Google hit a major legal snag: the court rejected the company’s effort to shrug off claims that its AI falsely branded Robby Starbuck with horrific accusations. The Delaware Superior Court’s July 24, 2026 ruling forces Google to face defamation allegations linked to its Bard chatbot’s damaging fabrications.

False AI Claims at the Heart of the Case

Starbuck, a conservative activist, filed the lawsuit in October 2025, pointing to Bard’s repeated erroneous statements. According to the suit, Bard called him a “child rapist,” a “serial sexual abuser,” and a “shooter,” while also tying him to white nationalist Richard Spencer. These slanders allegedly surfaced as early as 2023 and persisted through successive versions of Bard’s AI models.

Despite notifying Google executives about the problem, Starbuck says the company failed to address the falsehoods. The suit demands over $15 million in damages. Legal representation comes from Dhillon Law Group and Shaw Keller LLP.

Why Google’s ‘Hallucination’ Defense Failed

Google argued that these AI mistakes were just “hallucinations” digital glitches not amounting to real published statements, and thus not legally defamatory. Judge Meghan Adams disagreed, signaling a shift in how courts may treat AI-generated content. The ruling means AI outputs can be seen as published speech and that tech firms can’t dodge responsibility simply by blaming the technology’s novelty.

Implications for AI Liability and Public Figures

The case also raises thorny issues about defamation standards. Public figures typically must prove “actual malice,” showing the publisher knew the statement was false or was reckless. But an AI system does not possess knowledge or intent in the human sense. How courts will handle this distinction remains open and key for future lawsuits.

This ruling could ripple far beyond Google, setting precedents for how AI platforms handle misinformation and their legal accountability. It comes amid wider debates on AI risks and regulation across industries.

This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.