Hungarian press publisher Like Company claims Google Ireland’s Gemini chatbot was trained on its news articles and reproduced excerpts without a license. A Budapest court referred questions on AI training, the text and data mining exception, and communication to the public to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Grand Chamber heard argument on March 10, 2026, and no judgment has been issued.
Latest development Mar 10, 2026
On March 10, 2026, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union heard about six hours of argument. The European Commission and several member states intervened, and the Commission argued that parts of the reference were inadmissible. Advocate General Maciej Szpunar’s opinion was scheduled for September 3, 2026, but its delivery has not been confirmed.
Why it matters
The ruling will bind national courts in all 27 member states on whether AI training and chatbot output infringe EU copyright and press publishers’ rights. Member states are divided over whether EU copyright reaches AI training carried out outside the European Union.
Background
Like Company, a Hungarian press publisher that operates several online news portals, brought proceedings against Google Ireland Limited before the Budapest Környéki Törvényszék (Budapest Regional Court). It alleges that Google’s Gemini chatbot (formerly Bard) reproduced and made available to the public excerpts of its copyright-protected news articles without a license. The alleged conduct ran from June 13, 2023, to February 7, 2024. Like Company claims this breached the InfoSoc Directive, the press publishers’ right under the Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive, and Hungarian copyright law. It contends that, when prompted, Gemini generated summaries echoing substantial parts of its articles, which shows the underlying large language model was trained on that content.
Google disputes that Gemini’s outputs amount to a reproduction or a communication to the public under EU law. It argues that its responses do not reach a “new public” beyond the internet users who could already access the original articles. It also says Gemini is a generative tool rather than a content database. In Google’s account, Gemini can reproduce specific text only if a user’s prompt explicitly references the underlying article.
On April 3, 2025, the Budapest court stayed the domestic proceedings. It referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The questions ask whether large language model training constitutes reproduction under the InfoSoc Directive. They also ask whether the text and data mining exception in Article 4 of the DSM Directive can apply, and whether chatbot output constitutes a communication to the public.
On March 10, 2026, the CJEU Grand Chamber heard roughly six hours of argument on generative artificial intelligence and copyright, with the European Commission and several member states intervening. The Commission argued that some questions focused on facts rather than law and were partly or wholly inadmissible. Member states divided over the territorial reach of EU copyright law where AI training occurs outside the European Union. Advocate General Maciej Szpunar was scheduled to deliver his non-binding opinion on September 3, 2026, but delivery has not been confirmed. No judgment date has been set, and the case remains pending before the CJEU.
Timeline 5 events
-
OtherAdvocate General Szpunar scheduled to deliver opinion
Advocate General Maciej Szpunar was scheduled to deliver his non-binding opinion on the referred questions on this date. Delivery has not been independently confirmed.
Hengeler Mueller represents Google in landmark AI/copyright case before CJEU
-
HearingCommission argues reference is partly inadmissible
At the hearing, the European Commission contended that some referred questions focused on facts rather than law and were partly or wholly inadmissible.
Like Company v Google CJEU Holds First-Ever Hearing on Generative AI and Copyright on 10 March 2026
-
HearingCJEU Grand Chamber hears argument on generative AI and copyright
The session ran about six hours and covered the scope of EU copyright law over AI training and chatbot outputs. Like Company, Google, the European Commission, and several intervening member states took part.
Like Company v Google CJEU Holds First-Ever Hearing on Generative AI and Copyright on 10 March 2026
-
FilingBudapest court refers four questions to the CJEU
The Budapest Környéki Törvényszék stayed the domestic infringement proceedings. The questions concern AI training, the text and data mining exception, and communication to the public.
-
OtherLike Company says Gemini begins reproducing its articles
Like Company alleges that between June 13, 2023, and February 7, 2024, Google’s Gemini chatbot reproduced and summarized excerpts of its copyrighted news articles without authorization.
First AI Case Before the CJEU: Like Company v. Google Ireland (C-250/25)
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the CJEU answer the Budapest court’s questions on AI training and Gemini’s outputs in Case C-250/25 by September 30, 2027?
- CJEU issues split ruling40%
- CJEU backs Like Company on core issues23%
- CJEU sides with Google on core issues18%
- Still pending on September 30, 202715%
- CJEU gives no substantive answer4%
- Resolves by
- Sep 30, 2027in 12 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The CJEU will most likely issue a split ruling by September 30, 2027 (40%). It could treat training or outputs as potentially infringing while leaving the text and data mining exception and the new-public analysis to the Budapest court. Multi-question Grand Chamber copyright references often produce partial answers that return fact-heavy issues to the national court.
How it resolves. Resolved by the CJEU judgment in Case C-250/25 as published on the CURIA website. Two core issues are used: (a) whether chatbot output reproducing article excerpts can amount to reproduction, communication to the public, or infringement of the press publishers’ right, and (b) whether LLM training is a reproduction that the Article 4 DSM text and data mining exception does not cover. “Like Company” applies if every core issue the Court answers goes the publisher’s way. “Google” applies if every core issue it answers goes Google’s way. “Split ruling” applies if the answers divide, or if they leave the decisive assessment largely to the national court. “No substantive answer” applies if the reference is declared wholly inadmissible, withdrawn, or removed from the register. “Still pending” applies if none of these has occurred by September 30, 2027.
Reasoning
Starting point. CJEU Grand Chamber preliminary rulings on multi-question copyright references after an Advocate General opinion: CJEU preliminary references average about 17 to 18 months. Complex Grand Chamber cases often take 20 to 26 months, and judgments usually follow the opinion within 3 to 8 months. Fully inadmissible references are rare, under 5%.
Grand Chamber preliminary references with an opinion usually reach judgment 20 to 26 months after filing, which points to early or mid 2027 for a reference filed 17.8 months ago. The opinion was scheduled for September 3, 2026, but delivery is unconfirmed, and a slip would push the judgment later, so still pending keeps 15%. Four questions spanning reproduction, the Article 4 exception, and communication to the public make a uniform answer for either side less likely than a split result. The Commission’s inadmissibility argument may narrow the ruling, but references declared wholly inadmissible are rare, especially after a six-hour Grand Chamber hearing. The CJEU’s broad reading of reproduction and of the press publishers’ right gives the publisher a modest edge over Google on core issues. Google’s new-public and user-prompt arguments are fact-dependent and likely to be left to the national court. The leading alternative is a publisher-friendly ruling on output reproduction that also narrows the text and data mining exception.
Four distinct questions favor partial, split answers · Unconfirmed opinion timing drives the pending risk · Commission’s inadmissibility challenge could narrow the ruling · Fact-dependent new-public issue likely returned to Budapest court · Member state split on territorial reach of AI training
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Sep 26, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made
Disclosure: Anthropic, which makes the model that wrote this forecast, competes with or has commercial ties to a party to this case.