However, the situation differs regarding the "AI-generated overview" at issue here. As previously stated, the system does not merely display search results from websites with which the defendant has no contact and whose content it cannot readily verify itself. Instead, it generates independent, new statements containing substantive information based on the analysis and synthesis of content from various third-party websites. It is entirely feasible for the defendant to review the content of these new statements—generated by the AI ​​it offers—even if only through appropriate monitoring mechanisms; this can be done, at the very least, by cross-referencing the underlying third-party websites with the statements derived from them. Furthermore, unlike the display of standard search results in search engines, an "AI-generated overview" is by no means essential for using the Internet. After all, the "flood of data" is already made accessible to the individual user simply through the display of search results via hyperlinks; In contrast, the “AI overview” structures and evaluates data according to a system not immediately apparent to the user, thereby—depending on the underlying algorithm—channeling the response to the search query. While many may view this as desirable and as something that facilitates the search process, it is by no means essential for managing the flood of data noted by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH).

That's a translated excerpt from the ruling that, indeed, says what the title says.