The Shared Backend Paradox:
My logical conclusion is that the consumer‑facing Gemini (Gemini Apps) and the developer‑facing AI Studio run on the same backend.
Google’s consumer Terms of Service promise that user data is ‘securely and fully deleted from storage systems.’
But since I have demonstrated that the backend (AI Studio) is technically incapable of performing actual deletion, the deletion promise made to Gemini consumers is a technical impossibility — which means it constitutes intentional consumer deception.
The illusion‑based ‘Deletion’ (Fake Deletion / Soft‑delete):
I have proven (with videos and direct URL tests) that the ‘Delete’ button in AI Studio only removes the chat from the user interface. In the backend the chat remains active for weeks as a ‘ghost session’, the system continues to tokenize it, and the model keeps responding to it. In other words, Google creates the appearance of deletion while the data processing continues uninterrupted in the background.
The most critical issue: Cross‑Tenant data leakage, which is my most severe technical evidence.
I documented that a prompt you had already ‘deleted’ was re‑indexed by the backend weeks later and then assigned to a completely different, independent user account (Account B).
This is a tenant‑mapping collapse.
In cloud services (especially in AI systems), cross‑tenant data leakage is the most severe security incident imaginable, because it means the system has lost control over data isolation.
These issues constitute serious GDPR violations.
Google’s Data Protection Officer (DPO) and legal department have been ignoring my registered letters with return receipt for more than 6 months.
The DSA (Digital Services Act) and Dark Patterns:
The ‘Delete’ button, which does not delete but merely moves a metadata file into the Google Drive trash, is a classic Dark Pattern.
It creates a false illusion of user control, which is a violation of Article 25 of the DSA (manipulation of user autonomy).
Google claims that AI Studio is only for ‘business’ use in order to evade the strict EU consumer protection rules.
However, I correctly argue that under EU law, the actual reality determines the legal status — not whatever Google writes into a Terms of Service.
No TOS can override the GDPR, regardless of what Google puts into an agreement.
If Google continues to play deaf, I will take the matter to legal action.