🔍 Read the full analysis: Could Publishers’ Writing Be Protected When AI Chatbots Use It? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
On Nov. 3, 2026, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar advised the EU Court of Justice that chatbots may infringe press publishers’ rights if they access articles unlawfully or reproduce distinctive expression in a way that substitutes for the original. He said the test does not appear to be met in the dispute over Google Gemini’s summary of a Hungarian article about dolphins; the opinion is not binding, and the Hungarian court will decide the case.
The opinion concerns Case C‑250/25, Like Company v Google Ireland, referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union by a Hungarian court. Like Company, which operates Hungarian news websites, alleges that Google used its articles to train Gemini and reproduced them through the chatbot between June 13, 2023, and May 31, 2024. Those are the publisher’s claims, not findings by the court.
The dispute includes a summary of a July 2023 article about a singer’s reported plan to bring dolphins to a pool on Hungary’s Lake Balaton. Szpunar said an answer may infringe the EU press publishers’ right if the chatbot obtained the article by circumventing a paywall or anti-scraping measure, or if it carried over recognizable wording or other expression to the point that the user could do without the original publication. Repeating the same facts, by itself, would not be enough.
In the example before the court, the adviser said those conditions do not appear to be met: he cited no apparent access barrier, no recognizable wording in Gemini’s answer, and safeguards Google appears to have in place. His opinion is advisory, not a final judgment. The Hungarian court will apply the EU court’s eventual ruling to the dispute.
Infographic 01 · Where the line runs
When a chatbot answer infringes a publisher's right
Advocate General Szpunar's test in Case C‑250/25 for chatbots that retrieve news articles in real time and reuse them in their answers.
Stays free
- Reporting the same facts. Nobody owns the news itself (pts 199–200).
- A short factual summary, presented differently (pt 208).
- An overview built from several sources, restructured, with links back (pts 208, 234).
- Individual words or very short extracts (pt 201).
Can infringe
- Getting around a paywall or anti-scraping block to fetch the article (pt 188).
- An answer that keeps the article’s structure and phrasing, even paraphrased, so readers can skip the original (pts 202, 205, 207).
- Systematically recognisable articles in answers to related questions: making available to the public (pts 213, 240).
The test, step by step
For a chatbot that fetches a news article live (RAG) and answers a user
- Is it an online use by a service in the EU?Yes for RAG answers to EU users, wherever the servers are (pts 165–169).
- Did the bot get in lawfully?No circumvention of effective technical measures (pt 188).
- Is the article’s form of expression recognisable in the answer, to the point of substitution?Side-by-side comparison; facts do not count (pts 196–209).
- Is the provider responsible?If inherent to its business model, or no reasonable measures such as respecting blocks and output filters (pts 221–222).
- Temporary copies during retrieval are then exempt under Art. 5(1) InfoSoc; the TDM exception does not apply to RAG (pts 179–189).
An Advocate General’s opinion, not a judgment. General information, not legal advice.
Sources: Opinion of AG Szpunar, C‑250/25 (provisional text), CURIA press release No 155/26 (3 Nov 2026). Point numbers refer to the provisional text.
Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
Limits on Chatbot News Reuse
The opinion offers publishers and AI companies a possible legal line between reporting the same facts and reusing a story’s protected expression. Under the adviser’s approach, news facts are not reserved to the publisher, while copying distinctive wording or making an answer a substitute for the original may bring the press publishers’ right into play.
For publishers, that could support licensing discussions or challenges to chatbot answers that reproduce protected material or reach it through blocked routes. But the opinion does not give publishers ownership over the underlying news, nor does it establish that every AI-generated summary requires permission. The answer’s content, how the system accessed the source, and the protections on the site all matter under the proposed test.
For chatbot providers and users, the distinction could affect how AI search products retrieve and present journalism. A service may have reason to respect access controls, avoid close reproductions, and direct users to source pages. Those are potential implications of the opinion, not binding requirements established by a final judgment.
Products Worth Considering
Sony WH-1000XM4C (M4 2nd Gen) Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones, Black
Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (2024), 16 GB, 7-inch Display, Black
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Earbuds (2nd Gen), Wireless Noise-Cancelling Earbuds, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Gemini Dispute Reached Luxembourg
EU law has recognized a related right for press publishers since 2019, under Article 15 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive. The right was adopted with services such as news aggregators in mind, and the question in this case is how it applies when a chatbot retrieves an article and uses it to answer a user.
Like Company sued Google in Hungary. The Budapest regional court referred four questions to the EU court: two concerning alleged use of articles in AI training and two concerning chatbot answers. The EU court’s press release says that nine member states and the European Commission submitted written observations; a hearing took place on March 10, 2026.
On training, Szpunar’s main conclusion was procedural: he advised the court to find the two questions inadmissible because the record did not show that Like Company’s articles were used to train Gemini. He noted that the dolphin article appeared in July 2023, after which Gemini 1.0 was released in December, and considered live web retrieval a more plausible explanation for the summary. He also said the press publishers’ right concerns online use by services, not model training on dedicated computers. Separately, and as an additional discussion rather than the basis for answering the referral, he said EU text-and-data-mining rules generally cover training, subject to rights holders’ ability to opt out in a machine-readable way.
Final Ruling and Training Questions
The Court of Justice has not issued its judgment, and the advocate general’s opinion does not bind it. The court may follow the proposed approach, modify it, or reach a different conclusion. No judgment date was given in the source material.
It also remains unresolved whether Google actually used Like Company’s articles for model training; the adviser said the case record did not support that allegation. His comments on text-and-data mining were supplementary, because he advised the court not to answer the training questions. The extent to which the final ruling will address training, retrieval-based answers, or other types of AI service will depend on the court’s judgment and the Hungarian proceedings.
Court Judgment and Hungarian Proceedings
The next major step is a judgment from the Court of Justice, which will answer the EU-law questions referred by the Hungarian court. The court has not announced a date. Once it rules, the Budapest court will apply its interpretation to Like Company’s claims against Google and decide the dispute.
Until then, the opinion is guidance for the EU court rather than a binding decision for publishers or chatbot providers. The final ruling will clarify how the 2019 press publishers’ right applies when a chatbot retrieves articles and uses them in responses, while the specific outcome for Like Company will remain for the national court to determine.
Key Questions
Has the EU court ruled that Gemini infringed the publisher’s rights?
No. Advocate General Maciej Szpunar issued a nonbinding opinion, not a final court judgment. He said the conditions for infringement do not appear to be met in the example at issue.
When could a chatbot answer infringe press publishers’ rights under the opinion?
The adviser said infringement may arise if the chatbot gets an article by circumventing access restrictions, or reproduces recognizable expression so extensively that users can do without the original. Repeating facts alone would not be sufficient under his proposed test.
Did the opinion establish that Google trained Gemini on Like Company’s articles?
No. Szpunar said the record did not show that the articles were in Gemini’s training data and advised the court to treat the training questions as inadmissible. His separate comments on text-and-data mining were supplementary, not a finding about Google’s conduct.
What happens next in the case?
The Court of Justice will issue a judgment on the questions from Hungary, with no date announced. The Hungarian court will then apply the EU court’s interpretation to the claims in the case.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
