US as well.

[–] Deconceptualist@leminal.space 12 points 1 day ago

This is entirely reasonable and I hope this understanding catches on in courts worldwide.

If I go make my own summary/parody/spinoff/reaction video based on someone else's content, I'm responsible for the media I created. Simple as that. Same should apply to companies.