Liability for
own
AI chatbot.
Liability for
own
AI chatbot.
from
What happens if an AI chatbot claims qualifications on your own website that don’t actually exist? Is the company liable for this? And does it change anything if the bot has actually been trained correctly?
What had happened?
Aesthetify GmbH operated an AI chatbot on its website, which customers could use to ask questions and book appointments. In response to specific queries, the bot replied that the two medical directors – referred to internally as “Dr. Rick & Dr. Nick” – were “specialists in plastic and aesthetic surgery”, “specialists in aesthetic medicine” and “specialists in aesthetic treatments”. None of these specialist designations actually exist under German medical training law. The North Rhine-Westphalia Consumer Advice Center issued a cease and desist letter to the company and demanded a declaration of discontinuance. Although the chatbot was subsequently switched off, Aesthetify GmbH did not issue a cease-and-desist declaration. The consumer advice center then brought an action before the Higher Regional Court of Hamm.
How did the court rule?
The Higher Regional Court of Hamm upheld the action and ordered Aesthetify GmbH with Judgment of 12.05.2026 – Ref. 4 Ukl 3/25 to cease and desist. According to the judges, the statements made by the chatbot are directly attributable to the operator as its own business activity. An AI system that a company uses on its website does not act as a “third party” within the meaning of competition law, but as an instrument of the company itself. This eliminates the possibility of exonerating oneself via the principles of the duty of care under competition law, for example by proving that all reasonable precautions have been taken.
The court expressly clarified that this assessment does not change if the chatbot has been trained and programmed exclusively with correct data. The responsibility for the system’s output messages during operation lies with the operator.
Even if the defendant had had the AI chatbot trained and programmed exclusively with correct data records, it bears responsibility for the undisputed incorrect information provided by the chatbot regarding the actually non-existent and confusable specialist titles of its managing directors.
Why was this relevant under competition law?
It is anti-competitive to provide misleading information about specialist qualifications or designations. In the healthcare sector, specialist doctor designations indicate state-recognized additional training. If they are used without the corresponding training actually having been completed, or if confusingly similar designations are used, the patient is misled as to the qualifications of the doctor providing treatment.
What does this mean for other companies?
Anyone who uses an AI chatbot on their website adopts its statements as their own. This applies regardless of whether the system is generated independently or responds from a predefined data set. It does not help to point out that the bot was trained “correctly” or that it was a “hallucination” of the model. Liability under civil and competition law arises solely from the use of the system.
Conclusion
The ruling highlights the risks associated with the use of AI systems. Even if the operator makes every effort, they are liable for incorrect information displayed by the AI system. Companies should therefore carefully weigh up the risks and benefits when using such systems and set up the systems in such a way that inadmissible statements are avoided as far as possible.
We are happy to
advise you about
AI!
