A Munich court has ruled that Google is directly liable for false claims in AI Overviews, not just for linking to third-party pages. The Regional Court of Munich issued a temporary injunction in case 26 O 869/26 after Google's AI summaries tied two publishers to scams and dubious business practices. None of the cited sources made that connection. The publishers sent a cease-and-desist letter; Google did not respond in a way the court accepted. The court's reasoning is worth reading even if you do not follow German law. Traditional search results point to external sites, so operators have historically faced limited liability as indirect infringers. AI Overviews work differently: they rewrite and structure answers in Google's own words, often opening with confident claims that stand on their own. The Munich judges treated those summaries as Google's statements, full stop. Google argued that users could open the linked sources and check for themselves. The court rejected that. If the overview reads as a self-contained claim, the operator owns it, much like a press teaser that misstates an article. Studies cited in the ruling also note that people rarely click through from AI Overviews, further weakening the verification defence. Host-provider protections under the Digital Services Act did not help here either. The source websites had not made the false claims, so victims had no practical route against them. Under older search-engine rules, they could not effectively pursue Google either. Scale makes the error rate matter. An analysis by AI startup Oumi, reported in the New York Times, found Gemini 3 AI Overviews to be roughly 91% accurate. That sounds high until you run it at Google's volume. The same analysis found that more than half of the "correct" answers could not be traced back to the sources Google linked. Google says it is reviewing the decision, which is not yet final. Its public line is that AI Overviews reflect information already available on the web and that people should verify it before trusting it. The Munich court explicitly disagreed with that framing for this feature. For agencies managing client sites, the practical point is simple. Rankings and click-through rates do not tell you what an AI summary says about a brand. A client can look fine in Search Console while an overview misstates their business in plain sight.