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.

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.

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.