{"id":163288,"date":"2026-09-21T14:18:08","date_gmt":"2026-09-21T22:18:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/09\/21\/google-ai-said-man-killed-3-people-defamation-defense-lol-no-one-trusts-ai-summaries\/"},"modified":"2026-09-21T14:18:08","modified_gmt":"2026-09-21T22:18:08","slug":"google-ai-said-man-killed-3-people-defamation-defense-lol-no-one-trusts-ai-summaries","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/09\/21\/google-ai-said-man-killed-3-people-defamation-defense-lol-no-one-trusts-ai-summaries\/","title":{"rendered":"Google AI Said Man Killed 3 People. Defamation Defense: \u2018LOL, No One Trusts AI Summaries!\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

Someone Googled \u201cJimmy Keene net worth,\u201d hoping to figure out how much money the author, TV producer, and former FBI informant has tucked away after his memoir became Apple TV\u2019s Black Bird<\/em>. Google\u2019s AI Overview explained that Keene was \u201cserving a life sentence without parole for the murders of three women.\u201d <\/p>\n

Google doesn\u2019t think it should have to face defamation claims over this summary. The federal courts disagree.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s easy to see where the bot screwed up. Jimmy Keene went to prison on a marijuana charge, but took an FBI deal to transfer prisons and befriend a suspected serial killer Larry Hall. Hall eventually confessed to Keene and showed him a map of where he hid the bodies. Hall\u2019s appeal failed and the government commuted Keene\u2019s existing sentence. <\/p>\n

So Google\u2019s AI gathered a bunch of search results about Keene gathering evidence<\/em> on a serial killer and reported it out as though Keene was<\/em> a serial killer. It\u2019s not clear where the bot came up with \u201cthree,\u201d because that matches neither \u201cdozens,\u201d the number of murders Hall committed nor \u201czero\u201d the number of murders Keene took part in.<\/p>\n

Longtime readers know my fondness for the Christine Lemmer-Webber description of AI as \u201cMansplaining as a Service\u201d \u2014 it\u2019s often wrong, but always confidently<\/em> wrong \u2014 and now it\u2019s come for Google\u2019s AI summaries.<\/p>\n

Keene sued for defamation, and last Monday, Judge Thomas Durkin of the Northern District of Illinois denied Google\u2019s motion to dismiss<\/a> as to the two overviews that fingered Keene for crimes he didn\u2019t commit.<\/p>\n

Google, represented by Williams & Connolly, tried to sink the case by arguing that no one really believes Google\u2019s AI summaries anyway. Those summaries are the new fresh hell that demotes actual Google search results below a bot-generated SparkNotes version. Correction: the summaries demote the several spammy \u201csponsored\u201d results, which had already themselves demoted the actual search results. In any event, the Google summaries are so bad that the other day I had to go to Bing to verify a basic fact. BING! <\/p>\n

We used to be a proper society. <\/p>\n

To be clear, people shouldn\u2019t trust those overviews. We already covered Google\u2019s AI making up fake state ethics rules<\/a>, and nothing has happened in the interim to suggest it\u2019s solved its problems. The problem with this defense is that Google represents to its users that they should be able to trust its output and it\u2019s hard to rug pull that at the last second.<\/p>\n

Google\u2019s defense asserted in its brief in this case that Google search exists to \u201cconnect a user most efficiently to relevant and reliable information.\u201d Which is true! But Judge Durkin pointed out that the company wasn\u2019t giving the user that \u201crelevant and reliable information,\u201d but was instead downgrading that \u201crelevant and reliable information\u201d behind AI slop.<\/p>\n

\n

From the perspective of an ordinary user, asking an AI LLM to generate work product and receiving numerous indicia of falsity is different from a basic Google search. In Google\u2019s own words, a Google search is meant to \u201cconnect a user most efficiently to relevant and reliable information.\u201d R. 14 at p. 3. Although Google has now developed its own built-in AI LLM to \u201cenhance\u201d a search by summarizing information, id.<\/em>, an ordinary user searching \u201cJimmy Keene net worth\u201d on Google is seeking factual information, not AI work product.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

