---
title: "You present it, you own it — accountability for what AI presents · KYE Protocol™"
description: "When an AI answer is presented as authoritative, responsibility tends to sit with the party that presented it — not the sources, not the reader. KYE Protocol™ designs to that principle: record what was presented, on whose authority, on what cited basis. Reporting on public developments, not legal advice."
url: https://kyeprotocol.com/present-own-it/
lang: en
source: "KYE Protocol"
---

> When an AI answer is presented as authoritative, responsibility tends to sit with the party that presented it — not the sources, not the reader. KYE Protocol™ designs to that principle: record what was presented, on whose authority, on what cited basis. Reporting on public developments, not legal advice.

Reporting, not legal advice

# You present it, you own it — accountability for what AI presents.

When an AI answer is presented as authoritative, public developments suggest responsibility tends to sit with the party that _presented_ it — rather than the sources behind it or the reader. If that is where responsibility lands, you benefit from being able to show afterwards **what was presented, on whose authority, and on what cited basis.** That is an evidence-and-authority question. It is what [the trust layer for consequential action](https://kyeprotocol.com/trust-layer/) exists to answer.

[Start a governed pilot](https://kyeprotocol.com/poc/) [Read the sourced brief](https://kyeprotocol.com/library/ai-legal-brief-munich-google-ai-overviews-2026-06/)

Adopt AI without losing legitimate control.

## What was publicly reported

This section relays a public report. It is not legal advice, and KYE Protocol™ relays the judgment without independently verifying it. As reported by THE DECODER on 9 June 2026, the Regional Court of Munich (Landgericht München) held that Google's AI Overviews are attributable to Google itself — rather than to the underlying sources or to users. The reported reasoning, in short:

- **The holding, as reported** — an AI provider is responsible for the answers its AI presents; responsibility was not shifted to the sources or the reader.
- **The reasoning, as reported** — presenting content as a coherent, autonomous, authoritative answer means a provider cannot transfer the entire burden of verification to the reader.
- **Independent regulatory context** — separately, the EU AI Act™ already places logging and human-oversight duties on the deployer at the point of use (Article 12, Article 14). Those duties are discharged at runtime, not in a later review.

The full, carefully-sourced account is in [AI Legal Briefs™ No. 1](https://kyeprotocol.com/library/ai-legal-brief-munich-google-ai-overviews-2026-06/), which reports what was decided and, separately and clearly labelled, what KYE Protocol™ reads into it. Whether and how any ruling applies to your organisation is a matter for your own legal advisers.

## The principle KYE Protocol™ designs to

This is KYE Protocol™'s design principle, clearly separated from the reported facts above. It is not legal advice. The dispute is concrete in a way much of the AI debate is not. The question is who bears responsibility when plausibility is consumed as knowledge — not whether the statement is clever, nor how capable the model is. Where responsibility sits with the party that presents AI output authoritatively, that party benefits from runtime proof:

- **What was presented** — captured as a signed [Evidence Pack™](https://kyeprotocol.com/evidence-pack/) at the moment of the action, not reassembled from logs weeks later.
- **On whose authority** — which principal held authority for the action, traced across the delegation chain and resolved to Authority Finality™.
- **On what cited basis** — the evidence is replay-derivable from public keys alone, so a regulator, an auditor, or a counterparty can check it without trusting the vendor.

KYE Protocol™ governs whether an AI action is authorised and records the basis as replay-verifiable evidence. It does _not_ make a model's statements true and makes no claim about the correctness of any AI output — it makes the authority and the basis **provable**.

## If you present it, be able to prove it.

Your team may be putting AI into a path where its output is presented as authoritative — an answer to a customer, a recommendation to a clinician, a statement to a regulator. The trust layer is what lets you adopt it without losing legitimate control. Start with one governed pilot on a single real action. Leave with an [Evidence Pack™](https://kyeprotocol.com/evidence-pack/) you can hand to your board, your auditor, or your regulator.

[Start a governed pilot](https://kyeprotocol.com/poc/) [The trust layer for consequential action](https://kyeprotocol.com/trust-layer/)

Canonical KYE™ surfaces referenced on this page: [KYE Protocol™](https://kyeprotocol.com/).