BUSINESSDevelopments · · 2 min read · Source: Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union
EU court adviser: AI chatbots can infringe publishers' rights
Advocate General Maciej Szpunar delivered his opinion in Like Company v Google on November 3, 2026. His core point: when an AI chatbot fetches news articles in real time and recognizably reuses their wording, it can infringe press publishers' rights.
Related tool · AdChatbase – AI customer service7-day trial
Key facts
- Advocate General Maciej Szpunar delivered his opinion in case C-250/25 (Like Company v Google) on November 3, 2026.
- If chatbot answers systematically and recognizably reproduce the wording of news articles, publishers' rights are generally infringed; plain facts are not protected.
- The opinion doesn't bind the CJEU; the ruling will be delivered later.
The case
Hungarian publisher Like Company sued Google, claiming the Gemini chatbot reproduced its articles and made them available to users between June 2023 and May 2024. A court in Budapest referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). According to the court, it is the first generative AI case to reach it.
What the Advocate General proposes
- Facts are free: the publishers' right protects the specific wording of an article, not the news itself.
- Two tests: did the chatbot access the article unlawfully, for example by getting around a paywall? And does the answer reuse the wording so recognizably that users no longer need to read the original?
- Liability: the provider is liable if such reuse is part of its business model or if it fails to take effective steps against it.
- Training: Szpunar considers the training questions inadmissible here because there is no evidence the articles were used. He notes, though, that training is in principle permitted under the EU text and data mining exception.
How binding is this?
An Advocate General's opinion doesn't bind the court, though judges often follow it. The ruling will come later; heise reports it wasn't expected before 2027. The Hungarian court will then decide the actual case based on the CJEU's guidance. For publishers, AI providers and anyone publishing AI-generated answers, the opinion is still an important signal.
What this means for you
- News facts stay free – what's protected is how an article is written.
- AI providers could become liable if their answers systematically and recognizably reproduce news articles.
- Nothing is decided yet: the CJEU ruling comes later.
How to use this
Check whether AI answers end up word for word in your client-facing texts or website. Set a simple rule: AI for research, your own words for the text, and always link the source.
Luigi's take
I think the Advocate General's line is sensible: nobody owns facts, but the work that goes into a text deserves protection. For businesses, this isn't just a fight between Google and publishers. If you paste AI answers unchecked into newsletters, blog posts or decks, you may be reusing someone else's wording without noticing.
My advice: use AI for research and structure, but write the text in your own words and link the original source. That's how we handle AI News here, too. It's cleaner legally, and it builds more trust with your readers.
FAQ
Is AI training on news articles now banned?
No. The Advocate General considers the training questions inadmissible in this case and notes that training is in principle permitted under the text and data mining exception.
When will the CJEU rule?
No date has been set. The judges are now deliberating; the ruling will be delivered later.
Source
More sources
- heise online – Bericht mit Reaktion von Google
This article was researched and written with AI assistance. Responsible: Luigi Lugmayr.
