Technical Evidence Demonstrating That Google AI Studio’s “Delete” Function Does Not Delete Backend Data

Gemini API
13

Topic summary:

In this topic, I present detailed evidence showing that the “Delete” function in Google AI Studio does not delete backend data, but merely hides entries from the user interface. This is not speculation — it is backed by concrete technical proof.

The most important evidence is the JSON restoration test, which I personally performed:
I deleted the entry, emptied the Google Drive Trash, then restored only the JSON pointer file. The conversation immediately came back, with the same link, session, and context. This proves that deletion never started on the backend, meaning Google continued to store the data.

I documented the issue with a video and a detailed post, and then I officially reported the violation to Google’s Data Protection Officer (DPO).
I also published the report publicly in my posts, and I informed the Google DPO about these posts as well, so there can be no misunderstanding: Google definitely knows about the issue, because they received the email, and they saw the posts:

https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/google-ai-studio-s-delete-button-is-misleading/170101

https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/technical-evidence-demonstrating-that-google-ai-studio-s-delete-function-does-not-delete-backend-data/173589

The Gmail‑generated technical delivery confirmation proves that Google received my email. Yet Google did not respond, which is an aggravating factor under the GDPR.

After my report, Google did not fix the backend deletion mechanism. Instead, they quietly changed the warning text on the Delete button in the user interface.
They even stole the wording from me — this post proves it:

https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/google-changed-the-delete-button-to-my-wording-but-real-deletion-still-does-not-exist/169904

This shows that instead of fixing the actual problem, Google chose to modify the UI text, which can be considered concealment from a data protection perspective.

Google’s AI Mode and AI Overview features also performed unauthorized profiling of forum users, which is a GDPR Article 4(4) special category of data processing requiring explicit consent. I documented this as well.

All evidence has been:

  • timestamped,

  • archived (Archive.org, archive.today, web.archive.org),

  • supported with screenshots,

  • offline exports,

  • and Google’s own search engine cache.

Google automatically indexed and stored all my posts in its own search system.
Since Google Search read, processed, and cached every one of my posts, this legally counts as “awareness.”
Google cannot claim ignorance of the incident, because their own systems processed and stored the evidence.

I officially reported the violation to the Google DPO and stated that under GDPR Article 82, I am maintaining my compensation claim. Since Google failed to respond, I reserve the right to:

  • initiate civil legal proceedings,

  • contact the Irish Data Protection Commission,

  • or pursue any other EU‑level legal remedy.

Let me be clear:
If Google does not respond to this letter either, this will become a court case. I will exercise my rights and sue the company.

This topic is not a simple bug report — it is a comprehensive, evidence‑sealed data protection indictment exposing fundamental flaws in Google AI Studio’s operation, with potentially serious legal consequences within the EU.