The irony of an article that makes a false claim about what Google was found liable for.... and that very few are fact checking it :)

The law they broke was a law protecting personal and business reputation against false statements of fact. Essentially no one can say I might be wrong, check yourself, but X is Y if that claim is essentially defamatory.

This is pretty good, I hope googles approach is to make sure they don't end up making statements of fact like they did and use more appropriate wording like according to X.... with direct disclaimer that they can't verify it. Even better that they look court documents to find any legal ruling and point people to that too.

▲

rendaw 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What does the article say that differs from what you wrote?

	▲	khazhoux 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What he wrote is narrower than the headline

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

csomar 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How much does Germany follow case law? If this could set a precedent, it's worth noting that anyone can generate these AI overview responses and they're wrong like 9 times out of 10 only.

▲

zerobees 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In common with most of Europe, German legal system is not based on case law. It's more firmly rooted in formal laws and regulations and judges are not required to follow precedent.

▲

aitchnyu 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Does formal law systems lead to a fraction of the lawyer work hours and ambiguity in spirit of the law? Been noticing legal LLM tools which have to crunch entire libraries.

▲

District5524 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The difference is quite subtle in common law v. continental law systems. In continental traditions, nobody really says a higher court decision is binding in the same sense as they do in common law. But even in common law, lower courts have the power to distinguish a case from a binding decision from a higher court. Or later courts may state that a particular argument used by a judge in the higher court was just 'obiter dicta' and not part of the 'ratio decidendi'. In continental systems, for most court processes, higher courts do have a strong persuasive power without formal binding (sometimes it may be stronger than your average "obiter dicta" in common law). So, there is a whole spectrum in obiter dicta as well. This decision was a preliminary injunction only from Landgericht Munich - you will have a final injunction order: https://the-decoder.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/26_O_869_2...

In Germany, you also have the Oberlandesgericht and the Bundesgerichtshof as a higher venue for civil cases (and the Constitutional Court as well). So, this is not like "the law has changed" at all. (I'm not a German qualified lawyer, but qualified in a close enough continental system, and on my way to be qualified in a common law jurisdiction soon, that's why I dare to comment on this aspect)

▲

kuerbel 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They don't have to follow it but leading decisions (Grundsatzentscheidungen) still influence how a lower court judge might interpret the same law. Based on providing legal certainty instead of stare decisis though. It's not a must, more of an... aid

▲

isaacfrond 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This is not such a decision though; it's a first instance decision at a lower court.

	▲	9dev an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Still - a judge on another case will probably factor this one into their decision, but if they have a radically different view or the case is sufficiently different, they could just as well come to a different conclusion.

▲

somenameforme 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It seems like this would ostensibly be illegal in most places. The reason e.g. social media sites in the US can post whatever and not be libel is because of section 230, but that only applies to user generated content. It's the reason that e.g. newspapers can be sued for publishing libelous/defamatory/etc content, yet the same author of such can post it on social media and those sites are legally immune. Kind of a weird law - especially given contemporary censorship regimes, but it's easy to understand the motivation.

But if you as a first party are publishing something directly, like Google is here, you're generally liable for what it says.

▲

shevy-java 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Google is breaking numerous things, so even if the article were incorrect, the underlying issue still remains. It is time to dismantle this Evil monopoly completely.

Also I am not entirely certain your statement is correct - which false claim does the article make exactly?

▲

aaron695 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]