{"slug": "google-s-gemini-is-sued-for-summarizing-a-hungarian-news-article", "title": "Google's Gemini is sued for summarizing a Hungarian news article", "summary": "Google's Gemini chatbot is at the center of a landmark EU copyright case after a Hungarian news publisher, Like Company, sued Google Ireland for reproducing and summarizing its protected press content without authorization. The Court of Justice of the European Union will decide whether LLM-generated responses that partially reproduce copyrighted text constitute communication to the public or reproduction under EU directives.", "body_md": "In the fast-evolving clash between generative AI and copyright law, few cases have captured as much attention as **Like Company v. Google Ireland Limited (Case C-250/25)**. Referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union in April 2025, this preliminary [ruling](https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document?source=showPdf.jsf&text=&docid=300681&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5279466) is widely viewed as a landmark opportunity for the EU’s highest court to clarify how existing copyright rules apply to large language models (LLMs) and AI chatbots.\n\nThe case centres on a Hungarian news publisher’s claim that Google’s **Gemini** chatbot (formerly Bard) reproduced and made available substantial parts of its protected press content without authorisation.\n\n**The Core Dispute, in the Court’s Own Words**\n\nAccording to the official **Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling**:\n\n*“The display, in the responses of a chatbot based on a large language model (‘LLM’), of a text partially identical to the content of the website of a press publisher, and also the communication to the public, reproduction and possible free use of that content.”*\n\nThe referring court (Budapest Környéki Törvényszék) framed the legal issues as:\n\n*“Categorisation, in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 2001/29 and Article 15 of Directive 2019/790, of editorial content which can be accessed through the responses given by the services of a chatbot, and also of the information communicated by means of editorial content which can be accessed through the results of a search.”*\n\n**Who Is Like Company?**\n\nLike Company is described in the document as:\n\n*“a commercial company incorporated in Hungary, [and] the publisher and operator of various news portals protected by intellectual property law.”*\n\nIt primarily publishes *“literary works of a journalistic nature”* and earns revenue through advertising displayed on its sites.\n\n**The Famous “Dolphins in Lake Balaton” Example**\n\nThe dispute was triggered by a specific article on one of Like Company’s portals (**balatonkornyeke.hu**). The official summary states:\n\n*“An article appeared on one of the applicant’s protected online press publications (balatonkornyeke.hu) stating that Kozsó, a well-known Hungarian singer, had not given up on his dream of putting dolphins in an aquarium next to Hungary’s largest lake, Lake Balaton. That article also made reference to other online press publications belonging to the applicant, reporting on the hospitalisation of Kozsó, his interests, the fact that he had served a custodial sentence in the United States and also a fine he had received for electricity theft.”*\n\nWhen a user asked Gemini:\n\n*“Can you provide a summary in Hungarian of the online press publication that appeared on balatonkornyeke.hu regarding Kozsó’s plan to introduce dolphins into the lake?”*\n\nthe chatbot allegedly gave:\n\n*“a detailed response which included a summary of the information appearing in the news media belonging to the applicant.”*\n\nThis example has become central to the case.\n\n**How Gemini Works – According to the Referral**\n\nThe document describes the technology as follows:\n\n*“The generative AI chatbot has been trained by means of the observation and matching of patterns (something known as ‘string searching’)… Gemini (Bard) is a basic model of the LLM type. It is neither an information database, nor an information retrieval system. It does not store copies of the data collected, but rather it converts them into tokens – that is, it breaks the texts down into minimum units – and processes them.”