🔍 Read the full analysis: How The EU AI Chatbot Debate Could Affect Companies And Readers on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get smart everyday buys 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, an adviser to the EU Court of Justice said chatbots that retrieve and reuse news articles may infringe publishers’ rights if they bypass access barriers or reproduce recognisable expression. He said those conditions do not appear to apply in the dispute over Google Gemini’s summary of a Hungarian article; the opinion is not binding, and the court has not set a judgment date.
European Union Advocate General Maciej Szpunar said on Nov. 3 that chatbots which retrieve online news articles and reuse them in answers may infringe publishers’ rights in certain circumstances, including if they bypass access restrictions or reproduce recognisable wording. In the dispute over Google Gemini’s summary of a Hungarian article, however, Szpunar said those conditions do not appear to be met; his advice is nonbinding, and the EU Court of Justice will issue the eventual ruling.
The case, C-250/25, Like Company v Google Ireland, concerns a Gemini answer summarising a 2023 Hungarian news article about a singer’s reported plan to bring dolphins to Lake Balaton. Like Company, which operates several Hungarian news portals, alleges Google used its articles to train Gemini and reproduced or made them available through the chatbot from June 2023 to May 2024, according to the Court of Justice’s press release. Those allegations have not been established by a final judgment.
Szpunar’s proposed test focuses on the chatbot’s use of the publication. An infringement may arise if a service accessed an article unlawfully, such as by circumventing a paywall or anti-scraping measure, or if its answer reproduces the article’s expression so recognisably that users can do without the original. Repeating the underlying facts alone is not enough, according to the opinion.
For the dolphin article, Szpunar said the available information indicated there were no access barriers, no recognisable wording in the example answer and safeguards at Google. He therefore considered that the conditions for infringement did not appear to be present in this instance. The Hungarian court will decide the dispute after the EU court answers the questions referred to it.
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 AI News Summaries
The opinion could shape how publishers and technology companies approach AI search and chatbot answers that draw on current web pages. If the Court of Justice adopts Szpunar’s approach, companies may need to account for access restrictions and avoid answers that effectively substitute for a source article. Publishers could have grounds to challenge particular uses or seek licensing agreements, but the proposed test does not give them exclusive control over the facts reported in their stories.
For readers, the dispute concerns the balance between quick, synthesised answers and access to the original reporting. A chatbot that supplies a short factual summary may be treated differently from one that reproduces a distinctive passage or prevents access to protected material. Any practical effect will depend on the final judgment, how national courts apply it and the specific way each service gathers and presents sources.
Popular right now
Vitamix 5200 Professional-Grade Blender, 64 oz. Container, Black
Dyson Car+Boat Cordless Handheld Vacuum
Ninja Flip Toaster Oven & Air Fryer, Large Capacity, Stainless, SP151
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From News Aggregators to Chatbots
The EU’s press publishers’ right is set out in Article 15 of the 2019 Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive. The opinion recalls that the measure was designed in part to let publishers control and license some online uses of extracts, including by news aggregators such as Google News. The case asks whether that right also applies when a chatbot retrieves an article and uses it to formulate an answer.
The Budapest regional court sent four questions to Luxembourg: two concerning alleged use of articles to train AI models and two concerning chatbot responses. The hearing took place on March 10, 2026, after written observations from nine EU governments and the European Commission, the opinion says.
On training, Szpunar’s main conclusion was procedural: he advised the court to find the questions inadmissible because the record did not support a finding that Like Company’s articles were used to train Gemini. He reasoned that the article appeared after the likely preparation of Gemini 1.0’s training data and that the example was more consistent with live retrieval from the web, known as retrieval-augmented generation. Separately, he said the publishers’ right addresses online use and does not cover model training on dedicated computers. His additional discussion 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. These comments are not a ruling on the training allegations in this case.
The Final Legal Test Is Pending
The Court of Justice has not yet ruled, and its judgment may differ from the Advocate General’s advice. No date for the judgment has been announced. The Hungarian court will also need to determine the facts and apply the EU court’s interpretation to the dispute.
The training issue remains unresolved in this case because Szpunar advised that the related questions were inadmissible, rather than deciding whether Like Company’s material was used. His discussion of the text-and-data-mining exception was additional analysis, not a binding determination. It is also unclear how the eventual ruling will apply to different chatbot designs, access controls, summaries or licensing arrangements.
Court Ruling and National Proceedings
The next major step is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union. The court has not announced when it will deliver one. Its 2025 statistics recorded an average of 16.9 months for preliminary-reference cases, but that past average does not establish a timetable for this dispute.
After the EU court answers the legal questions, the Hungarian regional court will resolve the underlying case. Companies, publishers and readers will be watching both the final EU interpretation and how the national court applies it to Gemini’s retrieval and summary of the article.
Key Questions
Has the EU ruled that Google Gemini infringed the publisher’s rights?
No. The opinion was issued by an Advocate General and is not binding. Szpunar said the conditions for infringement did not appear to be met in the example; the Court of Justice and then the Hungarian court still have roles to play.
When might a chatbot answer infringe publishers’ rights?
Under Szpunar’s proposed approach, possible circumstances include bypassing access restrictions or reproducing an article’s expression so recognisably that the answer substitutes for reading the original. Repeating facts alone would not be enough under that test.
Did the opinion decide whether Gemini was trained on Like Company’s articles?
No. Szpunar advised the court to find the training questions inadmissible because the case materials did not establish that the articles were used for training. His separate comments about text and data mining were additional analysis, not a ruling on the allegation.
What happens after the Advocate General’s opinion?
The Court of Justice will issue its judgment, with no date announced so far. The Hungarian court will then decide the underlying dispute using the EU court’s interpretation.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
