Menu
SUBSCRIBE
SUBSCRIBE
Menu

defamation

Glowing blue digital scales of justice symbolizing MeetingTV's defamation lawsuit over the Koi Security report

MeetingTV Adds Palo Alto Networks To Lawsuit Over Koi Cyber Report

, , , , , , , , , ,

MeetingTV says Koi Security wrongly linked the company to cyber activity involving stolen online meeting data.

 

MeetingTV added Palo Alto Networks to a lawsuit over a Koi Security report that the videoconferencing company says wrongly connected it to malicious cyber activity.

The case was filed on March 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. MeetingTV originally sued Koi Security Inc., Koi Security Ltd., and several Koi executives. It added Palo Alto Networks as a defendant in an amended complaint filed May 13, about one month after Palo Alto Networks completed its acquisition of Koi.

The dispute centers on a December 2025 Koi report alleging that browser extensions were stealing online meeting information from millions of users. Koi said the extensions collected meeting links, login details, and other information from video meetings across major platforms.

MeetingTV says Koi wrongly tied MeetingTV domains to that activity. In its amended complaint, the company says the report made MeetingTV appear to be part of a cyber operation and harmed its business.

The lawsuit includes claims for defamation, trade libel, and related claims over alleged business harm. Justia lists the case as an assault, libel, and slander matter, with MeetingTV demanding a jury trial.

In the latest court order issued on June 23, U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia denied MeetingTV’s request to serve Koi Security Ltd. and several individual defendants by email, as the company is headquartered overseas.

Koi Security previously moved to dismiss MeetingTV’s original complaint. That motion was denied without prejudice after MeetingTV filed the amended complaint. The case remains active.

Satellite night view of Germany with Google's colorful logo overlaid, depicting the Munich court ruling on AI Overview defamation.

German Court Rules Google Directly Liable for AI Overview Defamation

, , , , , , , , , , ,

A Munich court ruled Google is liable for what its AI generates, not the sources it draws from.

 

A German court ruled that Google can be directly liable for false claims generated by its AI Overview. Munich’s Regional Court (Landgericht München I) found that AI-generated summaries are Google’s own content, not protected the way traditional search results are.

The case centered on Google’s AI Overviews that wrongly linked Verlagshaus24, a German publishing group, and a related subsidiary to scams, subscription traps, and questionable business practices. The claims were false: the AI connected them with entirely different, unrelated companies.

Verlagshaus24 notified Google in February 2026. Google did not remove the content. The two companies filed suit under German civil law and won on 8 of 10 claims.

 

Why Google lost

German courts have treated search engines as neutral middlemen responsible for removing harmful content only after being notified that it exists. The Munich court ruled that standard does not apply to AI Overviews.

The court found that Google’s AI Overviews added structure, drew inferences, and produced a specific claim presented as fact that was not traceable to any source it indexed. In the court’s view, that output was Google’s own statement, not a reflection of internet sources. Because Google controls the algorithm and the AI’s output, the court held Google directly responsible for the content.

 

What Google won

The court sided with Google on 2 of the 10 claims: that Verlagshaus24 “works with a debt collector” and “sells subscriptions improperly.” The court found that these claims were not sufficiently defamatory on their own, and that Verlagshaus24 did not demonstrate that they were false. Legal fees were assigned accordingly: Google pays 80%, the plaintiffs 20%.

 

This is the first German court ruling to address AI Overview defamation directly. The ruling aligns with the EU’s broader push to hold AI systems to the same standards as other content publishers. According to Reuters, Google said it will appeal. If the ruling stands, companies producing AI-generated summaries in Germany could face the same liability standards that apply to publishers, rather than the lower bar that has historically protected search platforms.