What happened
The Aachen Regional Court has barred Google, in an urgent proceeding, from further spreading certain false statements about a physician from Aachen. The order is dated September 24, 2026 and is not yet final; Google can file an objection, according to The Decoder.
The doctor had served as chief physician and professor of neuroradiology from 2010 until the end of June 2026. According to The Decoder, Google's AI Mode explained his departure with an alleged sexual assault against his secretary. Further searches using terms such as "suspension," "termination" and "court proceedings" returned detailed fabrications, including an invented legal aftermath. According to the court, the allegations and proceedings did not concern the doctor; the AI had attributed events involving a different former university professor to him.
Google ignored the complaint
According to The Decoder, the doctor asked Google by email at the end of August to remove the content. In mid-September Google said it would take no action; a formal legal letter sent the same day also had no effect. Google confirmed receipt, but according to the court the false texts remained online.
The court prohibited the spread of three disputed text variants. It acted without first hearing Google, because the claims could seriously damage the doctor's professional reputation. According to the order, violations can incur fines of up to 250,000 euros per violation.
Connection to the Munich ruling
The Aachen court explicitly relies on a judgment of the Munich Regional Court I from late May. That ruling held Google directly liable for AI-generated search overviews after the AI falsely linked two Munich publishers to fraud schemes. According to The Decoder, Google announced an appeal against the Munich ruling, but the proceedings ended in a settlement. Whether money changed hands and why the settlement was reached is not known.
The Aachen judges quote the Munich reasoning directly: Google's AI produces "independent, new, and substantive statements based on an evaluation and combination of content from various third-party websites." On this reading, Google would not merely be an intermediary of third-party content but the author of the statement itself.
Assessment
If this line prevails, liability for AI answers would not be limited to individual false claims. That the urgent order is not final, and that the Munich ruling was never confirmed by a higher court, remains essential: no binding clarification exists yet. For companies that use AI search features or are covered by them, it is open how far responsibility extends when AI systems generate their own statements from third-party sources.
Sources
Editorially owned by Ideal Syka. Sources and method: Newsroom & method. Tips and corrections: ai@i6eal.de.
