Germany Rules Google's AI Overviews and Perplexity Subject to Media Law in Landmark Decision

On July 16, 2026, the German Licensing and Supervisory Committee (ZAK) issued its first rulings against Google AI Overviews and Perplexity, determining that both AI services are content providers and must comply with Section 109 of the German State Media Treaty. ZAK Chairman Thorsten Schmiege stated: 'AI search engines and chatbots are content providers, and we are now consistently applying German media law to them.'

The core legal basis of the ruling is that AI-generated responses do not qualify for the liability exemption for third-party content under the EU Digital Services Act (DSA). ZAK argues that AI output is 'independently created new content' by the service provider, not a redistribution of third-party material. A Munich court had previously reached a similar conclusion in another case, deeming AI-generated text as 'independent, novel, and substantive statements' and holding Google liable for false information. Google has announced it will appeal.

Both companies have one month to appeal the ZAK ruling. The ruling takes immediate effect, but enforcement may be stayed pending appeal.

ZAK accuses Google of violating transparency rules and anti-discrimination provisions. Google places AI Overviews at the top of search results, pushing traditional links—especially news sources—further down. The regulator considers this prohibited discrimination because the AI responses are Google's 'own content,' not neutral search results.

The issue goes beyond link visibility. Studies show that once users feel their question has been answered, they rarely click on source links. Google argues these studies are flawed but has not released contrary data. Google does include source links in AI Overviews, but click-through rates are extremely low.

For Perplexity, ZAK currently only points out its lack of a designated German representative and transparency disclosures. In theory, Perplexity's service model is similar to Google's, but due to its smaller market influence, it has not yet faced equivalent discrimination charges.

ZAK also treats AI services as 'media intermediaries.' When a chatbot includes third-party content in the form of source links or lists, it effectively shapes whether users can find that content. The regulator argues this meets the threshold for media intermediaries, triggering transparency rules to protect media diversity. Schmiege emphasized: 'Anyone who controls whether content is found through the selection and placement of links must make that transparent. Otherwise, the diversity of journalistic and editorial offerings will disappear.'

Legal opinions from law professors Jan Oster and Christoph Busch support the regulator's view. They argue that AI integration into search engines changes how information is accessed: from a list of links to a single prose answer, which reduces traffic to original sources and jeopardizes the funding base of journalism. They recommend creating a separate category for AI search engines under state media law and establishing rules to protect media diversity.

Google has introduced a 'Preferred Sources' feature that allows users to specify which sources should be prioritized. Critics argue this is merely a 'fig leaf'—few users actively maintain custom source lists, while publishers scramble to promote the feature. For Google, it amounts to a free pass to replace original sources in AI responses with providers that cannot or will not fight back in court.

The feature may be used by Google as a courtroom argument that users can choose sources, thereby circumventing discrimination allegations. But its actual effect is questionable: by default, AI Overviews still prioritize Google's own content, and the likelihood of users actively modifying settings is extremely low.