Are search engine providers liable for AI-generated answers?
The Munich I Regional Court addressed this question in its ruling of May 28, 2026 (Case No. 26 O 869/26): Yes, Google is liable for incorrect information generated by AI in response to a search query. AI summaries of search results are therefore treated differently from search results that are provided as a list of links with previews and/or snippets. Google bears only limited liability for the list of links and their contents.
The Case
Two publishers had filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against Google. They sought to prevent Google from displaying AI-generated summaries containing certain content as results of a Google search. In response to search queries about the two publishers, the AI summaries included, among other things, references to allegedly unscrupulous business practices and allegations of fraud. It was proven that some of the information provided by the AI actually referred to other companies or was fabricated.
The Munich I Regional Court therefore, had to decide whether AI-generated summaries in search engines should be treated the same way as traditional lists of links. According to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice, search engine operators are not liable for links to information provided by third parties that infringe the law. A search engine operator is also not required to review the links or their content. Only when the search engine operator is made aware of an infringement caused by a displayed link is it required to take action (Federal Court of Justice ruling of February 27, 2018, Case No.: VI ZR 489/16).
According to the recent ruling by the Munich I Regional Court, this liability exemption does not apply to the AI-generated summaries of search results that Google and other search engines now provide in addition to or in place of the list of links. The Munich I Regional Court holds that, in the case of AI-generated summaries, a search engine does not merely summarize search results, that is, third-party content. Rather, in the court’s view, the search engine independently formulates new statements in its own words in the AI-generated summary, following its own structure and, as occurred in this case, in some instances, including content not found in the linked sources. The AI-generated summary thus goes beyond the mere presentation of third-party content.
AI summaries are more than just a presentation of third-party content
Despite Google’s claims in its defense, the court finds that Google can influence the creation of AI-generated responses and control the algorithms used. Therefore, Google must be held responsible for the AI-generated responses as if they were its own. Google cannot invoke the liability exemption for search engines or hosting providers under the Digital Services Act (DSA) because, in the case of AI-generated summaries, Google does more than simply relay or store third-party content. Google had argued that it was not responsible for the data processing. The court did not accept this argument itself.
The possibility of review is not sufficient
The court also rejected Google’s argument that users of the search engine and the AI-generated summaries could verify the facts themselves using the sources provided. According to Google, it is also well known that AI-generated content is not error-free. The court sees it differently. The Munich I Regional Court sees no evidence that would prompt users to question and/or verify the AI-generated answers.
The trend seems clear
The ruling by the Munich I Regional Court appears consistent. It is not the first ruling to hold a search engine operator liable for AI-generated summaries. In its ruling of September 10, 2025 (Case No. 2-06 O 271/25), the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court had decided that it was, in principle, conceivable for a search engine operator to be held liable for incorrect AI-generated information. In the proceedings before the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court, however, the court nevertheless dismissed the claims asserted.
The judgment of the Munich I Regional Court is not yet final. Google may still file an appeal.
Charlotte Werther, LL.M., is a lawyer and research associate at the Open Search Foundation e.V. As part of the PriDI project, she focuses on designing an open search infrastructure that complies with fundamental rights.
