🔍 Read the full analysis: Understanding Publishers’ Rights In The Age Of AI Chatbots 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 recognisable expression. He said the evidence in Like Company v Google does not appear to meet that test; the opinion is non-binding, and the court has not set a judgment date.
Advocate General Maciej Szpunar advised the European Union’s Court of Justice on Nov. 3 that chatbots may infringe press publishers’ rights when they retrieve and reuse news articles in answers—but only in certain circumstances. In the case brought by Hungarian publisher Like Company against Google, he said the available facts do not appear to meet his proposed test; his opinion is not binding, and the court has yet to rule.
The dispute concerns a Hungarian-language article published in July 2023 about a singer’s reported plan to bring dolphins to Lake Balaton. Like Company, which operates several Hungarian news portals, says Google used its articles in Gemini answers and in model training. The case reached the EU court through questions referred by a court in Hungary. The Court of Justice described it as the first generative AI case to reach it.
Szpunar’s proposed test focuses on both how a chatbot gets an article and what it repeats. In his view, infringement may arise if a service accesses a story unlawfully—for example, by circumventing a paywall or an anti-scraping measure—or if its answer retains enough of the article’s distinctive expression that a user can avoid reading the original. Repeating the same underlying facts, without reproducing recognisable expression, would not by itself meet that standard.
In the example before him, Szpunar said the conditions did not appear to be satisfied: the article had no access barrier, the sample Gemini answer did not appear to reproduce recognisable wording, and Google appeared to have safeguards. Those are assessments in a non-binding opinion, not findings in the eventual judgment. The Hungarian court will decide the dispute after the EU court answers its legal questions.
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 Expression
The opinion offers publishers and AI services a possible legal boundary for chatbot summaries under the EU’s press publishers’ right. If the court adopts a similar approach, services may face legal risk when they bypass controls on access or supply answers that closely reproduce a publication’s expressive form. At the same time, publishers would not gain control over the underlying facts or every summary of a reported event.
That distinction matters to readers as well as businesses. Chatbots that provide useful summaries without substituting for the original story could remain possible, while publishers may have stronger grounds to challenge access circumvention or close copying. The opinion could also shape discussions about licensing and product safeguards, but it does not itself establish a final rule or settle the parties’ claims.
Products Worth Considering
Samsung 27-inch Odyssey G5 QHD Gaming Monitor (G51F)
Bose S1 Pro+ All-in-One PA Speaker
Logitech MX Keys S Wireless Keyboard, Graphite
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Gemini Dispute Reached Luxembourg
Like Company sued Google in Hungary over the use of its press articles. According to the Court of Justice’s account of the case, the publisher alleges that Google used its material to train Gemini models and repeatedly reproduced or made it available through the chatbot between June 13, 2023, and May 31, 2024. These are the publisher’s allegations, not findings that the court has made.
The Hungarian court referred four questions to Luxembourg: two concerning model training and two about chatbot answers. The hearing took place on March 10, 2026, after written observations from nine EU member states and the European Commission. The dispute concerns Article 15(1) of the EU’s 2019 Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive, which gives publishers rights over certain online uses of press publications. The opinion notes that the provision was adopted with services such as news aggregators in mind; the case asks how it applies to generative chatbots.
On training, Szpunar’s main response was procedural: he advised that the questions should be treated as inadmissible because the record did not establish that Like Company’s articles were used in Gemini’s training data. He also reasoned that training on dedicated computers would not be an “online use” covered by the press publishers’ right. Separately, and as additional analysis rather than a necessary answer, he said training would in principle fall under the EU text-and-data-mining exception, subject to rights holders’ ability to opt out in a machine-readable form.
What the Court Has Yet to Decide
The Court of Justice has not issued a judgment, and Szpunar’s opinion does not bind it. The court has not announced when it will rule. It remains possible that the judges will adopt, modify or reject his proposed approach to chatbot answers.
The case record, as described in the opinion, also does not establish whether Like Company’s material was used in model training. Nor does the opinion settle how its suggested test would apply to different chatbot designs, access controls, answer formats or licensing arrangements. The final decision on the dispute belongs to the Hungarian court after Luxembourg responds.
A Pending EU Court Judgment
The next major step is a judgment from the Court of Justice in Case C‑250/25, Like Company v Google Ireland. The court has set no date. Its ruling will address the EU-law questions referred by the Hungarian court; that national court will then apply the answers to the evidence and decide the case.
Until then, the opinion is guidance on the issues, not a final legal outcome. Publishers, AI providers and readers will be watching whether the judges draw a similar distinction between reporting facts and reproducing a story’s expression, and how they address chatbot access to online publications.
Key Questions
Has the EU ruled that Gemini infringed the publisher’s rights?
No. The Nov. 3 opinion was issued by an Advocate General and is not binding. The Court of Justice has not yet delivered its judgment, and the Hungarian court must decide the underlying dispute.
When might a chatbot answer infringe publishers’ rights?
Szpunar said infringement may arise if a chatbot obtains an article unlawfully, such as by bypassing an access barrier, or if it reproduces recognisable expression so that users can do without the original. Merely reporting the same facts would not be enough under his proposed test.
Did the opinion find that Google trained Gemini on Like Company’s articles?
No. Szpunar said the record did not support that claim and advised that the training questions were inadmissible. His additional discussion of text-and-data mining was not a finding that these articles were used for training.
What happens next in the case?
The Court of Justice will issue a judgment on the questions referred by the Hungarian court. No judgment date has been set. The Hungarian court will then apply the EU court’s answers to the case.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
