EU adviser sees copyright risk in AI chatbots
An opinion to the EU Court could affect chatbots that retrieve and process news articles.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
The use of online press publications by AI chatbots may, in certain circumstances, breach copyright. That is the view of Advocate General Maciej Szpunar of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in an opinion concerning Google Gemini.
According to the summary from the EU Court, the case concerns Hungarian website operator Like Company, which has taken Google to court. It involves chatbots that retrieve online press publications in real time, reuse them and process them into answers to users’ questions.
Szpunar says that copyright does not protect the individual facts in a news report, but does protect the specific form in which a publication is written. If a chatbot uses parts of such a publication when formulating an answer, he says, it may in certain circumstances infringe the publisher’s rights.
The opinion does not yet constitute a final ruling. The judges of the EU Court still have to deliver their judgment.
The opinion also distinguishes between using texts to train large language models and retrieving current publications during a conversation with a user. According to Szpunar, using copyright material for training falls under the European exception for text and data mining. In his view, retrieving and reusing journalistic publications in real time must be assessed separately.
For publishers, the case touches on whether news organisations should be paid or otherwise compensated when their work appears in chatbot answers. For technology companies, a ruling could mean they have to adapt their systems, for example by reproducing sources less extensively or reaching agreements with publishers.
The case is also relevant to readers. A chatbot can summarise information from a news report without a user visiting the original publication. The opinion to the EU Court distinguishes between using unprotected facts and reproducing the protected form of a publication. Until then, the opinion provides legal guidance, not a ban on AI chatbots.
Also show where in Europe and in the world
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Advocate General advises that the real-time retrieval and reuse of online press publications by AI chatbots may, in certain circumstances, infringe publishers’ rights.
- The case concerns Like Company and Google.
- The judges of the EU Court still have to deliver a final judgment.
Left
Arguments Publishers and journalists must retain control and receive fair compensation when commercial AI systems use their work.
Values The balance of power, labour rights, media pluralism and protection of public information provision.
Consequences Without clear rules, revenues and visitor numbers at news organisations could fall further.
Centre
Arguments There is a need for a practical boundary between using facts and reproducing protected texts, while leaving room for innovation.
Values Legal certainty, enforceability and a balance between innovation and copyright.
Consequences A clear ruling could help companies and publishers shape licences, attribution and technical restrictions.
Right
Arguments Excessive liability for chatbots could hamper European technology companies and give users less access to information.
Values Free enterprise, innovation and limited government intervention.
Consequences Strict rules could lead to more expensive services, less competition or more limited chatbot functions.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The article’s core is based on the EU Court’s official press release and an independent Reuters account. The piece clearly distinguishes between an opinion and a final ruling.
- confirmed Advocate General Maciej Szpunar issued an opinion on 3 November 2026 in Case C-250/25 Like Company. — Mentioned in the press release from the Court of Justice. source
- confirmed The real-time retrieval and reuse of online press publications by AI chatbots may, in certain circumstances, infringe publishers’ rights. — Summary of the Advocate General’s opinion. source
- confirmed According to the opinion, copyright protects not the individual facts but the specific form of a publication. — Reuters quotes this explanation from the opinion. source
- confirmed The opinion is not yet a final ruling by the EU Court. — The Court states that it concerns an opinion from the Advocate General. source
Editor's note
It is certain that the Advocate General issued an opinion on 3 November 2026. It remains uncertain whether the EU Court will follow it and what concrete obligations may result.Sources
- Opinion of the Advocate General in Case C-250/25 Like Company — Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie
- Google's use of press by AI chatbot may infringe copyright rules — Reuters
More on this in Dutch media
- NRC — „chatbots auteursrecht”
- NU.nl — „chatbots auteursrecht”
- De Telegraaf — „chatbots auteursrecht”