

Their main audience isn’t the end user, but the shareholders. All that matters is they can say they are still “growing”. Which is why they don’t care about making things worse. Same goes for Meta. If something succeeds, it’s a happy accident secondary to the goal. Each of these companies did have a good initial idea that was fundamentally good and better than the competition, but ultimately will not last forever for reasons like this. Something else will eclipse them in time. History is full of corpses the likes of these companies. Recent tech ones include IBM, HP, and Microsoft. All big (or moderately big) players today sure, but not what they were at their prime and not close to the “main” ones anymore.
These kinds of AI output should not be protected by anything like Section 230. It is their own words and they should not get a pass for what essentially amounts to libel. Google needs to be reeled in. The fines have been too small and the damage has been too great. This isn’t even the first time something like this has happened. They have made up claims like this against plenty of other people. Claiming that they get a pass because it is AI is just using the LLM, their own LLM, as a scapegoat.
Other examples https://www.theguardian.com/music/2026/may/05/canadian-ashley-macisaac-fiddler-musician-singer-songwriter-sues-google-ai-sex-offender-ntwnfb
https://londondaily.com/robby-starbuck-sues-google-after-its-ai-made-up-totally-fake-rape-and-crypto-fraud-claims-against-him-and-supported-it-by
Slightly different but related https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/googles-scans-private-photos-led-false-accusations-child-abuse