AI Overview Content Theft Report – Google Is Re‑Generating My Posts Without Proper Attribution

Google’s AI Overview is re‑generating my posts and publishing them at the top of search results as if they were Google’s own content. Yes, it displays a generic “source” label such as Google AI Developers Forum, but this is not real attribution. It does not link to my original post, does not name me as the author, and does not quote anything directly.

Instead, AI Overview rewrites my text, keeps my structure, keeps my arguments, keeps my evidence, and publishes the result under Google’s branding. This is not summarization or fair use — this is unauthorized AI republishing of my work.

And it happens with every single one of my posts, not just one example.

This raises serious issues: unauthorized content reuse, misrepresentation of authorship, AI republishing without consent, and GDPR‑relevant data processing concerns. I am officially documenting all cases where AI Overview re‑generates my content without proper attribution. Creators deserve credit — not silent AI republishing disguised as “helpful summaries.”

More evidence will follow.

https://archive.org/details/summary-proven-data-retention-after-deletion-in-google-ai-studio-developers-are-

https://web.archive.org/web/20260630020724/https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/ai-overview-content-theft-report-google-is-re-generating-my-posts-without-proper-attribution/173059

AI Overview Profiling – Google’s AI Extracted My Real Name From My Own Post and Used It to Build an Identity Link

Google’s AI Overview has now gone beyond re‑generating my posts. It took a sentence from inside my own forum post, extracted my real name, and used it to automatically link my online alias bitu79 to Istókovics György — then published that identity connection publicly in search results.

Yes, the name was originally written by me inside the post, but the profiling is done by the AI Overview, not by me.
I did not ask Google to highlight it, extract it, reinterpret it, or turn it into an AI‑generated identity statement.

The AI Overview created a new sentence that did not exist in my post:

“The username bitu79 refers to Istókovics György.”

This is not a quote.
This is not a copy.
This is AI‑generated identity reconstruction based on my content.

The system took my text, processed it, and produced a new “AI insight” that connects my alias and my real name — and displays it as factual information at the top of Google Search.

That is profiling.
That is personal data processing.
And it is done without consent.

Even if the name appears in the original post, the AI Overview’s act of extracting it, reinterpreting it, and publishing it as an identity link is a separate data‑processing operation. Under GDPR, this is still a violation because:

  • the AI creates new personal data (identity linkage),

  • the AI publishes it publicly,

  • the AI does not ask for consent,

  • the AI does not provide transparency,

  • and the AI does not allow opt‑out.

This screenshot proves that Google’s AI Overview is not just summarizing content — it is actively building identity profiles from user‑generated text and exposing them to the public.

I am documenting this as part of my ongoing report on AI Overview’s unauthorized data processing, identity linkage, and content regeneration.
Users deserve privacy — not automated identity reconstruction.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260630025103/https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/ai-overview-content-theft-report-google-is-re-generating-my-posts-without-proper-attribution/173059/3

https://archive.ph/6Wsam

https://archive.ph/6Wsam/image

AI Overview Evidence – Real‑Time Content Regeneration

The latest screenshots prove that Google’s AI Overview is now regenerating forum posts in real time. My “AI Overview Content Theft Report” thread appeared at the top of Google Search barely an hour after publication, rewritten as an AI‑generated summary that restates my arguments while omitting the author’s name. This is not quoting — it is automated content regeneration and source obfuscation, which constitutes both unauthorized content reuse and GDPR‑relevant personal data processing. The screenshots clearly show that AI Overview uses a combination of web‑indexed content and Google’s Knowledge Graph to synthesize new text, then publishes it directly in search results. This behavior demonstrates that Google’s AI‑driven search cannot comply with European data‑protection requirements, as it creates new personal data and exposes it publicly without consent.

