Walter van Holst on Nostr: This is correct, this was about intermediary liability (used to be in the eCommerce ...

This is correct, this was about intermediary liability (used to be in the eCommerce Directive, now part of the Digital Services Act) and qualified immunity search engines enjoy. The logic is simply about who has editorial control and in the case of AI summaries it is not the website owners, but Google itself.

quoting
nevent1q…yvts

OK. I've skimmed the decision (35 pages). This is NOT based on the EU AI act. The court sees the "AI Summaries" that Google produces as content created and published by Google, hence they are liable when their work produces wrong and harmful statements, as was the case here. So quite a normal decision. Google's argument that they are somehow exempted failed. They have to remove the wrong statements and pay 80% of the costs.