A German court has ordered Google to stop spreading AI-generated claims that falsely connected a doctor to criminal allegations and legal proceedings involving someone else. The Aachen Regional Court’s decision applies reasoning from an earlier Munich case: when Google’s AI generates an answer, the company may be responsible for that answer as its own statement.
How a false account appeared in AI Mode
The doctor had worked as chief physician and professor of neuroradiology from 2010 until late June 2026. On August 28, a colleague told him that Google’s AI Mode was explaining his departure by referring to an alleged sexual assault against his secretary.
Further searches using terms such as “suspension,” “termination,” and “court proceedings” produced detailed answers that added claims about a legal aftermath. The allegations and proceedings concerned a different former university professor, not the doctor. The Aachen court could confirm from its own records that the criminal case had been brought against someone else.
The doctor asked Google by email in late August to remove the material. In mid-September, the company said it would take no action. A formal legal demand sent the same day also failed to prompt removal; according to the court, the false texts remained available.
The court treated the answers as Google’s statements
The Aachen Regional Court prohibited Google from further spreading the three disputed text variants. It acted on an emergency basis without hearing Google first, citing the potential damage to the doctor’s professional reputation. The decision is not final, and Google can challenge the injunction. A violation could bring fines of up to 250,000 euros per violation.
In explaining its decision, the court relied on a Munich Regional Court I ruling from late May. That case involved AI summaries that falsely linked two Munich-based publishers to fraud schemes. The Munich judges treated the summaries as Google’s own statements rather than simple references to third-party websites.
The Aachen court echoed that approach, writing: “The respondent provides AI-generated search and is therefore also responsible for the answers generated in this context.” It also cited the Munich ruling’s description of AI output as “independent, new, and substantive statements based on an evaluation and combination of content from various third-party websites.”
The court said Google could check generated claims against the websites used as sources. It added that presenting the doctor’s objections to Google’s own AI would have allowed the system to catch the errors.
Munich’s reasoning has not received a higher-court decision
Google appealed the Munich ruling, but the case ended in a settlement before a higher court decided the issue. The reason for the settlement and whether money changed hands are unknown. Neither Google nor the affected publisher commented, and the Munich court declined to address the broader significance of its ruling.
A settlement resolved that case but did not prevent another court from applying similar reasoning. Aachen has now done so, although its injunction remains open to challenge and is not a final decision. The two cases therefore show courts applying a similar view, without establishing a binding higher-court ruling.
The implications could extend beyond false claims
If courts continue to treat AI search answers as Google’s own content, the consequences may reach beyond reputational harm caused by false statements. Publishers whose material is used to generate answers could potentially assert claims of their own. That question was not part of the Munich case, and the source presents it as a possible next step.
The cases also leave Google facing a difficult distinction: whether its AI search feature merely helps users find information published elsewhere, or creates new statements for which the company can be held responsible. If a top court eventually classifies AI answers as original content, the legal position of both Google and the publishers whose texts feed those answers could change. The source describes compensation to creators for each AI-generated answer as an extreme possibility, not an outcome established by either case.
For now, the Aachen order addresses three specific text variants about one doctor. Its wider importance depends on what happens if Google challenges the injunction and whether other courts continue to use the same reasoning.