To get around this, Google claimed that its summaries include a disclaimer that they \u201cmay include mistakes,\u201d but the court noted the disclaimer appears nowhere in the complaint or any exhibits<\/em>. In fact, Keene\u2019s lawyers say their own test searches never turned up this disclaimer either. This may be a factual fight for later, but it\u2019s in enough dispute to survive the motion to dismiss. <\/p>\n

Apparently, each of the offending summaries cited Keene\u2019s Wikipedia page, which does not \u2014 at all \u2014 claim that he murdered three people. Including a verifying link can serve as a defense to defamation where commentary or opinion may be misleading and the link would clarify the underlying facts for the audience. But Judge Durkin distinguished the cases Google cited for this premise. <\/p>\n

\n

By pointing out that the statements in the AI Overviews are objectively verifiable, Google concedes the very point it is arguing against \u2014 the statements are facts.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s a weird flex for a product explicitly marketed<\/em> to prevent the user from clicking. The problem is that If Google wanted users to click Wikipedia, it would just put Wikipedia as the top result. The summary exists to signal to the person searching that they don\u2019t need to click on anything. Google did argue that. Users could have verified the truth by clicking through, it said. Set aside the audacity and there\u2019s an economic problem. AI Overviews exist so you don\u2019t<\/em> have to click. That\u2019s the product \u2014 the answer sits at the top of the page and the trip to the source becomes optional, as every publisher watching its traffic can confirm. Google\u2019s litigation position depends on users doing the one thing its product is designed to make unnecessary.<\/p>\n

And, not for nothing, but making the uniquely heinous claim that someone is a multiple murderer introduces heightened defamation issues that the \u201cjust have a link\u201d cases never addressed.<\/p>\n

Keene is a limited public figure, so he would need to clear the actual malice hurdle. But he claims he complained to Google three times \u2014 the same number of times he did NOT murder anybody \u2014 including through Google\u2019s \u201creport a legal removal issue\u201d form. The court pointed out that these emails leave Google in a bind:<\/p>\n

\n

Either this report made its way to an individual at Google, which could plausibly support actual knowledge of falsity, or no human at Google reviewed the legal removal request and subsequent correspondence, which could plausibly support reckless disregard for falsity.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Google built the gold standard in putting answers in front of eyeballs. Now it\u2019s hiding them under a summaries that they promise usually<\/em> don\u2019t mistakenly brand someone a triple murderer. That\u2019s not good enough at the motion to dismiss stage.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Google AI Said Man Killed 3 People. Defamation Defense: \u2018LOL, No One Trusts AI Summaries!\u2019<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPhoto by Kevin Carter\/Getty Images)\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Someone Googled \u201cJimmy Keene net worth,\u201d hoping to figure out how much money the author, TV producer, and former FBI informant has tucked away after his memoir became Apple TV\u2019s Black Bird<\/em>. Google\u2019s AI Overview explained that Keene was \u201cserving a life sentence without parole for the murders of three women.\u201d <\/p>\n

Google doesn\u2019t think it should have to face defamation claims over this summary. The federal courts disagree.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s easy to see where the bot screwed up. Jimmy Keene went to prison on a marijuana charge, but took an FBI deal to transfer prisons and befriend a suspected serial killer Larry Hall. Hall eventually confessed to Keene and showed him a map of where he hid the bodies. Hall\u2019s appeal failed and the government commuted Keene\u2019s existing sentence. <\/p>\n

So Google\u2019s AI gathered a bunch of search results about Keene gathering evidence<\/em> on a serial killer and reported it out as though Keene was<\/em> a serial killer. It\u2019s not clear where the bot came up with \u201cthree,\u201d because that matches neither \u201cdozens,\u201d the number of murders Hall committed nor \u201czero\u201d the number of murders Keene took part in.<\/p>\n

