🔍 Read the full analysis: An EU Court Adviser Says AI Chatbots Can Infringe Publishers’ Rights. Facts Stay Free, The Writing Does Not. What It Means For Companies, Publishers And Users on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
On November 3, 2026, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar advised the EU Court of Justice that chatbots using online news articles may infringe press publishers’ rights if they bypass access barriers or reproduce a publication’s distinctive expression. He said the test appears not to be met in Like Company’s dispute with Google over a Gemini summary; the opinion is nonbinding, and the Court has not set a judgment date.
European Union Advocate General Maciej Szpunar said on November 3 that AI chatbots which retrieve online news articles and reuse them in answers may, in some circumstances, infringe press publishers’ rights. In Case C‑250/25, Like Company v Google Ireland, he said infringement may arise if a chatbot gets around restrictions on access or reproduces a publication’s distinctive expression closely enough that users can avoid reading the original. His opinion is not binding, and he said the available facts appear not to meet that test in the dispute over a Gemini summary.
The case began with an article published in Hungarian in July 2023 about a proposal to bring dolphins to Lake Balaton. Like Company, which operates Hungarian news websites, later sued Google in a Budapest court. The company alleges that Google used its articles to train Gemini and repeatedly reproduced or made them available through the chatbot from June 13, 2023, to May 31, 2024. Those are Like Company’s allegations, not findings by the EU court.
The Hungarian court referred four legal questions to the Court of Justice: two concerning AI training and two concerning chatbot answers. Szpunar advised that the questions about training should be declared inadmissible because the case materials do not establish that Like Company’s articles were used to train Gemini. He said the dolphin article’s publication date and Gemini 1.0’s later release made that alleged use implausible, and that the example was consistent with live retrieval from the web rather than training on the article.
On chatbot answers, the opinion draws a distinction between the information reported and the way a publisher expresses it. Repeating the same facts, by itself, is not enough, Szpunar said. The relevant questions include whether the service accessed the article unlawfully, such as by circumventing a paywall or anti-scraping measure, and whether its answer carries over recognisable expression so extensively that a reader can do without the original. He said those conditions do not appear to be present in the example before the court, citing the apparent absence of access barriers and recognisable wording, as well as 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 Line Between Facts and Copying
The opinion could help define how the EU’s press publishers’ right applies to AI-powered search and chat services, not just conventional news aggregators. If the Court adopts Szpunar’s reasoning, publishers may have grounds to challenge chatbot use that bypasses access controls or substitutes for an article by reproducing its distinctive expression. The test he describes does not give publishers ownership of the underlying news facts.
For AI companies, the analysis points to the way material is accessed and presented as legally relevant. Services may need to respect technical restrictions and avoid answers that function as close substitutes for source articles. For readers, the dispute concerns whether chatbot summaries can provide information without directing users to the reporting behind it. The opinion offers a possible legal framework, but the final answer will come from the judges.
Products Worth Considering
LG UltraGear 32GX850A-B 32-inch 4K UHD Glossy OLED Gaming Monitor
LG UltraGear 34GX90SA-W 34-inch WQHD Curved OLED Gaming Monitor
Samsung Odyssey G4 25-inch FHD Gaming Monitor
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Gemini Dispute Reached Luxembourg
The right at issue comes from Article 15(1) of the EU’s 2019 Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive. It gives press publishers rights over certain online uses of their publications. The opinion notes that lawmakers had news aggregators such as Google News in mind when adopting the provision. The case asks whether that framework also reaches answers generated by a chatbot using articles retrieved online.
The four questions sent by the Hungarian court covered both training and chatbot responses. According to the Court of Justice’s case information, nine EU governments and the European Commission submitted written observations, and the hearing took place on March 10, 2026. Szpunar’s main procedural conclusion on training was that the questions were hypothetical on the evidence presented. Separately, he discussed training “for the sake of completeness,” observing that the EU text-and-data-mining exception may cover it in principle, subject to rights holders’ ability to opt out in a machine-readable form. That discussion is not a ruling on whether Google trained Gemini on these articles.
“Google “repeatedly reproduced and made them available to the public through the Gemini chatbot””
— Like Company, as described in the Court of Justice’s press release
The Court Has Yet to Rule
Szpunar is an independent legal adviser to the Court of Justice; his opinion does not decide the case. The Court’s judges will issue the binding judgment, and no date has been announced. They may follow the opinion, adapt its reasoning or reach a different conclusion.
The referral also leaves important factual and legal questions for the Hungarian court, including whether Google’s conduct in the dispute meets the applicable test. The opinion does not establish that the articles were used in model training, and its discussion of text-and-data mining is not a finding about Google’s specific training practices. It remains unclear how the Court will treat other chatbot designs, access arrangements or answer formats.
Judges Decide the EU Standard
The Court of Justice will now consider the case and issue its judgment on the questions referred by the Hungarian court. That ruling will provide the authoritative interpretation of the EU directive; the national court will then apply the Court’s answer to the dispute between Like Company and Google. No judgment date has been set.
Until then, Szpunar’s opinion is a significant indication of one possible approach, not a final legal standard. Publishers, AI services and other parties will be watching for whether the judges adopt its distinction between unprotected facts and protected expression, and how they address access restrictions and chatbot answers that substitute for source material.
Key Questions
Did the EU Court rule that Google infringed publishers’ rights?
No. Advocate General Maciej Szpunar issued a nonbinding opinion. The Court of Justice has not issued its judgment, and Szpunar said the conditions for infringement do not appear to be met on the facts described in this case.
When could a chatbot answer infringe a publisher’s rights under the opinion?
Szpunar identified circumstances including a chatbot reaching an article by circumventing access restrictions, or reproducing its distinctive expression so recognisably that users can do without the original. Reporting the same facts alone is not enough under the test he proposed.
Did the opinion find that Gemini was trained on Like Company’s articles?
No. Szpunar said the record did not support that claim and advised that the training questions be treated as inadmissible. He considered the example consistent with retrieval of the article from the live web, rather than use of it in training.
What happens next in the case?
The Court of Justice’s judges will issue a binding judgment on the questions referred by the Hungarian court. No date has been announced; the national court will then resolve the dispute using the EU court’s interpretation.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
