🔍 Read the full analysis: A Court Adviser Says AI Chatbots Can Infringe Rights: What’s Next? 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 can infringe press publishers’ rights if they access articles unlawfully or reproduce their distinctive expression so fully that users need not visit the original. He said the example involving Google’s Gemini and a Hungarian news article does not appear to meet that test; the opinion is nonbinding, and the court has not set a judgment date.
Advocate General Maciej Szpunar advised the Court of Justice of the European Union on Nov. 3 that AI chatbots may infringe press publishers’ rights when they retrieve and reuse online articles in certain ways. In a case involving Google’s Gemini and a Hungarian news story about dolphins, he said infringement could arise if a chatbot bypasses access restrictions or reproduces an article’s distinctive expression so extensively that users can skip the original; his proposed test, however, appears not to favor the publisher in this case.
The opinion concerns Case C-250/25, Like Company v Google Ireland. Like Company, which operates Hungarian news websites, sued Google in a Budapest court. It alleged that Google used its articles to train Gemini and repeatedly reproduced them or made them available through the chatbot from June 13, 2023, to May 31, 2024. Those allegations are not findings by the Court of Justice.
The dispute reaching Luxembourg centered on a Gemini response summarising a July 2023 article about a singer who wanted to bring dolphins to Lake Balaton. Szpunar’s proposed test distinguishes between the facts reported, which are not protected by the press publishers’ right at issue, and an article’s protected form of expression. Repeating the same facts would not, on its own, establish infringement.
According to the court’s account of the opinion, the proposed test would cover a chatbot that obtained an article unlawfully, such as by circumventing a paywall or anti-scraping measure. It could also cover an answer that retained enough of the article’s recognisable expression to let the user dispense with the original publication. Szpunar said those conditions do not appear to be present in the example before the court: he pointed to the apparent absence of access barriers, recognisable wording in the answer and Google safeguards.
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
The Proposed Limits on Chatbot Reuse
The opinion sketches a possible boundary for AI search and chatbot services that answer questions using live web pages. If the Court adopts that reasoning, services may need to respect publishers’ technical access restrictions and avoid answers that substitute for articles by closely reproducing their distinctive wording or presentation.
For publishers, the proposed approach could support claims where a service circumvents restrictions or reproduces protected expression, but it does not give them control over the underlying facts or every summary of a story. For readers, the line could affect how much source material chatbots quote or paraphrase and whether they provide links or direct users to the original. Those are possible effects, not outcomes established by this advisory opinion.
The opinion also gives companies and publishers a legal framework to debate while the case is pending. Its practical force depends on the final judgment and on how the Hungarian court applies that judgment to the evidence.
Products Worth Considering
DJI Osmo Mobile 8 Smartphone Gimbal with Mic Mini Transmitter, Infinity Black
Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (2024), 16 GB, 7-inch Display, Black
EcoFlow Delta 3 Portable Power Station – 1024 Wh, 1800 W
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Gemini Dispute Reached Luxembourg
EU publishers’ rights under Article 15(1) of the 2019 Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive were introduced to let publishers control or license certain online uses of press publications. The opinion recalls that lawmakers had news aggregators such as Google News in mind. The present case asks how that right applies when a chatbot uses web articles to formulate answers.
The Budapest court referred four questions to the EU Court of Justice: two concerning training AI models and two concerning chatbot answers. The hearing took place on March 10, 2026, after written observations from nine EU member states and the European Commission, according to the opinion. The Court of Justice describes the case as its first generative AI case.
On training, Szpunar’s main response was procedural: he advised that the questions should be ruled inadmissible because the record did not support a finding that Like Company’s articles had been used to train Gemini. He considered it more plausible that Gemini retrieved the dolphin article from the web when answering the query. Separately, and as additional discussion rather than a necessary answer, he said training is in principle covered by the EU text-and-data-mining exception, subject to rights holders’ ability to opt out in a machine-readable form.
The Court Has Yet to Rule
Szpunar is an independent legal adviser to the Court of Justice; his opinion is not binding. The judges may follow it, adopt parts of its reasoning or reach a different conclusion. No judgment date has been announced, and the final decision’s reasoning and effect remain unknown.
The underlying factual questions also remain for the national proceedings. The adviser said the example does not appear to show access restrictions being bypassed or distinctive wording reproduced, but the Court of Justice has not ruled on whether Google infringed Like Company’s rights. The opinion’s discussion of training likewise does not establish whether the articles were actually used for training; Szpunar advised that the training questions were inadmissible on the record before the court.
Awaiting the Luxembourg Judgment
The Court of Justice will issue the binding judgment in response to the Hungarian court’s questions. It has not announced when. The court’s statistics put the average time for preliminary references at 16.9 months in 2025; that figure is historical context, not a timetable for this case.
After the EU court rules, the Budapest court will apply the interpretation to Like Company’s dispute and determine the case under the relevant facts and law. Until then, Szpunar’s proposed distinction between unlawful access, close reproduction and ordinary reporting of facts is guidance for the judges, not a final legal outcome.
Key Questions
Has the EU Court of Justice ruled that Gemini infringed the publisher’s rights?
No. Advocate General Szpunar issued an opinion, not a judgment. The Court of Justice has not announced its decision.
When might a chatbot answer infringe press publishers’ rights under the opinion?
Szpunar said infringement may arise if a chatbot obtains an article by bypassing access restrictions or reproduces its distinctive expression so fully that users can dispense with the original. Repeating facts alone would not meet that test.
Did the adviser find that Gemini used Like Company’s articles for training?
No. He advised that the training questions were inadmissible because the record did not support that the articles were used for training. He considered live web retrieval a more plausible explanation for the example answer.
What happens next in the case?
The Court of Justice must issue its judgment on the Hungarian court’s questions. The Budapest court will then apply the EU court’s interpretation to the dispute. No judgment date has been set.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
