Second German Court Holds Google Liable for AI Search Statements

A Second Court Follows Munich on AI Liability

In a decision dated September 24, 2026, the Aachen Regional Court barred Google from spreading certain false statements produced by its AI Mode search feature. The ruling explicitly relies on a Munich Regional Court I decision from late May, which held Google directly liable for content in its AI-generated search summaries after the system falsely linked two Munich-based publishers to fraud schemes. In both cases, the courts classified AI overviews not as references to third-party websites but as Google's own statements.

Fabricated Legal Proceedings Pinned on a Physician

The Aachen case involves a physician who worked as chief physician and professor of neuroradiology from 2010 until late June 2026. On August 28, a colleague alerted him that Google's AI was explaining his departure by citing an alleged sexual assault against his secretary. Further searches using terms such as "suspension," "termination," and "court proceedings" returned detailed, multi-paragraph fabrications, including an invented legal aftermath. According to the court, the allegations and proceedings actually involved a different former university professor, which it could confirm from its own records.

The doctor described the mix-up to Google in late August and asked the company to remove the content. Google stated in mid-September that it would take no action, and a formal legal demand sent the same day went nowhere. The court then banned the further spread of the three disputed text variants on an emergency basis without hearing Google first, citing the risk of serious damage to the doctor's professional reputation. If Google violates the order, it faces fines of up to 250,000 euros per violation. The decision is not final, and Google can challenge the injunction.

Publisher Liability Risk Beyond Individual Claims

The Aachen court wrote that "the respondent provides AI-generated search and is therefore also responsible for the answers generated in this context." It also cited the Munich ruling directly, noting that Google's AI produces "independent, new, and substantive statements based on an evaluation and combination of content from various third-party websites." The judges said the company could check such statements by comparing AI output against the source websites it used, and that Google's own AI would have caught the errors if confronted with the doctor's objections.

Google announced an appeal in the Munich case but never carried it through to a decision, and the case ended in a settlement instead. No higher court has weighed in on the legal reasoning, and neither Google nor the affected publisher commented on the terms. The article warns that this creates a perverse incentive, in which specialized law firms and affected parties could probe AI search with targeted queries until the model produces false, potentially defamatory statements, then seek injunctions and negotiate settlements. If a top court were to classify AI answers as original content, publishers whose texts feed the answers could assert their own claims, potentially forcing Google to compensate content creators for every AI-generated response.

Sources: The Decoder