A second German court has applied the reasoning that Google is legally responsible for what its AI search summaries say, The Decoder reported on October 19, 2026. In a decision dated September 24, 2026, the Aachen Regional Court barred Google from spreading certain false statements generated by its “AI Mode” search feature and explicitly relied on an earlier Munich ruling. The decision is an emergency injunction, and Google can still challenge it; it is not final.

The Munich ruling and the settlement

In late May, the Munich Regional Court I ruled that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI-generated search summaries. Google’s AI had falsely linked two Munich-based publishers to fraud schemes. The judges classified AI Overviews not as mere links to third-party websites but as Google’s own statements, meaning the company itself has to answer for unlawful content.

Google publicly announced an appeal, but, as The Decoder learned, it was never carried through to a decision. The case ended in a settlement, so no higher court weighed in on the Munich reasoning. Why the settlement happened and whether money changed hands is unknown, and neither Google nor the affected publisher would comment.

The Aachen case

The new case involves a physician who worked as chief physician and professor of neuroradiology in Aachen 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. Follow-up searches with terms such as “suspension,” “termination” and “court proceedings” returned detailed, multi-paragraph fabrications, including an invented legal aftermath.

None of it was true. According to the report, the AI had taken events involving a different former university professor and attached them to the doctor, something the court could confirm from its own records because the criminal case had been brought against someone else. The doctor described the mix-up to Google in late August and asked for removal by email; Google said in mid-September it would take no action, and a formal legal demand sent that same day also produced nothing. The court then barred further spread of three disputed text variants, acting on an emergency basis without hearing Google first because of the risk to the doctor’s reputation. Violations can bring fines of up to 250,000 euros each.

Why the reasoning matters

The court wrote that the respondent “provides AI-generated search and is therefore also responsible for the answers generated in this context,” and cited Munich in noting that Google’s AI produces independent, new statements by evaluating and combining content from many websites. It added that Google could check such output, for example by comparing it with the source pages, and that confronting its own AI with the doctor’s objections would have caught the errors.

That distinction between a search index and a publisher is central. A search engine that lists links has long enjoyed relatively broad protection for content it merely points to. A system that writes new sentences looks more like an author. We explain the underlying failure mode in our glossary entry on hallucination, and for related legal fights over AI and content see AI copyright and training-data lawsuits explained.

Open questions

The Decoder raises two concerns. If Google keeps settling cases that reach higher courts, no binding precedent emerges, because that happens only when a case is pursued to the end. And it warns of a perverse incentive: affected parties or specialist law firms could probe AI search until it produces damaging claims and then seek injunctions. It also notes that if AI answers count as Google’s own content, publishers whose texts feed those answers might eventually assert their own claims, though that was not part of the Munich case. These are the outlet’s assessments, not findings of any court.

What to watch next

  • Whether Google challenges the Aachen injunction and how a court rules.
  • Whether the same reasoning appears in courts outside Germany.
  • Changes to AI Mode or AI Overviews, such as faster removal procedures for disputed statements.
  • Any publisher claims based on use of their text in generated answers.

Key takeaways

  • Two German courts, in Munich and Aachen, have treated Google’s AI search answers as Google’s own statements.
  • The Aachen order of September 24, 2026 is not final and carries fines up to 250,000 euros per violation.
  • Google settled the Munich case instead of pursuing its announced appeal.
  • The Aachen court said Google could check AI output against its sources.
  • The ruling concerns false statements about an individual, not copyright.

Frequently asked questions

Is the Aachen decision final?

No. Google can challenge the injunction.

What did the AI get wrong?

It attributed a sexual-assault case involving a different professor to the Aachen physician and invented legal proceedings.

Does this apply outside Germany?

These are German regional court decisions. Other countries have not been shown to follow the same reasoning.