The emerging common law of chatbots: A German court holds doctors liable for chatbot responses

A recent decision by the Higher Regional Court of Hamm in Germany addresses whether a company may be held liable for commercial misrepresentations that a chatbot on the company's website makes to consumers. The court ruled “yes,” rejecting the defense that the chatbot is a third party. The holding is consistent with a 2024 Canadian decision about a company’s chatbot. The two cases are emerging signs that judges will not treat chatbot statements as different from static content when applying traditional liability standards.

The case against Dr. Rick and Dr. Nick

The case arises from a chatbot on a German medical practice’s website that allegedly misrepresented the doctors’ area of practice. The doctors, who go by the names Dr. Rick and Dr. Nick, are social media personalities in Germany. They star in their own reality show, The Beauty Docs, perform beauty treatments, and run the company Aesthetify.

Aesthetify operates a website that features the chatbot at issue and, according to the lawsuit, the chatbot falsely told consumers that the doctors are "specialists in aesthetic medicine" or "specialists in plastic and aesthetic surgery." A consumer organization sought relief in the Higher Regional Court of Hamm under the German Unfair Competition Act, which addresses misleading commercial practices.

The court held that the two doctors, who are managing directors of the company, are responsible for what the chatbot says, regardless of the data used to train or ground the chatbot. The court specifically denied the argument, similar to the one made in the Canadian case, that the chatbot is a third party. Enjoining the false claims, the court also allowed an appeal to the Federal Court of Justice, given that the matter is one of first impression.

Related developments in the United States

It does not appear that any similar case has yet been decided in the US. However, many cases have been filed in other contexts about a company’s purported liability for the content of a chatbot’s interactions with consumers.

The closest analogs to date may be recent actions in which chatbot outputs are alleged to constitute the unauthorized practice of either medicine or law. Other cases include those against AI companies, mainly using product liability theories, for alleged mental health harms, as well as cases alleging defamation.

Regardless of what happens in the courts, state legislatures may decide to cut off the third-party defense raised in the German and Canadian cases. California enacted AB 316 in 2025, which applies to civil actions in which plaintiffs claim that they were harmed by an AI system that a defendant had “developed, modified, or used.” In such actions, defendants are barred from asserting a defense that the AI “autonomously caused the harm.” However, defendants may still present evidence relevant to “causation or foreseeability” or to “comparative fault.”

Key takeaways

Although neither the German nor Canadian case involves a major incident or a high-level court, and the German case remains on appeal, the two decisions may indicate a broader trend: courts effectively holding companies strictly liable for statements made by their chatbots on the companies’ own websites. Companies deploying chatbots in the commercial context may not be able to rely on arguments that those chatbots are third parties or that another company – such as a developer or a vendor – is solely responsible for what the chatbots say to consumers.

The German case underscores the importance of testing, monitoring, and auditing the use of consumer-facing chatbots, especially if they operate in regulated areas such as healthcare, finance, employment, law, insurance, and consumer relations. Taking these steps may help protect companies not only from a growing body of AI-specific laws but also from being on the wrong side of the emerging common law of chatbots.

For more information, please contact the authors.