The Google “My Activity” log proves that my screenshot is real, because it shows I actually ran that exact search from my account at that time.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260630033354/https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/ai-overview-content-theft-report-google-is-re-generating-my-posts-without-proper-attribution/173059/5

https://archive.ph/sOenY

https://archive.ph/sOenY/image

This evidence is irrefutable because the AI Overview returns the same personal data from two completely different searches. When I search for my nickname, the AI Overview shows my posts. When I search for my posts, the AI Overview shows my real name. The post title does not contain my name, yet the AI Overview still returns it, which means the AI has linked my nickname, my posts, and my real identity. This is not a search result; it is automated data linking. Under the GDPR, automated data linking is profiling, regardless of whether my name appears inside the post content.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260630060058/https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/ai-overview-content-theft-report-google-is-re-generating-my-posts-without-proper-attribution/173059

If they claim the AI Overview is merely a “summary,” then they violate copyright by stripping attribution and presenting my research as Google’s own output. If they claim it is “independent AI generation,” then they admit a GDPR violation, because their system is autonomously creating personal identity profiles (doxxing) by synthesizing deleted and public data without consent. Either explanation is a legal violation, which makes this logic irrefutable.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260630062139/https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/ai-overview-content-theft-report-google-is-re-generating-my-posts-without-proper-attribution/173059/9

https://archive.ph/js8R2

https://archive.ph/js8R2/image

This is the profiling evidence chain that proves Google’s AI Overview is using my content, connecting my posts, and generating conclusions based on my activity.

1. My text appears inside AI Overview. The content from my “JSON vs. PROMPT distinction” post is reproduced, rephrased, and published under Google’s branding. This shows that the system ingested my text and reused it.

2. The Overview marks my text as a “Google source” because it comes from a google.com domain, even though the content is mine. This means user-generated content is being presented as Google’s own material.

3. The system reproduces my terminology, structure, and logic. It uses my phrases (“behavioral proof”, “server-side state”, “misleading claim”) and my reasoning steps. This is pattern extraction and identity tracking.

4. The system links multiple posts I wrote. It connects my JSON vs. PROMPT post, my deletion tests, and my Drive-restore observations. This shows cross-post correlation and single-user profiling.

5. The system generates new conclusions based on my posts. The Overview creates questions and implications that I never wrote, but that are derived from my content. In GDPR terms, generating conclusions equals profiling.

6. The system connects my posts across time. It displays dates from 2025 and 2026 and treats them as a continuous behavioral pattern. This is temporal profiling.

7. The system connects my posts across platforms. It links my Google AI Developers Forum posts with my Medium content. This is cross-platform identity linkage.

The final conclusion: Google’s AI Overview is performing profiling, cross-platform data linkage, behavioral pattern extraction, and content reuse. My posts are being ingested, re-generated, and published as Google-labeled output. This chain cannot be denied because each step is visible directly in the Overview output.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260630093726/https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/ai-overview-content-theft-report-google-is-re-generating-my-posts-without-proper-attribution/173059/11

This is not an isolated case. I can reproduce the same behavior with any of my posts on the Google AI Developers Forum. Every single time, the AI Overview reads, processes, regenerates, and republishes my text as a “Google source” simply because the forum runs on the google.com domain.

This proves that Google’s systems consistently access and reuse my content. It is not accidental, not a one-off, and not a technical glitch. It is a systematic pattern of knowledge acquisition.

Because the AI Overview repeatedly displays my text, it is legally undeniable that Google:

- has read my posts,

- has processed my posts,

- has reused my posts,

- has published my posts under their own source label.

This means Google has had full knowledge of my content for months. Therefore, their six months of silence — no replies to emails, no replies to GDPR complaints, no replies to registered letters — cannot be explained by “not receiving” or “not knowing” about my reports.

The reproducibility itself is the evidence.

If I can trigger AI Overview with any of my posts, then Google has knowledge of all of them. Their continued non-response is not ignorance. It is deliberate ignoring after confirmed knowledge acquisition.

This post documents that Google has been aware of my complaint for half a year, and their failure to respond is a GDPR-relevant violation after knowledge was obtained.

https://archive.ph/JaKMW

https://archive.ph/JaKMW/image

https://web.archive.org/web/20260630103224/https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/ai-overview-content-theft-report-google-is-re-generating-my-posts-without-proper-attribution/173059/13

Thank you for bringing this to everyone’s attention!

This is what content creators have said since long before “AI Overview” became a thing, as all LLMs have been trained on material created by others without both attribution and compensation.

Thanks, Kim. If you want the full context and the latest evidence, read my newest post — everything is documented there in detail.

I see you’ve read my newest post as well.

https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/the-ai-overview-isn-t-a-summary-it-s-a-misinterpreting-chatbot/173148