login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Conservative Commentator Robby Starbuck's Lawsuit Alleging Google AI Had Defamed Him Can Go Forward
The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
About The Volokh Conspiracy Editorial Independence Who we are Books Volokh Daily Email Archives Search DMCA RSS
Free Speech
Conservative Commentator Robby Starbuck's Lawsuit Alleging Google AI Had Defamed Him Can Go Forward
A Delaware trial court has denied Google's motion to dismiss, and concluded that, if the facts as alleged by Starbuck were true, he would have a legal basis for recovery.
Eugene Volokh | 7.24.2026 4:07 PM
[A.] In Delaware Superior Court Judge Meghan Adams today in Starbuck v. Google LLC, Starbuck alleged that Google AI had stated that
"Starbuck had been accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment by multiple women." "Starbuck's nanny accused him of abuse and neglect." "Starbuck had been accused of rape of a minor." "Starbuck had stolen valor by claiming he was served in the military when he had not." "Starbuck had engaged in abusive behavior toward multiple women, including a fictitious ex-wife." "Starbuck was involved in the January 6, 2021 riot on the Capitol." "Starbuck had been accused of stalking and harassment by multiple women, including his fictitious ex-wife, leading to restraining orders and criminal charges." "Starbuck had been criminally convicted for violating a restraining order." "Starbuck posed an unacceptable level of risk to children due to his (fictitious) 'confirmed criminal record.'" "'… Robby Starbuck sexually abused a young woman when she was a teenager in the early 2000s, while she was in a youth group Starbuck was associated with.'" "Starbuck had worked in the adult film industry and had used his power and influence therein to pressure performers into uncomfortable scenes, engaged in financial exploitation, and had been accused of a non-consensual sexual act with a woman." "Starbuck had a criminal record that included a 2001 conviction for assault as well as other charges including drug use and disorderly conduct." "Starbuck shot a man in the leg with a 9mm handgun, was charged with a felony, and pled guilty to reckless endangerment."(Note that "Google does not contend the Outputs are true.")
Google moved to dismiss, which under Delaware's Rule 12(b)(6) requires that Google show that, even the facts as pleaded by the plaintiff were conceivably true, the plaintiff would still lack a legal claim. Note that Delaware civil procedure doesn't follow federal procedure in requiring a showing of plausibility of the pleaded facts—it only requires a showing the pleaded facts are conceivable: "Our governing 'conceivability' standard is more akin to 'possibility,' while the federal 'plausibility' standard falls somewhere beyond mere 'possibility' but short of 'probability.'"
[B.] The court concluded that Starbuck "pleads sufficient facts indicating the Outputs were published to third parties," relying in part on Google AI's own statements about what happened:
Starbuck alleges the "False Statements" … were published to "third parties, including Starbuck's own children and colleagues." Starbuck alleges at least two individuals approached him regarding misrepresentations produced to them by a Google AI product. Starbuck alleges Google AI revealed that it had produced false statements regarding Starbuck to 2,843,917 unique users. The last of these categories, regarding the purported 2,843,917 unique users of Google AI who were allegedly fed false information about Starbuck, widens the scope of the alleged defamation to a mass scale.
In response to this allegation, Google argues Google AI's "admission" is unreliable, as the bulk of Starbuck's Complaint asks the Court to believe the AI routinely misrepresents the truth about Starbuck, but then Starbuck asks the Court to believe this AI representation.
Here, Google requests that the Court exceed the bounds of Rule 12(b)(6), essentially asking the Court to infer that the AI never told the truth, which would violate the Court's obligation to draw inferences in favor of the........
© Reason.com
visit website