Google’s own systems now show that Google AI Studio’s “Delete” function does not delete backend data

The screenshot shows that Google Search not only lists my post among the results, but highlights it at the top of the results page inside an information box.
The screenshot shows that Google’s own search engine displays the following sentence from my post as a featured snippet:

“Both systems clearly show that the ‘Delete’ function does not remove data — it simply hides it. There is no backend deletion, no partial deletion, no delayed deletion. The data stays fully intact.”

This is not some forum comment buried somewhere — this appears on Google’s own interface, under the Google brand, in a top‑level highlighted position.
According to Google’s own rules, featured snippets are placed at the top of Search only if they are useful and accurate answers.

Therefore, legally and communicatively, this is an admission:
Google’s system confirmed that the “Delete” function does not delete, it only hides the data.
If Google tried to deny this, they would have to claim that their own search engine displays false information — which is a PR and legal self‑own.

https://archive.org/details/googles-own-systems-now-show-that-google-ai-studios-delete-function-does-not-del_20260706_0447

https://archive.ph/0ToSc

https://archive.ph/0ToSc/image

Google Search Help clearly states:
Featured snippets come from systems designed to show the most helpful and most relevant information…
We highlight these so users can quickly get answers to their questions.

The “Own Systems” Contradiction
I have demonstrated that:
Google AI Studio: says I deleted it.
Google Drive Recovery: says here is the file, I can restore it.
Google Search Snippet: says my post is the truth, meaning deletion is not deletion.

:laughing:

https://web.archive.org/web/20260706051134/https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/google-s-own-systems-now-show-that-google-ai-studio-s-delete-function-does-not-delete-backend-data/173694/print

I uploaded the PDF file of the Google Search result to the Internet Archive.
The attached images and the PDF together prove that:

Google AI Studio says that the prompts are deleted — which is not true, because I have proven otherwise.

Google Drive Recovery says that the file can be restored — which I actually did in reality.

Google Search Snippet says that my post is the truth — deletion is not deletion.

These three systems are three different interfaces of the same company, and by contradicting each other they prove that the deletion function is not real deletion, but data‑hiding.
The search result recorded in the PDF serves as an official admission displayed on a Google surface.
The timestamp in the PDF (2026.07.06. 7:29), and the timestamps on the images (7:27 and 7:29), confirm the exact moment when Google publicly displayed this contradiction.

PDF file:

https://archive.org/details/googles-own-systems-now-show-that-google-ai-studios-delete-function-does-not-del_20260706_0541

https://archive.org/details/googles-own-systems-now-show-that-google-ai-studios-delete-function-does-not-del_20260706_0547

https://archive.ph/nZvit

https://archive.ph/nZvit/image

From a legal perspective — meaning from the court’s point of view — Google is fully responsible for whatever appears on its own interface. Legally, this means Google is treated as if it agrees with the content that its algorithms highlight, including featured snippets. Courts punish Google precisely because when the company displays a text in a prominent box on its own surface, it behaves toward the outside world as if that text were Google’s own statement. The law does not accept the excuse of “it was just a machine.” If Google puts something in its shop window, then legally it belongs to Google.

From a technical perspective — meaning according to Google’s engineers — they absolutely do not agree with me. If a Google PR manager or executive looked at my screenshots, they would hold their head in their hands, because my post exposes their system. Google’s algorithms do not evaluate truth or opinion; they only measure relevance and popularity — at least that’s what Google would claim. But this is exactly where the court ruling comes in: it states that Google is responsible for whatever appears on its own surface, and it must be treated as if the content were Google’s own statement.

Meanwhile, this snippet hurts Google precisely because their own algorithm forces them to display my truth on their own interface, even though internally they would strongly object to it. And here is the key point: the deletion really is not deletion. I have proven this technically, and Google’s own systems have confirmed it — even if Google would never admit it publicly.

If a company releases a product or a system to the market, it cannot behave like a faulty machine where they simply shrug and say, “sorry, it malfunctioned.” For years, Google hid behind exactly this excuse:
“This is just an automated algorithm, we can’t help it if it outputs something stupid or inconvenient.”

Courts, however — for the same reasons I am explaining — have had enough of this, and they have declared:

There is no escape: if you operate the system and profit from it, then it is your responsibility when it malfunctions.

And I will absolutely take legal action, because in my opinion Google has no chance against me — the amount of evidence against them is overwhelming.

