[brainwad]

It has nothing to do with monopolies. Google was protected from defamation law with search because the page title and snippets were direct quotes from the linked result page. Whereas with AI overviews, the copy is written by a Google-controlled LLM.

[Saline9515]

It should be noted that defamation law has a very low threshold in Germany, to the point that businesses routinely sue Google Maps users for less-than-5-stars reviews. Google had to change their display of reviews because of this.

Three stars review is taken down for "libel": https://support.google.com/maps/thread/367778263/google-maps...

HNer gets a legal threat after saying that he didn't like a doctor: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44734895

Google maps german policy: https://support.google.com/contributionpolicy/answer/1699727...

Meanwhile, service in Germany is still rather poor (especially if you have children), but at least no one can complain!

[CarlitosHighway]

You cannot get sued for a review just because it's lower than 5 stars. But of course if you write something like "I found a dead cockroach in my pizza", or "I hard that they don't clean the dishes enough" in a review without proof, that's defamation. And it doesn't matter if you give 1 or 5 stars with the review.

[Saline9515]

Multiple people report that comments such as "Service was slow", or three star rating without comment were removed.

If Google started to show how many reviews were removed, it was because the lawfare started to seriously affect the ratings.

[luke5441]

Yes, Google just removes them as a first step because this is the least amount of work for them. Theoretically there is an Google appeals process. After that it needs to go to court.

My guess is that often reviews are generalizing (easy mistake to make). E.g. they say "service is slow", when they should say: "When I was there on Thursday at noon service was slow for my table".

[abustamam]

When reading a review, it should always be assumed that it is based off of one "visit". A negative review will probably never have more than a few visits and if they do they'd normally say "I used to come here a lot but after new ownership service sucks!"

[RobotToaster]

We're talking about a country where someone had their house raided and their devices stolen by the police for tweeting "Du bist so 1 Pimmel" (you are such a dick) to a politician.

[alterom]

> it should always be assumed

Who dictates the "should”?

The German law simply removes the need to assume anything.

[DonHopkins]

"Lawfare" is a propogandistic term coined and used hypocritically by people who get away with doing illegal things themselves, and have a long track record of getting revenge for being legally indicted and prosecuted, by gleefully going after innocent people on their enemies list with the very legal system they control themselves. And you know exactly who I mean, who uses that term all the time.

[Saline9515]

The term is older than Trump. Suing everyone who criticizes you is a classic example of lawfare. The goal is not justice but the chilling effect created by your legal actions.

[nobody9999]

>The term is older than Trump. Suing everyone who criticizes you is a classic example of lawfare. The goal is not justice but the chilling effect created by your legal actions.

According to[0] the (aptly named) Lawfare Institute:

   Since the term “lawfare” is controversial in some circles, and subject to a 
   variety of interpretations and uses, a bit more explanation about our 
   understanding of the concept is in order. Going back to the 1950s, the term 
   has frequently been used in contexts wholly unrelated to national security, 
   ranging from divorce law to courtroom advocacy to colonialism to airfare for 
   lawyers.

While the term is often used to do as you assert, it can also have a different remit. cf. some of the topics addressed[1] by the aforementioned Lawfare Institute.

[0] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/about/our-story

[1] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/

[CarlitosHighway]

Anecdotal

[Saline9515]

Of course, Google spends engineering/legal hours to make country-specific changes relative to problems that do not exist.

[joe_mamba]

Save your breath. CarlitosHighway's posts on this thread shows he's just blindly running defense for Germany's status quo on defamation laws low threshold for abuse on every argument someone brings, not being open to arguing in good faith, weightings in on the pros and cons of this, so it doesn't matter what counterexamples you keep bringing to him, it won't change his mind, his replies will be more "anecdotal" snarks.

When you see the pattern, best to stopped arguing with such users as their goal is not an honest debate, their goal is just to 'DDoS' you with their opinion.

[biosboiii]

There are agencies in Germany where you can buy review removals in a web shop for like 50 euros per review.

You just have to link the review and they will send Google a legal document to delete it.

[xg15]

That sounds like a great incentive for such an agency to create the reviews in the first place...

[lazide]

For any given system, you’ll have those that try to play it straight - and those that will only ever try to play it crooked.

Make one big enough, and you’ll even have people trying to play it crooked by pretending to play it straight.

[biztos]

So you can take down any especially glowing reviews of your competitors for only 50€ a shot? Nice!

[cute_boi]

I was travelling in hudson yard ny, and I can see ads where they claims they can remove any google review for $1000.

[kwanbix]

That is in practice not true. If you leave a fake but glowing 5-star review, no business will challenge it. But if you leave a 1, 2, 3, or even 4-star review, suddenly you're asked to provide proof. Of course, they can legally challenge a 5-star review as well. But in reality they conveniently don't seem to care about those.

