# Germany Rules Google AI Overviews and Perplexity Are Publishers Under Media Law > Source: > Published: 2026-07-17 14:20:57.074818+00:00 # Germany Rules Google AI Overviews and Perplexity Are Publishers Under Media Law - Germany's ZAK classified Google AI Overviews and Perplexity as content providers, not neutral platforms, in the first such ruling globally [[1]](https://the-decoder.com/germany-puts-googles-ai-overviews-and-perplexity-under-media-law-in-first-of-its-kind-ruling/) - The regulator found the EU's Digital Services Act liability shield does not apply because AI outputs constitute original content created by the companies themselves [[2]](https://www.cryptopolitan.com/german-regulator-google-perplexity-media/) - Google was cited for transparency failures and for crowding out traditional publisher links with AI-generated summaries [[1]](https://the-decoder.com/germany-puts-googles-ai-overviews-and-perplexity-under-media-law-in-first-of-its-kind-ruling/) - Google said it plans to appeal, arguing the ruling 'fails to recognise how people's preferences when searching for information and the information ecosystem are changing' [[3]](https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/416542/germany-says-googles-ai-overviews-perplexity-ai.html) - The ruling follows a May 2026 Munich court decision that held Google directly liable for false statements generated by AI Overviews [[4]](https://the-decoder.com/landmark-german-ruling-declares-googles-ai-overviews-are-googles-own-words-and-makes-it-liable-for-false-answers/) Germany's Commission for Licensing and Supervision (ZAK), which represents the country's 14 state media authorities, ruled on July 14 that Google's AI Overviews and Perplexity AI are content publishers subject to the State Media Treaty — not neutral search platforms entitled to liability protections. The decision marks the first time any regulator worldwide has formally applied media law to AI-generated search outputs [1]. The ruling strips both companies of the Digital Services Act's liability exemption for third-party content, on the grounds that AI-generated summaries and chatbot responses constitute original compositions by the providers themselves. ZAK Chairman Thorsten Schmiege said the enforcement would be consistent going forward: "AI search engines and chatbots are content providers. From now on, we will always apply German media law to them" [2]. Google said it plans to appeal, with a spokesperson arguing the decision "fails to recognise how people's preferences when searching for information and the information ecosystem are changing." Perplexity declined to comment. Both companies have one month to challenge the immediately enforceable orders [3]. ## What the Regulator Found ZAK issued separate enforcement orders against Google and Perplexity, each citing distinct violations of the State Media Treaty [1]. For Google, the regulator identified failures to meet transparency requirements and what it called discriminatory placement practices. ZAK found that AI Overviews are positioned prominently above traditional search links, crowding out original publisher content — particularly from journalistic sources. The regulator argued this harms media diversity because users rarely click through to source links after receiving an AI-generated answer [1]. For Perplexity, ZAK cited a missing designated German representative and insufficient transparency disclosures. The regulator also flagged Perplexity's ability to let users customize news sources, which it said qualifies the service as a media intermediary subject to plurality protection rules [2]. Critically, ZAK determined that the Digital Services Act's safe-harbor provisions — which shield platforms from liability for hosting third-party content — do not apply to either company's AI outputs. The rationale: AI systems combine and analyze multiple sources into novel statements, making the provider the author, not a conduit [1]. ## The Munich Court Precedent The ZAK ruling follows a related but separate legal action in the courts. On May 28, the Regional Court of Munich issued a temporary injunction (case no. 26 O 869/26) against Google after two Munich-based publishers sued over false statements generated by AI Overviews [4]. The court found that Google's AI had falsely connected the publishers to fraudulent practices and companies — producing claims 'that are not even made in the search results,' according to the ruling. The court classified these as Google's own assertions, rejecting the argument that users bear responsibility for verification [4]. The Munich court ordered Google to pay 80% of legal costs. The decision established early judicial precedent that AI-generated summaries are fundamentally different from traditional search indexing — a distinction ZAK's media regulators subsequently adopted in their broader enforcement action [4]. ## Why It Matters The ruling creates a concrete regulatory framework for treating AI search products as publishers rather than platforms — a distinction with significant operational consequences. Under Germany's State Media Treaty, content providers face transparency obligations, non-discrimination requirements for how they surface third-party content, and rules designed to protect media plurality [1]. For Google, the implications extend beyond Germany. AI Overviews have rolled out across dozens of markets, and the German precedent gives other European regulators a template for similar enforcement. The European Commission has separately been examining AI-generated content under the AI Act, but Germany's state-level media authorities moved first [2]. The ruling also carries weight for the broader AI search category. Perplexity, which has positioned itself as an AI-native alternative to Google Search, now faces the same publisher obligations in Germany — undermining the argument that AI answer engines operate in a fundamentally different regulatory category than traditional media [1]. ## What's Next Both companies have one month from the July 14 ruling to file appeals. Google has signaled it will challenge the decision. Perplexity has not indicated its plans [3]. The enforcement orders are immediately effective, meaning both companies are technically required to comply with the State Media Treaty's transparency and non-discrimination provisions while any appeal is pending [1]. The ruling's reach beyond Germany remains uncertain but potentially significant. Other EU member states operate under different media regulatory frameworks, but Germany's action provides a first-mover template. Meanwhile, the Munich court's separate finding on direct liability for AI-generated falsehoods opens a parallel front — one focused not on media law compliance but on defamation and accuracy standards for AI outputs [4]. ## Companies mentioned ## Further sources [[1] The Decoder — Germany puts Google's AI Overviews and Perplexity under media law… ↗](https://the-decoder.com/germany-puts-googles-ai-overviews-and-perplexity-under-media-law-in-first-of-its-kind-ruling/) [[2] Cryptopolitan — German regulator says Google and Perplexity must follow media l… ↗](https://www.cryptopolitan.com/german-regulator-google-perplexity-media/) [[3] MediaPost — Germany Says Google's AI Overviews, Perplexity AI Subject To Media … ↗](https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/416542/germany-says-googles-ai-overviews-perplexity-ai.html) [[4] The Decoder — Landmark German ruling declares Google's AI Overviews are Google'… ↗](https://the-decoder.com/landmark-german-ruling-declares-googles-ai-overviews-are-googles-own-words-and-makes-it-liable-for-false-answers/) The stories that matter, in one email. Free — unsubscribe anytime.