The Advocate General delivered his Opinion on 3 November in Case C-250/25, Like Company v Google Ireland. The Hungarian publisher’s dispute concerns articles used in Google Gemini’s answers. According to the Court of Justice, this is the first generative AI case to reach the Court. Court of Justice press release.

The exception for model training is subject to conditions

The Advocate General proposes declaring the questions concerning training inadmissible: there is no evidence that the publisher’s articles were used for training.

In his additional analysis, he considers that training may fall within the text and data mining exception. This requires, among other things, lawful access and that the rightholder has not appropriately reserved the relevant use. It does not amount to general permission to use all online content for training. Advocate General’s Opinion, paragraphs 124 and 140–144.

Generating answers from online sources requires separate checks

In a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system, the tool retrieves source material while processing a query and uses it to generate the answer.

In the Advocate General’s analysis, relevant considerations include whether access is lawful, whether the protected form of expression is recognisable and the service provider’s role. Merely conveying facts differs from reproducing an article in a way that substitutes for reading the original. The business model and measures to prevent infringement matter when assessing the provider’s liability.

However, the Advocate General does not provisionally consider the conditions for infringement to be clearly established in the particular dispute involving Google. The final assessment of the facts remains for the national court. Opinion, paragraphs 229 and 239.

What should a business check?

For an AI solution that uses source material, we recommend checking:

  • whether sources are accessed lawfully;
  • how technical restrictions and reservations of rights are respected;
  • whether the output conveys facts or reproduces the source’s protected form of expression;
  • how measures to prevent infringement are tested and documented.

For example, a news briefing tool could provide a short factual summary and a link to the original. A lengthy paraphrase following the original’s structure and wording requires closer assessment.

The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court and does not introduce new obligations. The Court’s future judgment may clarify the boundaries of existing rights and exceptions.