Image

Robby Starbuck Sues Google for Defamation Claiming Google AI Falsely Linked Him to Fake News and Fake Crimes

"Such a win would establish a much-needed precedent for protections against unchecked, false, and damaging AI-generated content."

Robby Starbuck is suing Google for defamation.

The tenacious common-sense conservative who helped corporate America dismantle Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) announced the lawsuit last Wednesday on X. 

Starbuck is alleging that Google AI (Bard, Gemini & Gemma) had generated false criminal accusations against him because of his political views.

This has been happening since 2023, Starbuck wrote, and he’s got all of the receipts.

Google AI, he alleged, falsely accused him of “sexual assault, child rape, abuse, fraud, stalking, drug charges, and even saying I was in Epstein’s flight logs.”

“All 100% fake,” Starbuck explained.

“All generated by Google’s AI. I have ZERO criminal record or allegations.”

Worse, Starbuck alleges, “Google execs KNEW for 2 YEARS that this was happening.”

They knew, he argued, “because he had told them, and his lawyers had sent multiple cease and desist letters.”

Google’s AI, he added, “didn’t just lie — it built fake worlds to make its lies look real.”

The AI platform fabricated everything, he said.

“Fake victims. Fake medical and legal records, relationships, and fake news stories.”

“One of the most dystopian things,” Starbuck alleged, was “how dedicated their AI was to doubling down on the lies.”

“Google’s AI routinely cited fake sources by creating fake links to REAL media outlets and shows.”

This came “complete with fake headlines so readers would trust the information.”

“It would continue to do this even if you called the AI out for lying or sending fake links,” Starbuck stated.

He then alleged that Google AI was manufacturing the “elaborate” false narratives in a way that would best gain user trust.

Determined to win the defamation case, Starbuck said he was fighting the generative artificial intelligence’s falsehoods, so that “this can’t ever happen to anyone else.”

“Bias in AI is a very, VERY serious issue,” he remarked.

“If we don’t fix this now, we’re in big trouble. This can destroy lives, reputations, and livelihoods.”

“If we don’t win this fight, then you no longer control your reputation because AI will define who you are to the rest of the world.”

Under this shadow, “you’d better hope that the AI likes you.”

In essence, instead of Google’s AI identifying “deep fakes,” the system appears to be inventing them.

Case in point:

Alarmed, Bret Weinstein, professor and “progressive” outcast turned podcaster, responded in a video.

Starbuck’s complaints, he said, should be “taken at face value.”

“Imagine the future.”

AI will have the power to “shape our viewpoint on everything, and with that the ability to wreck people.”

“As bad as centralised banking, digital currencies and social credit scores are, this is next-level,” dystopianism.

Pointing out the significance of Starbuck’s lawsuit, Weinstein also said, “This is the start of the AI era. This is the only time we get to have this conversation.”

Starbuck’s factivism vs Silicon Valley’s apparent fake news activism isn’t the conservatives’ first legal duel with the technocracy.

Starbuck sued Meta earlier this year after the Meta AI falsely accused him of involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

At the time, lead counsel, Dhillon Law Group, in effect, argued that AI’s assertions turn Meta and Google into publishers.

In this case, “Meta acted with reckless disregard by continuing to publish these statements,” Starbuck’s lawyers stated.

This was even “after they were notified of their falsity and having the means to verify their accuracy.”

Meta settled, and the matter never advanced into establishing a hardline precedent for future protections against fake AI-generated “facts.”

As Krista Baughman, a partner for Dhillon Law group, said in December last year.

We need precedents that determine “whether this new technology will be held in the same speech standards we’ve long used to protect an individual’s reputation.”

Cui Bono?

Starbuck’s case against Google could be this urgently needed pioneering line in the sand.

If he wins, everyone benefits.

Such a win would establish a much-needed precedent for protections against unchecked, false, and damaging AI-generated content.