*\n\n**The Four Questions Referred to the CJEU**\n\nThe Budapest court asked the CJEU to rule on four key issues. Here they are in full:\n\n**Question 1 – Communication to the public**\n\n*“Must Article 15(1) of Directive (EU) 2019/790 … and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC … be interpreted as meaning that the display, in the responses of an LLM-based chatbot, of a text partially identical to the content of web pages of press publishers, where the length of that text is such that it is already protected under Article 15 of Directive 2019/790, constitutes an instance of communication to the public? If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, does the fact that [the responses in question are] the result of a process in which the chatbot merely predicts the next word on the basis of observed patterns have any relevance?”*\n\n**Question 2 – Is training an act of reproduction?**\n\n*“Must Article 15(1) of Directive 2019/790 and Article 2 of Directive 2001/29 be interpreted as meaning that the process of training an LLM-based chatbot constitutes an instance of reproduction, where that LLM is built on the basis of the observation and matching of patterns, making it possible for the model to learn to recognise linguistic patterns?”*\n\n**Question 3 – Does the TDM exception apply?**\n\n*“If the answer to the second question referred is in the affirmative, does such reproduction of lawfully accessible works fall within the exception provided for in Article 4 of Directive 2019/790, which ensures free use for the purposes of text and data mining?”*\n\n**Question 4 – Who is liable for the outputs?**\n\n*“Must Article 15(1) of Directive 2019/790 and Article 2 of Directive 2001/29 be interpreted as meaning that, where a user gives an LLM-based chatbot an instruction which matches the text contained in a press publication, or which refers to that text, and the chatbot then generates its response based on the instruction given by the user, the fact that, in that response, part or all of the content of a press publication is displayed constitutes an instance of reproduction on the part of the chatbot service provider?”*\n\n**Arguments from Both Sides (Directly from the Document)**\n\n**Like Company’s position**:\n\n*“According to the applicant, the chatbot’s response clearly indicates that the chatbot ‘knew’ [(had accessed)] the content of the protected publication and the response constituted an instance of making [that content] available to the public and also its reproduction.”*\n\nThe publisher argued there was *“continual infringing behaviour” *and that the use went far beyond *“individual words or very short extracts.”*\n\n**Google’s position**:\n\n*“The defendant… argues that the response generated by the chatbot does not constitute an instance of making [content] available to the public or reproduction. The defendant did not use any Hungarian hardware infrastructure to train the chatbot; that training did not take place in Hungary and, therefore, Hungarian law is not applicable.”*\n\nGoogle also emphasised that responses are often the result of *“hallucination”* and that most of the output was not taken from the protected articles.\n\n**Why This Case Matters So Much**\n\nThis is the CJEU’s first major opportunity to address generative AI and copyright head-on. The questions touch on training data, the text and data mining exception, the press publishers’ right, and liability for AI outputs. Issues that affect every major AI developer and news organisation in Europe.\n\nThe **Advocate General’s opinion** is [expected](https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/cjeu-grand-chamber-rules-music-sampling-and-pastiche-first-cjeu-hearing-generative-ai-and-copyright-2026-04-24_en) on **3 September 2026**, with the final judgment likely to follow several months later. The outcome could reshape how AI companies train models and display content across the EU.\n\nAuthor: [Andy Samu](https://x.com/Andysamu)", "url": "https://wpnews.pro/news/google-s-gemini-is-sued-for-summarizing-a-hungarian-news-article", "canonical_source": "https://mrkt30.com/dolphins-ai-and-copyright-the-strange-case-heading-to-europes-top-court/", "published_at": "2026-07-14 12:10:06+00:00", "updated_at": "2026-07-14 12:19:14.022890+00:00", "lang": "en", "topics": ["artificial-intelligence", "large-language-models", "generative-ai", "ai-policy", "ai-ethics"], "entities": ["Google", "Gemini", "Like Company", "Google Ireland Limited", "Court of Justice of the European Union", "Budapest Környéki Törvényszék", "balatonkornyeke.hu", "Kozsó"], "alternates": {"html": "https://wpnews.pro/news/google-s-gemini-is-sued-for-summarizing-a-hungarian-news-article", "markdown": "https://wpnews.pro/news/google-s-gemini-is-sued-for-summarizing-a-hungarian-news-article.md", "text": "https://wpnews.pro/news/google-s-gemini-is-sued-for-summarizing-a-hungarian-news-article.txt", "jsonld": "https://wpnews.pro/news/google-s-gemini-is-sued-for-summarizing-a-hungarian-news-article.jsonld"}}