June 13, 2026, 10:18 am | Read time: 4 minutes

The case stems from a dispute with two Munich publishing companies. These were associated with scams, subscription traps, and dubious business practices in the company’s AI responses to certain search queries. The court concluded that this impression arose from a mix of information.

Content about other companies was combined with information about the affected publishers. According to the court, the disputed statements were not found in the linked sources. The decision was reported by “The Decoder” with reference to the Munich I Regional Court ruling of May 28, 2026 (Case No. 26 O 869/26; PDF file).

Why Removing the Content Was Not Enough

At the time of the court’s decision, the criticized texts had apparently already disappeared from the AI overviews. Nevertheless, the chamber did not consider the case resolved. The court believes there is still a risk that similar statements could reappear.

The decisive factor was that Google had not provided a binding cease-and-desist declaration. Without such a commitment, it cannot be ruled out that the relevant content could be displayed again in future search queries.

Court Draws a Clear Line to Traditional Search

The judges also considered the functionality of the AI search overview important. In traditional search results, Google refers to content from other websites. The AI function, on the other hand, creates independent summaries. It rearranges information and formulates an answer from it.

From the court’s perspective, the AI overview therefore differs significantly from a regular list of results. Google cannot claim to merely make third-party content discoverable. In this context, it is also relevant that the company now wants to offer website operators additional options to exclude content from the AI search.

Google rejected the allegations. The company cited, among other things, the so-called indirect liability. According to this, search engine operators or hosting providers are not directly liable for linked or user-published content. They must act only after being notified of inadmissible content.

Google also argued that the underlying sources could be verified. Additionally, it is known that AI systems can make mistakes.

More on the topic

Deepfake Issue Court Requires Platforms to Actively Search for Illegal Content

Patent Dispute Acer and Asus Must Halt PC Sales in Germany

Why the Court Holds Google Responsible

This argument did not convince the court. According to the chamber, a false statement does not become permissible simply because it can be disproven through additional research. What is crucial is that Google provides the AI overview itself and has influence over the underlying systems.

Also interesting: What is behind Google’s new opt-out function?

Additionally, there is another difference from traditional search results. While a false statement there can usually be attributed to a specific website, it can only arise in an AI overview through the erroneous merging of multiple pieces of information. The court therefore believes that Google is responsible for such results.

Preliminary Injunction with International Effect

The decision does not yet represent a final resolution in a main proceeding. It was made in the context of a procedure for issuing a preliminary injunction. For the affected companies, however, it represents an important success.

Google is temporarily prohibited from further disseminating the disputed statements. The effect is not limited to Germany. Although the company requested such a limitation, the court rejected it. Citing the cross-border nature of the case and Article 36, Paragraph 1 of the Brussels I Regulation, the chamber saw no reason for a restriction. Thus, the preliminary injunction applies internationally. Google has not yet commented on the decision.