Especially from Artificial Intelligence platforms, which appear to be made in the image of joyless, Christian-hating, Western loathing, Wokeshivists.

AI being force-fed the tainted fruit of leftwing activism forces original sin into the technology.

Without mechanisms and safeguards against this implicit bias, AI will feed on depravity and destroy lives, not enhance them.

Special Request:

For nearly eight years, we've highlighted issues ignored by mainstream media and resisted globalist ideologies eroding Western civilization. We've done this joyfully, without paywalls, despite personal costs to our team. Your support has kept us going, but operating costs exceed donations, forcing us to use ads. We’d love to ditch them, so we’re asking for your help. If you value our work, please consider supporting us via Stripe or PayPal. Every bit helps us keep fighting for our kids’ future. Thank you!

What's New?

Use the blue arrows at the bottom to scroll through the latest.
16-Year-Old Explains Why the Social Media Ban Won’t Work

16-Year-Old Explains Why the Social Media Ban Won’t Work

"There are three very prominent concerns when it comes to how this law will actually work and the repercussions it could have."
By
by Selah CampisiDec 15, 2025
Bondi Massacre: A Wake-Up Call for Australia

Bondi Massacre: A Wake-Up Call for Australia

"Without honest discourse, decisive policy, and recognition that not all cultures can coexist harmoniously, such attacks are likely to recur—just look at Europe today."
By
by Staff WriterDec 15, 2025
White Guilt is Dead

White Guilt is Dead

"For decades, White guilt has been used as a tool of social control—silencing dissent, suppressing legitimate demographic concerns, and guilt-tripping Westerners into accepting policies that no other civilisation on earth would tolerate."
By
by Staff WriterDec 13, 2025
Brave New Families: How State Power Is Replacing Parental Responsibility

Brave New Families: How State Power Is Replacing Parental Responsibility

“All I see is the dystopian Brave New future that are projections of our simplistic mechanistic leaders, which makes sense, given their godfather is Karl Marx, a determinist who has bred many of his kind after his image.”
By
by Dr Stephen FysonDec 12, 2025
When the State Becomes Co-Parent: Australia’s Intrusion into Family Life

When the State Becomes Co-Parent: Australia’s Intrusion into Family Life

"As the state once absorbed the moral and spiritual leadership of the Church over society, so too can it absorb the moral and spiritual authority of parents over their children."
By
by Staff WriterDec 11, 2025
Tarantino Ranks ‘The Passion of the Christ’ Among the Best Films of the Century

Tarantino Ranks ‘The Passion of the Christ’ Among the Best Films of the Century

“I think it actually is one of the most brilliant visual storytelling films ever made,” he said.
By
by Rod LampardDec 11, 2025
Truth Tax: Senate Dissenters Reject Albo’s FOI Amendments as a “Hubris-Driven Attack on Transparency”

Truth Tax: Senate Dissenters Reject Albo’s FOI Amendments as a “Hubris-Driven Attack on Transparency”

"The consensus from dissenters seems to be that this bill further distances the Australian government from the people its representatives are elected to serve."
By
by Rod LampardDec 10, 2025
Speech Rejected, Promiscuity Approved

Speech Rejected, Promiscuity Approved

"The question arises, while Candace Owens' verbalising conservative values is not in our nation's interest, Lily Philips' sleeping around with Australian men is?"
By
by Selah CampisiDec 9, 2025

Image

Support

If you value our work and would like to support us, you can do so by visiting our support page. Can’t find what you’re looking for? Visit our search page.

Copyright © 2025, Caldron Pool

Permissions

Everything published at Caldron Pool is protected by copyright and cannot be used and/or duplicated without prior written permission. Links and excerpts with full attribution are permitted. Published articles represent the opinions of the author and may not reflect the views of all contributors at Caldron Pool.

Caldron Pool does not condone the use of violence, threats, or intimidation for political or religious purposes. We strongly advocate for peaceful, respectful, and free communication and open debate without fear of reprisal or punishment.