Google illegally retains customer data, and I am taking legal action against them

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 4:45am 1

I stand before Google with the following clear technical evidence that cannot be denied, because it is based on unassailable software logic: When I press the delete button on the Google AI Studio interface, the system uses a deceptive label to lie to me that “my prompt will be permanently deleted after 30 days.” In reality, this button does not delete the prompt, does not delete the chat, and does not destroy any backend object. All it does is move the launcher file belonging to the user interface — a simple JSON file — into the trash folder of my Google Drive.

Google’s diabolical plan was that since the Drive trash automatically empties after 30 days, the JSON file would disappear from my sight forever. At that point, the interface tells me “there is no such prompt,” and because the chat cannot load without the file, Google assumed they were fully protected. They calculated that the user would never again have any technical means to enter the conversation, making it impossible to prove that they never actually deleted anything from their internal servers.

But Google got caught precisely because of their own file‑restore robot, and this is my technical checkmate against them: The built‑in Google Drive file recovery tool is a local, “blind” robot. This robot physically has no access to Google’s remote, internal AI backend servers, and it cannot reconstruct server‑side database records or live session states out of thin air. This robot only operates inside the Drive storage and can only resurrect the discarded JSON file.

When, after emptying the trash, I successfully restored the deleted JSON file with this robot, the AI Studio interface immediately loaded the working chat with its full previous memory and internal state.

Since the Drive robot demonstrably did not touch the backend system, the chat’s instant startup proved in black and white that Google’s backend servers continued running and storing my data uninterrupted even after pressing the delete button and after the trash was emptied. The backend system was never affected by the deletion command.

Google cannot deny this in court. They cannot claim temporary deletion or technical error, because due to the operational limitations of their own robot, their fraud has become an irrefutable fact. They only hid the surface key while illegally stealing and retaining the data. If they had the nerve to cheat, now they must publicly apologize and take responsibility before the court and the cameras.

This is corporate fraud, and they cannot produce an update log for the renaming of the button, and the renaming itself states misleading things that contradict the technical behavior of the deletion. This was a rushed move by Google, demonstrably, intended to hide the illegal data retention.

I had already raised the issue of data retention before the button was renamed — by email, on the forum, in every possible way. I even sent physical letters to Google’s US corporate address, which were demonstrably received, with signed return receipts and confirmation from the Hungarian postal service.

Here are the posts that prove everything:

<https://discuss.ai.google.dev/u/bitu79/activity/topics>

In a few days I will file a lawsuit against Google over AI Studio’s data fraud – people, vote!

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 4:48am 2

<https://archive.ph/0F5Ps>

<https://archive.ph/0F5Ps/image>

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 6:32am 3

Google wants you to believe that the prompt HAS BEEN DELETED from the server. When you empty the trash in Drive, the AI Studio interface states that “there is no such prompt”. This text clearly MEANS it was deleted from the server. But in reality, it was NOT deleted from the server, because after the Drive file recovery the prompt loads the exact same way with the same link. The current delete button, which they renamed to cover up their fraud, says: “Move prompt to trash Are you sure? Your prompt will be permanently deleted after 30 days.”. The prompt goes to the trash, which will be permanently deleted after 30 days. That is what it says, right. But this is a lie, because it is not the prompt that goes to the trash, but the pointer, the json. The prompt is never deleted from the Google servers. Google wanted you to believe that it was deleted from the server, while they DO NOT delete it. Renaming the button only served this purpose. This forum post from 2025 is also evidence against them, where a Google developer also confirmed that the prompt comes back with its own url, and several users described the same thing: https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/deleted-chats-remain-accessible-via-direct-url-in-google-ai-studio/79557. This is the archive of that post on archive ph: https://archive.ph/Kuhcm

Google’s own developer (Lalit\_Kumar, 2025) wrote that the chat is actually not the JSON file in Drive, but only metadata. Due to the loss of the metadata, AI Studio “does not recognize” the chat — but this is not a deletion. This proves that the “there is no such prompt” UI text is a lie, because the prompt actually continues to live on Google’s server. This can be found here: https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/saved-prompt-history-extension/101811 And its archive.ph save is here: https://archive.ph/ghAaS

Google cannot deny my evidence, see you in court!