Anyway, Germany is probably one of the few places where this happens. The issue isn't necessarily that reviews can be challenged. The issue is that users aren't informed when they leave a review that they may later be required to provide proof of their visit.

I once left a negative review of a very popular touristy business in Germany after a genuinely terrible experience. I included photos and detailed information, yet they still challenged the review, claiming I had never been a customer. Google then required me to provide additional evidence to prove that I had actually visited the place.

What made it even more frustrating is that they challenged the review two years in a row. After the second challenge, I wrote to them that if they continued contesting the review, I would consider it harassment and pursue legal action. After that, they stopped.

What I find pretty shady is that most businesses seem to wait a year or two before contesting reviews. By that point, most people no longer have receipts, invoices, or other documentation. If they challenged reviews immediately, customers would be much more likely to still have that evidence available. In my case, I take photos frequently, so Google accepted my proof and kept the review online.

Ironically, after going through this process myself, I've come to believe that some form of verification should probably be standard worldwide. Requiring reviewers to provide evidence that they were actually customers could help reduce fake reviews. But if that's going to be the standard, it should be clearly communicated upfront, before people submit their reviews.

Another related issue I have with Google Maps is that, at least in my home country, some places have reviews disabled because Google considers them too prone to polarization or controversy. Schools are one example.

Personally, I think that's a terrible idea. I'd rather be able to read the reviews and make up my own mind. Instead, Google, in its infinite wisdom, decides that certain topics are too contentious for users to see feedback at all.

I find that to be one of the worst decisions made by the Google Maps team. Hiding reviews doesn't eliminate disagreement or bias, it just removes information that users could otherwise evaluate for themselves.

[MaKey]

Having proof is not always enough. I had a bad experience with a shady used car salesman and my review was removed by them. I appealed, nothing happened. I deleted the review and put up a new concise one with proof. It wasn't published. The appeal was eventually successful but my new review still not published. I appealed via arbitration, which was decided in my favor but the review is still not published, as their decision is not legally binding. So Google rather pays hundreds of Euros in arbitration fees than publish my honest review. In the arbitration process they said that because I deleted my first review there is nothing they could do, which to me is nonsense. Overall the Google Maps review situation is very frustrating. At least they now show how many reviews have been removed in the past year for defamation for every Google Maps listing.

[jorvi]

Nope, that is not defamation. Both defamation and libel require it to be a false statement. If you did find a cockroach or your plate was dirty, you can freely say so without needing to provide extensive proof.

[dcrazy]

Are you speaking about the law in Germany? Truth is not an absolute defense to libel in all countries.

[Ravus]

I can vouch for what you're saying - Italy is a jurisdiction in which truth is not a defense, for instance.

Truthful statement seem to be a defense for Germany, though. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...

[dcrazy]

I’m not a lawyer, much less a German lawyer, but it does seem to my lay eyes that this is true of “malicious gossip.” But what is “insult”?

> Section 192

> Insult despite proof of the truth

> Proof of the truth of the asserted or disseminated fact does not preclude punishment in accordance with section 185 if the insult results from the form of the assertion or dissemination or the circumstances under which it was made.

[camillomiller]

I wrote a one star review and posted pictures of a badly burnt pizza served at a restaurant in Berlin. Google sent me an email telling me they removed that because the restaurant filed a defamation claim

[belorn]

Sounds similar to Nintendo dmca takedowns. You could challenge the defamation claim in court and win, but you would have to spend a lot of money and time, and the only thing you get back in the end is the right to post the review.

[breezybottom]

How is that remotely similar? DMCA is about IP law.

[doubled112]

You could challenge the *DCMA* claim in court and win, but you would have to spend a lot of money and time, and the only thing you get back in the end is the right to post the *code to Github*.

[cpburns2009]

I gave a one star review to some cheap restaurant in Potsdam 10 years ago. I literally just said you get what you pay for. Last year I got a similar email from Google saying the review was removed for defamation.

[prox]

Also competitors would leave shit reviews and Googles completely brick walling any way to rectify or moderate reviews made it a shit service in true Google fashion. Google and service live in two different worlds.

[fakedang]

* FAANGAMO and service live in two different worlds

[oytis]

I think it was ruled that 1 star review without any words at all can be considered a defamation

[benj111]

>I heard that they don't clean the dishes enough

Is that defamation? That isn't a statement of fact, that's just relaying what you heard.

If I relay what the Daily Mail says, am I also guilty of defamation, or can I rely on what others say?

[SoftTalker]

If you quote the Daily Mail, with a citation, then probably not. If you are repeating a vaguely-source rumor that "you heard" then that's heresay and could be defamation.

[SkyBelow]

Is this self contradictory?