Here is the official developer documentation about featured snippets:

https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/featured-snippets

https://web.archive.org/web/20260706062931/https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/google-s-own-systems-now-show-that-google-ai-studio-s-delete-function-does-not-delete-backend-data/173694/print

The Google ecosystem is deliberately built so you can’t actually reach them.
Everywhere you turn, you’re met with forms: fill out this, fill out that, submit again — and nothing ever happens.
These forms don’t solve anything; they’re dead ends, intentionally designed to lead nowhere.
Automated replies, templates, AI‑generated messages, empty emails — zero human response.
This isn’t a technical glitch, it’s not an accident, and it’s not because the company is big. It’s intentionally engineered this way.
The whole process is a pre‑constructed wall meant to ensure no one has to deal with anything.

Meanwhile, their systems continuously process, analyze, highlight, and restore my content, so Google absolutely knows what’s going on.
I can prove this in court, because I’ve contacted them countless times and never received a single real answer.
The way Google operates is unlawful, and I honestly don’t understand how it’s even possible that they get away with this and continue functioning.

Google will pay for this, because I can prove their bad faith.
Not just that they made mistakes, but that they deliberately ignored me, intentionally refused to respond, and built their entire system so that no one can actually reach them.
I contacted them countless times and never received a real answer, which clearly shows that their silence isn’t accidental — it’s intentional.
This is exactly what I’ll be able to prove: Google isn’t just unreachable — they operate in bad faith.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260706073540/https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/google-s-own-systems-now-show-that-google-ai-studio-s-delete-function-does-not-delete-backend-data/173694/print

Google’s AI is so broken it officially denies the existence of its own DPO email addresses

If anyone still believes that Google’s AI Overview is a “smart” or “verified” system, these new screenshots will end that illusion forever. The AI is not just hallucinating; it is acting as a broken, automated shield to prevent users from exercising their GDPR rights.

I tested the AI Overview by asking for Google’s official Data Protection Officer (DPO) contact information. The results are completely schizophrenic and expose how dangerously incompetent this system is:

1. The AI actively denies the existence of official legal contacts
In some searches, the AI correctly identifies the official DPO emails (dpo-google@google.com, data-protection-office@google.com).
However, just a moment later, in another search, the AI states as an absolute fact:
“Google does not maintain a single general, direct email address for its DPO” and “Google officially does not publish a direct email address.”
It literally lies to the user and tries to force them into the dead-end, automated web forms I talked about in my previous post.

2. The AI exposes Google by scraping Reddit complaints
This is the most pathetic part. Where does Google’s million-dollar AI get its “official” answers? From random forums. In one of the screenshots, the AI generates its summary based on a Reddit post titled: “Google tries to hide its complaint e-mail addresses.”
Google’s own AI is using user complaints about Google’s shady practices as the foundation for its “factual” overviews!

3. Pulling “helpful” data from 2009 and 2014
To prove that this AI has zero comprehension and zero oversight, when asked for general Google contacts, it pulls “helpful” forum links and articles from 2009 and 2014. We are in 2026, dealing with highly sensitive GDPR and AI compliance issues, and Google’s flagship search feature is feeding users 12 to 17-year-old garbage data.

Conclusion:
This perfectly proves my point from the previous post. The Google ecosystem is a deliberately constructed wall.

They sell this AI as a “helpful assistant,” but in reality, it is a blind scraping tool that contradicts itself, hides official legal contact channels from European citizens, and regurgitates decade-old forum posts.

If Google’s AI cannot even reliably provide the legally mandated email address of its own Data Protection Officer without lying or hallucinating, how can any court, any regulatory body, or any user trust this system with handling personal data or executing deletion requests?

The answer is: we can’t. The system is a fundamentally broken facade.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13SJfzUm8O26vc12SKoQSIE6b5msjSZ-A/view?usp=sharing

https://archive.org/details/googles-own-systems-now-show-.......-1_202607

https://archive.ph/LnlDb

https://archive.ph/LnlDb/image

According to the decision of the Munich court, AI Overview is legally considered Google’s own content. Therefore, in these screenshots we are not seeing “the opinion of a forum user (Bitu79)”, but Google’s official position. Google is advertising at the very top of its own search engine that its own “Delete” button is a visual lie, because emptying the trash merely hides the data rather than actually deleting it.

:laughing:

https://archive.org/details/googles-own-sys

https://archive.ph/PkfcR

https://archive.ph/PkfcR/image