For half a year I have been reporting to Google that their “Delete” function does not delete anything. For half a year they ignored me. For half a year there was no response. For half a year I have proven with video, Internet Archive snapshots and direct URLs that the “deleted” data never gets deleted.
3–4 weeks ago they suddenly changed the button from “Delete” to “Move to Trash”, using the exact wording and logic I had published months earlier. This is not a fix. This is an admission.
“Deletion” is not deletion — it is data retention (GDPR 17).
Under GDPR, deletion means irreversible destruction. Google’s “Delete” button simply moves the data to another folder (Trash). The data remains on the server, accessible, loadable and restorable. As long as data can be restored, no deletion has occurred.
The “Redemption” paradox: there is no restoration because there was no deletion.
Google claims the 30‑day period protects the user. This would only be true if the data had actually been deleted and restored from a separate backup. But my evidence shows that the “deleted” data loads instantly from the direct URL. This means the data never left the active state. There is nothing to restore. There is no redemption. Only unauthorized data retention.
The “Delete” button is a misleading UI.
The button claims deletion. In reality, archiving and retention occur. This is a deceptive interface because the user requests deletion, yet the system continues to store the data. The user did not consent to 30 more days of storage; in fact, the user explicitly requested the opposite.
The burden of proof is on Google (GDPR 5(2)).
I have proven with video, Internet Archive snapshots and URL loading that the “deleted” data remains active. Under GDPR, Google must prove that deletion occurred. They cannot, because the data is accessible, the deletion never happened, the retention does not start, and the UI is misleading.
Conclusion:
Moving data to Trash is not deletion. The “Delete” button is misleading. The 30‑day notice is legally invalid. As long as the data is accessible and functional on the server, the right to erasure is violated.
The “Delete” button used by Google, together with the attached 30‑day notice, is a legally invalid construct. Moving data to Trash is not deletion. A service provider cannot rely on its own legally incorrect “deletion” protocol as an excuse to avoid GDPR obligations. As long as the data remains accessible and functional on the server, data processing continues, and the user’s rights under GDPR Article 17 are violated.
I maintain my claim for compensation.
This case is already at NDA level.
Evidence: Google copied my deletion methodology and naming from my posts dated May 4, May 7 and May 11 — while the deletion function is still broken
The attached video (recorded on 2026‑05‑04 with a live timestamp from pontosido.com) proves that on this date Google AI Studio was still using the old, broken deletion UI. The “Delete prompt” popup and the behavior were exactly the same as before. The deletion function is still broken today. The behavior has not changed. Only the button label was renamed.
My posts and their exact creation dates:
“Google AI Studio – Technical Proof of Deletion Failure” – 2026‑05‑04
“Google AI Studio – Communication Contradiction: Delete is not Deletion” – 2026‑05‑07
“Google AI Studio – GDPR Legal Analysis: Article 17 and 5(2)” – 2026‑05‑11
Google modified the deletion UI only after these posts were published. They copied my methodology, my structure, my definitions and even the naming I used. They changed the button label exactly the way I described, while the underlying deletion behavior remained unchanged.
The video and the timestamps of my posts together prove that Google implemented my terminology and logic after my publications, without fixing the actual deletion function.