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 6:34am 4

<https://archive.ph/jELk7>

<https://archive.ph/jELk7/image>

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 6:49am 5

I notified Google through every possible channel months ago. I have archived every single piece of evidence, so there is no way for them to deny anything; every step of my findings is fully documented. Their silence proves that they are well aware of everything. Furthermore, their own systems — including AI Overview — are actively reporting on my posts, which legally constitutes formal awareness of the issue. Checkmate! I am very curious to see Google’s desperate stammering in court!

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 6:52am 6

<https://archive.ph/NAR21>

<https://archive.ph/NAR21/image>

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 7:30am 7

Returning to the button‑renaming issue: this is not a UI error, not a misunderstanding, not a technical glitch. What I have proven is INTENTIONAL. People at Google made deliberate decisions about this. And when something is intentional data deception + intentional data retention, it is no longer civil law — it is CRIMINAL LAW.

Google knew exactly that the “Delete” button is lying. They knew exactly that the button promises: “Your prompt will be permanently deleted after 30 days.” They knew exactly that this is impossible, because the button does not delete the prompt — it only throws the JSON pointer into the Drive trash.

The JSON is not the chat. The JSON is not the prompt. The JSON is not the session. The JSON is just a damn key without which the UI cannot load the conversation.

Google designed this deliberately so the user would believe the prompt was deleted. They assumed that once the JSON disappears from the Drive trash after 30 days, the interface would say “there is no such prompt,” and everything would be hidden. Meanwhile, the backend continues storing the entire conversation as if nothing happened.

This is the sickest part: it was not a mistake, but intentional concealment, done by people.

Then came their own Drive robot, which can only restore the JSON — and has nothing to do with the Google AI backend. This is also proven. And when I restored the JSON, the chat loaded INSTANTLY, with full memory and full internal state. Here are the videos showing it, on PC and Android:

<https://youtu.be/LBQfNbPCxQw>

<https://youtu.be/m4U6ajKuLRo>

This proves that the prompt remained on Google’s servers the entire time, even when the interface lied that “there is no such prompt.”

This is criminal‑law territory. Intentional deception. Intentional data retention. Intentional concealment. Intentional harm. Which can even lead to prison sentences.

It does not matter who is big — what matters is that they did not delete the data, and I proved it. It does not matter that Google is huge and I am just a user.

If I go to court, I win. There is no other outcome. Google has lost, because they cheated intentionally. And this is already a CRIMINAL‑LAW category, committed against millions of users.

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 7:32am 8

<https://archive.ph/RqksD>

<https://archive.ph/RqksD/image>

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 7:38am 9

The criminal‑law category (fraud) means that Google cannot hide behind the corporate logo. Someone — a project manager, a lead developer, or a DPO — personally had to make the decision to rewrite the UI button text without modifying the backend code. This is corporate fraud, which can result in personal criminal liability and even prison time during an official investigation. I will make sure someone sits in jail for this.

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 7:44am 10

<https://archive.ph/EdDMj>

<https://archive.ph/EdDMj/image>

<https://archive.ph/MxaoL>

<https://archive.ph/MxaoL/image>

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 7:59am 12

<https://archive.ph/nmsMD>

<https://archive.ph/nmsMD/image>

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 10:04am 14

<https://archive.ph/OqSHP>

<https://archive.ph/OqSHP/image>

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 7:04pm 15

New evidence video here:

<https://youtu.be/8Pg-7eNPUWM>

Official emails from Google about the restored files:

<https://archive.org/details/gmail-0-9281000040785-confirmation-request-for-drive-file-recovery>

