谷歌已经在多方面为此做好了准备，包括推出其“首选来源”功能：https://the-decoder.com/googles-preferred-sources-feature-is-a-free-pass-for-more-garbage-in-search/。这是一个遮羞布，让公司能够在法庭上辩称用户可以选择显示哪些来源。即使出版商排队推广该功能，很少有用户会维护自定义来源列表。对于谷歌来说，这就相当于获得了一个免费通行证，可以在 AI 回应中用那些无法或不愿在法庭上反击的提供者替代原始来源。
保持对 AI 的关注。清晰、有用、无废话。
关注 The Decoder，获取 AI 新闻、背景故事和专家分析。
The Decoder：https://the-decoder.com/
German media regulators have classified AI search engines and chatbots as content providers, issuing their first rulings against Google and Perplexity. Google's AI summaries allegedly crowd out journalistic content.
Germany's Commission for Licensing and Supervision (ZAK) has issued its first rulings against AI services from Google and Perplexity. This is the first time German regulators have applied the country's State Media Treaty to AI search engines and chatbots.
"AI search engines and chatbots are content providers, and we are now consistently applying German media law to them," said ZAK Chairman Dr. Thorsten Schmiege：https://www.die-medienanstalten.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/zak-bescheide-ki-angebote-google-perplexity/. According to the ZAK, the liability shield under the Digital Services Act, which protects platforms distributing third-party content, doesn't apply to AI-generated responses because they count as the providers' own content. Ad
A Munich court recently reached a similar conclusion：https://the-decoder.com/landmark-german-ruling-declares-googles-ai-overviews-are-googles-own-words-and-makes-it-liable-for-false-answers/. It treated AI-generated text as independent content. The court said the responses contain "independent, new, and substantive statements" produced by analyzing and combining material from various third-party sites. Google was held liable for false claims, and the company says it will appeal：https://the-decoder.com/google-appeals-ruling-that-made-it-directly-liable-for-ai-generated-search-overview-content/. Ad DEC_D_Incontent-1
Google now faces action under media law on top of civil liability. The rulings formally find that the companies violated Section 109 of the State Media Treaty：https://www.die-medienanstalten.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Rechtsgrundlagen/Gesetze_Staatsvertraege/Interstate_Media_Treaty_en.pdf and are immediately enforceable. Both Google and Perplexity have one month to appeal.
Regulators accuse Google of failing to meet transparency rules and violating rules against discrimination. Google's AI summaries get prime placement above search results, pushing down traditional links, especially those to journalistic sources. Regulators say this amounts to prohibited discrimination because the AI responses are Google's own content, not neutral search results. Ad
But link visibility likely isn't the only problem. Studies show that users rarely click source links：https://the-decoder.com/pew-finds-that-only-1-percent-of-users-click-a-source-link-directly-from-googles-ai-overviews/ once they feel their question has been answered. Moving those links higher is unlikely to change that. Google says the studies are flawed：https://the-decoder.com/googles-search-chief-says-ai-generated-answers-are-not-causing-a-decline-in-website-traffic/ but hasn't released data showing otherwise.
In Perplexity's case, regulators have so far only flagged the company's lack of a designated representative in Germany and missing transparency disclosures. The same concerns should apply in theory because the services work much the same way, though Google's reach is far greater. Ad DEC_D_Incontent-2
Regulators also see AI services acting as intermediaries. When a chatbot includes third-party content as sources or in link lists, it shapes whether users can find that content. That meets the bar for a media intermediary, regulators say, and triggers transparency rules meant to protect media diversity. "Anyone who controls whether content gets found through the selection and placement of links must make that transparent. Otherwise, diversity among journalistic and editorial outlets will disappear," Schmiege said. Ad
A related legal opinion：https://www.die-medienanstalten.de/service/gutachten/ki-suchmaschinen-2/ by Professors Jan Oster and Christoph Busch supports the regulators' view. Adding AI to search engines changes how people find information. Instead of a list of linked results, users get a single prose answer. That cuts traffic to original sources and puts journalism's funding at risk, the authors say. They recommend creating a separate category for AI search engines under state media law, with rules to protect media diversity.
Google has prepared for this in several ways, including rolling out its "Preferred Sources" feature：https://the-decoder.com/googles-preferred-sources-feature-is-a-free-pass-for-more-garbage-in-search/. It's a fig leaf that lets the company argue in court that users can choose which sources appear. Few users are likely to maintain a custom source list, even as publishers line up to promote the feature. For Google, that amounts to a free pass to replace original sources in AI responses with providers that can't or won't fight back in court.
Stay in the loop on AI. Clear, useful, no fluff.
Follow The Decoder for AI news, background stories and expert analyses.
The Decoder：https://the-decoder.com/
情报判断
Aioga 编辑摘要
Aioga 编辑摘要：德国媒体监管机构 ZAK 首次将 AI 搜索引擎和聊天机器人认定为内容提供者，对 Google 和 Perplexity 发布裁决。 Aioga 将其归入「行业动态」方向，重点关注它对真实使用和行业竞争的影响。
扫码直达文章详情