Making a claim of 3 star service, without providing 3 star service evidence, isn't any different than a claim like they don't clean the dishes enough. Sure, you didn't write out the exact words, but by submitting the review, you still submitted such a claim, and so it remains a question of if you provided evidence to prove it, which gets into how deep the legal system wants the evidence verified (is a picture enough, or do you need to provide evidence the picture is of the store at the date and time relevant to your review).

[applfanboysbgon]

> HNer gets a legal threat after saying that he didn't like a doctor: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44734895

This post is written by an LLM, and possibly a complete fabrication.

[Saline9515]

People don't need LLMs to lie, and someone in the comments tells a similar experience. You can also find plenty of similar anecdotes using a search engine of your choice.

You can even find many articles from specialized lawyers if you search in German: https://www.prinz.law/bewertungen/klage-zugestellt-wegen-neg...

[3ot]

Yeah, I agree about the LLM part.

But can confirm from personal experience that businesses threaten to sue based on Google Maps reviews.

[CarlitosHighway]

Let them sue then. Unless you lie in your review ("There was a used condom in my burger, 1 star"), nothing will happen.

[Saline9515]

"I trust the law and the justice system" is a great way to get a hands-on schooling on why people spend a lot of money on lawyers.

[microtonal]

This is why you get good insurance for legal help. If some company does this too you, you can defend without spending a lot on lawyers.

[emsign]

Please don't use fabricated anecdotes in replacement for your own anecdotes. That doesn't make your argument more trustworthy but doesthe opposite.

[jnovek]

If we’re talking about credibility, unfounded accusations of lying tend to harm the credibility of the accuser more than the accused.

[g8oz]

A lot of people use LLMs to clean up their sloppy text. Not realizing how fake it makes them sound. non-native speakers lacking confidence in their English are a type of llm abuser. It doesn't necessarily make the content fake.

[dgellow]

Damn, that makes public facing LLMs a horrible liability

[pif]

Which is what thay should be in any sane environments. LLMs can be wonderful tools, but they cannot be trusted.

[tempfile]

Public-facing LLMs are a horrible liability.

[InitialLastName]

No more of a horrible liability than a human writing public-facing copy.

[Blackthorn]

Good.

[harvey9]

Here's an article from outside the tech sector, which I am linking to as a corroboration since this is quite surprising for those of us unfamiliar with German law.

https://www.thelocal.de/20260504/how-a-google-maps-update-ex...

[arrowsmith]

See also: Germany's leader filing hundreds of criminal complaints against people who insult him on social media:

https://rmx.news/article/germany-chancellor-merz-quietly-fil...

[smcin]

Shocking, only 10 short years since this (when Merkel was Chancellor): Turkey asks Germany to prosecute comedian Jan Böhmermann (Germany's equivalent of John Stewart) over Erdoğan poem

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11474967

[arrowsmith]

Which led to a British journalist holding an "offensive poems about Erdogan" contest, which was won by Boris Johnson:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/19/boris-johns...

[CarlitosHighway]

"Germany's leader" - that's how you know it's a low-brow article.

[rpdillon]

Except the article doesn't say that, only the comment here does.

[y42]

the threshold is not low, I would argue, it's just companies like to exploit it.

(I just wrote an extensive analysis about that https://nickyreinert.de/2026/2026-05-28-google-maps-reviews/

[7bit]

That's BS.

Google does not get routinely sued.

Yes, Lawyers send takedown requests to Google.

Google sends the reviewer a message and ask for a statement. If you provide one. They will check it and decide whether they seem it defamation or not.

However, Google doesn't verify shit. Even if you send them proof of a purchase or visit and your message is objectively a opinion (not defamation) they will take it down. Why? I assume because they really don't care about individual reviews and rather spare the time and money and just take the comment down.

Google changing their review displays is Google's decision. It has NOTHING to do with any threat of being sued.

They could actually leave the review up when it's not defamatory but they simply don't want to invest the time to validate it or risk leaving a potentially defamatory review online.

And the legal threat is without proof, so why would you even bring it up. OP could have simply posted the letter. They didn't wich makes this completely unprovable

[Hfuffzehn]

Yes, the monopoly is not relevant for the court.

It is relevant for Google though, because they want to transfer it to another product.

And the court is saying that whatever that new product is, Google is not allowed to mislead the public by pretending it is search.

[fauigerzigerk]

I'm not sure. Is it really just the misleading part that the court takes issue with, i.e portraying Gemini output as a search result?

In my view, the ruling could mean that Gemini's output is legally seen as first-person speech by Google regardless of where it is published.

[Ekaros]

I think that will depend. If person publishes it as their own speech Google is likely not fully liable. On other hand as Google publishes it as their own speech on their own site well they are fully liable.

To me it seems pretty reasonable that content Google generates with Gemini and publishes on their own google.com domain is their speech. Or at least they are fully editorially responsible.