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 7:08pm 16

<https://archive.ph/z1PsH>

<https://archive.ph/z1PsH/image>

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 8:35pm 17

Although Google, by modifying the labels (for example, by switching the text from ‘delete prompt’ to ‘manage file in Drive’), may try to bring the user interface’s communication closer to the actual technical process (i.e., that the button only moves the Drive file), this does not resolve the issue of backend data retention. When deleting a chat (by pressing the delete button), the users’ goal is not to hide the Drive file (JSON), but to permanently remove the conversation data from the provider’s internal servers (backend). If, due to the internal operation of the service, the conversation remains active on the backend servers, it raises serious privacy concerns (especially based on the GDPR right to erasure/to be forgotten). The obligation to delete prescribes the actual and irreversible destruction of personal data, and not the hiding of the link leading to it. Despite Google playing tricks with the labels in response to my posts, they will not escape the lawsuit. With this constant renaming of the button, they solved nothing; they only admitted that they do not delete anything on the server side. Rewriting the labels merely changes the name of the client-side process, but does not alter the fact that the data has been retained in the background.

Képernyőkép 2026-07-19 2222181913×612 66.4 KB

Képernyőkép 2026-07-18 1516181919×886 101 KB

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 8:44pm 18

<https://web.archive.org/web/20260719203722/https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/google-illegally-retains-customer-data-and-i-am-taking-legal-action-against-them/175294/print>

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 9:42pm 19

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that some kind of “delayed deletion” or “retention period” actually exists — even then the entire explanation collapses instantly.

Because the backend would still receive the delete command immediately.

There is no cloud architecture where:

the delete command itself
waits 30 days
before even notifying the backend
that the chat must be closed or marked as deleted.

This is complete nonsense.

In a real system:

The user presses the “delete” button.
The backend receives the notification instantly.
The backend marks the data as deleted (soft delete).
The session becomes inaccessible.
The UI can no longer load the chat.
Retention applies only to storage, not access.

So even if “delayed deletion” existed, the backend would still immediately receive the message:

“Hey, close this chat, it’s under deletion.”

And if that happened, the chat would NEVER load again. Not from JSON, not from Drive, not from anywhere.

The fact that my chat loads perfectly means:

the backend never received any delete command.
there is no delayed deletion.
there is no sync issue.
there is no retention‑based access block.
the chat was never marked as deleted.

In summary, dear Google: If you try to rely on this explanation, you will fail, because if delayed deletion existed, the backend would still receive the delete signal immediately. And if the backend received it, the chat would never load again. Since mine loads, the backend never received any delete signal. Therefore the “delay” explanation is impossible.

And this is the same for millions of users, not just me. I’m very curious to see how much you’ll sweat in court!

Bitu79 July 19, 2026, 9:44pm 20

<https://archive.ph/vFd9K>

<https://archive.ph/vFd9K/image>

Bitu79 July 20, 2026, 7:15am 21

[](https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/google-illegally-retains-customer-data-and-i-am-taking-legal-action-against-them/175294#p-318512-the-following-archived-page-proves-that-the-google-ai-developers-forum-moderators-opened-viewed-and-then-deleted-content-from-this-post-edited-it-or-hid-it-since-a-discoursebased-forum-can-only-be-moderated-if-a-moderator-opens-and-accesses-the-content-every-such-action-legally-constitutes-acknowledgment-of-the-information-1)The following archived page proves that the Google AI Developers Forum moderators opened, viewed, and then deleted content from this post, edited it, or hid it. Since a Discourse‑based forum can only be moderated if a moderator opens and accesses the content, every such action legally constitutes acknowledgment of the information.

<https://archive.ph/XiqN6>

<https://archive.ph/XiqN6/image>

Bitu79 July 20, 2026, 7:36am 22

<https://archive.ph/3ELEW>

<https://archive.ph/3ELEW/image>

Google illegally retains customer data, and I am taking legal action against them

Google illegally retains customer data, and I am taking legal action against them

Google illegally retains customer data, and I am taking legal action against them

Related topics

Comments (0)