Liability
for incorrect
AI results.
Liability
for incorrect
AI results.
from
What happens if an AI portal publishes false information about your company? Why even a disclaimer in the terms of use offers no protection.
What had happened?
A medium-sized company that builds and sells conservatories and patio roofs found a frightening report about itself on a business information portal. The portal had automatically retrieved data from the commercial register and incorrectly assigned an entry.
The message stated that the company was to be deleted due to lack of assets. That was simply wrong. The notification belonged to another company with a similar name. An AI system had mixed up the data during automated processing.
The portal appeared in second place in searches for the company and was therefore particularly visible. Anyone who googled the company immediately saw that it was supposedly on the verge of insolvency.
The company demanded the immediate deletion of the report and a declaration to cease and desist. The portal deleted the report immediately, but refused to sign the declaration. This led to a lawsuit.
What did the court decide?
With Judgment of 29.02.2024 – Ref. 6 O 151/23 the Kiel Regional Court ruled in favor of the company and condemned the portal operator.
The operator is liable – even if not at fault
The court classified the portal operator as a direct interferer. This means that anyone who uses an AI to process and publish company data is responsible for the result – regardless of whether they themselves were actively involved in the incorrect report.
The defendant cannot claim that it was not involved in this automatic process because it deliberately used artificial intelligence to answer its users’ search queries, which was inadequately programmed in cases such as this.
The key idea is that anyone who voluntarily activates an AI must accept responsibility for the results of this AI. This also applies if the AI was inadequately programmed and produces errors.
Anyone who bundles content makes it their own.
The portal had pointed out in its terms of use that all information is obtained fully automatically and potentially incorrectly. The terms and conditions also contained a general disclaimer.
The court did not accept either. The decisive factor was that the portal brings together mandatory publications from various registers, links them and presents them in a structured manner. In doing so, it assumes recognizable responsibility for the content of the information presented. The court referred to this as “attribution”.
Conclusion
Those affected by violations of personal rights or other violations based on incorrect AI results can assert claims against the portal operator who adopts these as their own. Standard disclaimers in terms of use are not sufficient.
For portal operators, this results in enormous risks and high duties of care when using artificial intelligence.
We are happy to
advise you about
AI!