[Hfuffzehn]

Sure that could be the worst case. But then we are in the case law vs. continental law debate for lawyers.

When I wrote "Gemini is not illegal" it would have been more correct to say that the court has not decided about Gemini but specifically about search.

And I do think it makes sense to distinguish between explicitly chatting with an LLM and entering something in the search bar people have used for decades now.

[fauigerzigerk]

I completely agree with you that this particular ruling does not make Gemini illegal in Germany.

I'm just wondering whether the logic of the ruling is tied to the specific context (search results) or applied more generally to LLM generated text.

[danaris]

Based on the article, the problem isn't that Google is attempting to present the AI Overview as "search" to the users. Google is attempting to claim to the court that AI Overviews are just like search, and the court isn't buying it.

The problem here is that

1) the AI Overview is giving incorrect information, and

2) it is Google's own words

...which makes Google liable for anything false there.

They weren't liable for false statements in search results, because that was 100% other people's content, being linked to, with a small blurb taken directly from their words. With the AI Overviews, regardless of whether it's getting its information from other people's content, it's remixing it based on Gemini's algorithms and synthesising statements that are frequently wrong.

[sgc]

The ai legal situation is going to go through growing pains. I am abstracting from the specific laws of any one country, just thinking about the general context:

If ai output is not copyrightable, it should not be considered personal output. So nobody should be responsible for it. Or if it is considered personal output, it should be copyrightable. Or perhaps the ai companies will be liable for all output, and they will therefore all cease to exist in any useful form? This seems like another alternative, where the output legal value is not central, but there will be a thousand different fights about how it is presented to others.

[danaris]

That's trying to apply two completely separate legal frameworks, with different purposes, and force them to come to the same conclusion about one aspect of each of them. It's not that simple.

It's perfectly legally consistent to say that AI-generated content has no copyright (because it's the product of a computer, not a human), and also that the human or organization operating an AI is legally responsible for anything in its output that is legally actionable.

Someone needs to hold legal responsibility for any piece of content out there. You can't just wrap your decisions in AI and get to be free of all liability for it.

But copyright isn't like that. There's nothing lost to society by saying that content is not copyrightable, and particularly given how the major LLMs were trained, there's a lot lost to society by saying that they can take all of that from everyone without consent, and then everything it produces has copyright and can be used for, say, Google's profit in perpetuity.

[sgc]

Yes, I was not sufficiently thinking about copyright as an arbitrary legal construct that can be manipulated at will. I don't think output should have copyright, but I would presume the copyright should it ever exist would belong to the user and not the LLM creator, just like photoshop does not give adobe rights to user output. However much like there is no copyright, the uncertain output from an LLM should never directly create legal liability - the user prompt and intention should, and legal standards regarding recklessness and malice should apply. Otherwise it's a bit like blaming somebody for the output of a roulette wheel.

So I think I like the current decision which is more about presentation, dissemination, application, and claims than content, and there should of course be liability for LLM creators if they are not actively dealing with results like CP, violence, or many other illegal or dangerous things.

[Hfuffzehn]

The argument starts with

search engine -> search terms -> search command

Google accepted the argument up to that point. Then they argued that they are not responsible for the search result. The court argued that what they did was not a search (or not protected the way a search is).

The argument whether Gemini, ChatGPT or Claude are search engines and whether a prompt is search terms is a different argument. Certainly an interesting one, but not what that court looked at.

It's not just about the output, the input matters also.

[Terr_]

I recall "Large Libel Models" was one of the sobriquets going around.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4546063

[smcin]

Brilliant

[conartist6]

Right. If Google isn't liable for that content nobody is.

[tavavex]

That's probably what they actually think at Google. A lot of the "they're just like people" marketing now seems like responsibility-washing. That despite Google developing the LLM and charging for its use, they treat it less like a piece of software and more like providing access to some guy's answers who has no agency and isn't owned by them. If their software ever messes up and calls you a murderer to a potential employer, or offers dangerous advice, their reaction would be "oh well, that's just too bad isn't it? Well, we wrote that the LLM may not always be right in page 683 of the service agreement, so this is not our problem."

[andai]

Making the response consist entirely of direct quotes sounds like a better user experience than what they're doing now.

[panarky]

So if the actual page is defamatory then Google quoting it verbatim is protected.

But if Google accurately summarizes the defamatory page, then the summary is defamatory?

[brainwad]

It could presumably accurately summarise it while still sticking to reported speech. In German there is a grammatical tense that is basically only used for this; it's pops up in newspaper reporting a lot where they don't want to endorse the statements they are reporting.

[deanishe]

Did you read the article?

The whole point is that these particular defamatory claims weren't made by some third-party, but hallucinated entirely by Google's own AI.

There is no "accurate summary". Just a pack of lies fabricated in-house at Google.

[nonethewiser]

So AI isnt just ripping off the underlying information?