Germany rules AI search engines are publishers, not platforms

German media regulators just redrew the legal map for AI search, and Google and Perplexity are the first to feel it. The Commission for Licensing and Supervision (ZAK) has formally classified AI-powered search engines and chatbots as content providers under the State Media Treaty, stripping away the liability shield that platforms typically enjoy under the Digital Services Act. The logic is straightforward: when an AI generates a summary, it’s creating new content, not just redistributing someone else’s. A Munich court already bought this argument, ruling that AI-generated text contains “independent, new, and substantive statements” and holding Google liable for false claims.

What this means in practice is a two-front war for Google. Beyond the existing civil liability case it’s already appealing, the company now faces immediate regulatory action for violating transparency rules and anti-discrimination provisions. The ZAK’s beef isn’t just about missing disclaimers. They argue Google’s AI Overviews occupy prime real estate at the top of results, deliberately shoving traditional links—particularly those from journalistic outlets—down the page. ZAK Chairman Dr. Thorsten Schmiege didn’t mince words: “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.”

The transparency piece cuts deeper than it first appears. Regulators have also deemed these AI services “media intermediaries” because they shape whether users ever see source material. That triggers a whole separate set of rules meant to protect media plurality. A legal opinion from Professors Jan Oster and Christoph Busch backs this up, warning that replacing a list of links with a single prose answer starves original sources of traffic and undermines journalism’s funding model. They’re pushing for an entirely new legal category for AI search engines with dedicated diversity protections.

Perplexity got off lighter for now—regulators only flagged its lack of a German representative and missing transparency disclosures. But the logic applies equally, and Google’s far larger footprint makes it the priority target. Google has been preparing for this fight, rolling out its “Preferred Sources” feature as a defensive play. It’s a clever legal hedge that lets the company argue users control what appears, but I’d bet my press pass that almost no one will actually curate a source list. For publishers lining up to promote the feature, it’s a trap dressed as an olive branch—a way for Google to swap out litigious original sources for partners who won’t sue.