It's truly astonishing, isn't it, how knowledgeable AI can be? Whether it's writing reports, summarizing information, or answering the most imaginative questions, it always delivers a detailed response with remarkable speed.

But have you ever wondered where the material for these "perfect answers" comes from?

Recently, a "David vs. Goliath" lawsuit has been unfolding. A little-known Hungarian news company has filed a lawsuit against tech giant Google in the European Union's highest court. On April 3rd, a Budapest court in Hungary submitted a request for a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

The core of this case directly targets the generative AI we use daily – is its "learning" and "creation" technological innovation, or a carefully packaged "content theft"?

This is not just a lawsuit; it's a historic trial that will profoundly impact you, me, all content creators, and the future of the AI industry.

I. Case Overview: How a Small Company is Challenging a Tech Giant

The protagonists of this story are, on one side, Google, with its proud AI large language model Gemini (formerly Bard). On the other side, it's a Hungarian news publisher called "Like Company."

Like Company discovered that when users asked Gemini questions, the AI-generated answers contained a large amount of original content from their news website, often in detailed summaries, far beyond just headlines and a few introductory sentences.

Like Company was not pleased. They argued:

• Our in-depth reports, created with significant human, material, and financial investment, require paid subscriptions for full access.

• Google's AI, without permission, directly "learned" our content and then "spit it out" for free to all users, which is effectively ruining our business.

• While we allow Google's search engine to crawl "very short excerpts," the lengthy summaries generated by AI clearly exceed this scope.

Consequently, they sued Google. The lawsuit has progressed from Hungary all the way to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in Luxembourg – the EU's highest judicial body. This is also the first case accepted by the ECJ concerning generative AI copyright infringement, drawing global attention.

II. Points of Contention: Is AI's "Creation" Original or "Plagiarism"?

The points of contention in this lawsuit, seemingly simple, are in fact sharply pointed, each striking at the legal void of the AI era.

Google's Possible Stance: "I'm Learning, Not Copying!"

Google will likely argue that AI's working method is not simple "copy-pasting." It's like a well-read student who "learns" knowledge by reading vast amounts of information (including Like Company's articles) and then generates new, original answers based on its own understanding and logic. This process is "Transformative Use" and should not be considered infringement.

Like Company's Stance: "Your Learning is Killing Originality!"

Like Company, however, counters that no matter how complex the process, the result is that their core content is being distributed for free. This directly harms their commercial interests and diminishes the incentive for all creators to invest effort. If the source of knowledge dries up, what will AI "learn" in the future?

The core of this debate revolves around three soul-searching legal questions:

• Do AI's answers count as "copies"? Should the detailed summaries generated by AI be legally considered "reproductions" and "public communications" of the original work, or entirely new works?

• Where is the boundary of "fair use"? EU copyright law allows the use of "very short excerpts," but in the age of AI, is a precise, 500-word summary containing core information considered "short"? Who should define this boundary?

• Is AI's "learning" equivalent to legal "reading"? Behind this lies an even deeper question: Is it legal for AI to "train" using copyrighted material? Although this case focuses on AI's "output," it inevitably touches upon the "input" that AI relies on for its existence.

III. The Butterfly Effect of the Ruling: How Will Your Digital Life Change?

Don't assume this is just a European matter. As a major global regulatory force, the EU's rulings often have a "Brussels Effect," like a butterfly effect, influencing legal and business practices worldwide.

The ruling in this case (expected around late 2026) will be a crossroads, directly determining the direction of the AI industry.

If Like Company wins (or partially wins):

• Will AI become more expensive? AI companies might need to pay huge licensing fees to news agencies, publishers, artists, and other content creators to legally "train" their models. This cost could ultimately be passed on to us, ordinary users.

• Will AI become "dumber"? To mitigate risks, AI might become more constrained in answering questions, generating more conservative, vague content, and even attaching numerous citations and copyright notices.

• A springtime for content creators? For journalists, writers, photographers, programmers, and all original creators, this would be a huge victory. The value of their labor would be strongly protected by law, and a golden age of creation might emerge once again.

If Google wins:

• Will AI grow wildly? The AI industry will clear a major legal hurdle, allowing it to more freely use publicly available internet data for training and creation, potentially accelerating technological iteration.

• The "dusk" of original content? Content creators will face an even more difficult situation. When AI can generate high-quality summaries and content infinitely at extremely low costs, who will pay for originality? This could lead to a decline in information quality and a deterioration of the creative ecosystem.

• Information access radically changed? We will become more reliant on AI as an information gateway, while the influence of traditional websites, media, and content platforms will be further diminished.

Final Thoughts: We are at a Crossroads in History

The ruling in the "Like Company v. Google" case is destined to leave a significant mark in the history of technology and law.

It is essentially about finding a proper place for a new species – artificial intelligence – within human society. We must both embrace the efficiency and convenience brought by technology, without sacrificing human creativity and intellectual property.

The outcome of this lawsuit, far away in Europe, will directly or indirectly shape how we access information, learn knowledge, and create. It challenges each of us: In an era where machines can "create" infinitely, how do we defend the value of "originality"?

Let's stay tuned. Because every gavel strike by the judge could be the prelude to changes in our future digital lives.