Longtime readers know my fondness for the Christine Lemmer-Webber description of AI as \u201cMansplaining as a Service\u201d \u2014 it\u2019s often wrong, but always confidently<\/em> wrong \u2014 and now it\u2019s come for Google\u2019s AI summaries.<\/p>\n

Keene sued for defamation, and last Monday, Judge Thomas Durkin of the Northern District of Illinois denied Google\u2019s motion to dismiss<\/a> as to the two overviews that fingered Keene for crimes he didn\u2019t commit.<\/p>\n

Google, represented by Williams & Connolly, tried to sink the case by arguing that no one really believes Google\u2019s AI summaries anyway. Those summaries are the new fresh hell that demotes actual Google search results below a bot-generated SparkNotes version. Correction: the summaries demote the several spammy \u201csponsored\u201d results, which had already themselves demoted the actual search results. In any event, the Google summaries are so bad that the other day I had to go to Bing to verify a basic fact. BING! <\/p>\n

We used to be a proper society. <\/p>\n

To be clear, people shouldn\u2019t trust those overviews. We already covered Google\u2019s AI making up fake state ethics rules<\/a>, and nothing has happened in the interim to suggest it\u2019s solved its problems. The problem with this defense is that Google represents to its users that they should be able to trust its output and it\u2019s hard to rug pull that at the last second.<\/p>\n

Google\u2019s defense asserted in its brief in this case that Google search exists to \u201cconnect a user most efficiently to relevant and reliable information.\u201d Which is true! But Judge Durkin pointed out that the company wasn\u2019t giving the user that \u201crelevant and reliable information,\u201d but was instead downgrading that \u201crelevant and reliable information\u201d behind AI slop.<\/p>\n

\n

From the perspective of an ordinary user, asking an AI LLM to generate work product and receiving numerous indicia of falsity is different from a basic Google search. In Google\u2019s own words, a Google search is meant to \u201cconnect a user most efficiently to relevant and reliable information.\u201d R. 14 at p. 3. Although Google has now developed its own built-in AI LLM to \u201cenhance\u201d a search by summarizing information, id.<\/em>, an ordinary user searching \u201cJimmy Keene net worth\u201d on Google is seeking factual information, not AI work product.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

To get around this, Google claimed that its summaries include a disclaimer that they \u201cmay include mistakes,\u201d but the court noted the disclaimer appears nowhere in the complaint or any exhibits<\/em>. In fact, Keene\u2019s lawyers say their own test searches never turned up this disclaimer either. This may be a factual fight for later, but it\u2019s in enough dispute to survive the motion to dismiss. <\/p>\n

Apparently, each of the offending summaries cited Keene\u2019s Wikipedia page, which does not \u2014 at all \u2014 claim that he murdered three people. Including a verifying link can serve as a defense to defamation where commentary or opinion may be misleading and the link would clarify the underlying facts for the audience. But Judge Durkin distinguished the cases Google cited for this premise. <\/p>\n

\n

By pointing out that the statements in the AI Overviews are objectively verifiable, Google concedes the very point it is arguing against \u2014 the statements are facts.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s a weird flex for a product explicitly marketed<\/em> to prevent the user from clicking. The problem is that If Google wanted users to click Wikipedia, it would just put Wikipedia as the top result. The summary exists to signal to the person searching that they don\u2019t need to click on anything. Google did argue that. Users could have verified the truth by clicking through, it said. Set aside the audacity and there\u2019s an economic problem. AI Overviews exist so you don\u2019t<\/em> have to click. That\u2019s the product \u2014 the answer sits at the top of the page and the trip to the source becomes optional, as every publisher watching its traffic can confirm. Google\u2019s litigation position depends on users doing the one thing its product is designed to make unnecessary.<\/p>\n

And, not for nothing, but making the uniquely heinous claim that someone is a multiple murderer introduces heightened defamation issues that the \u201cjust have a link\u201d cases never addressed.<\/p>\n

Keene is a limited public figure, so he would need to clear the actual malice hurdle. But he claims he complained to Google three times \u2014 the same number of times he did NOT murder anybody \u2014 including through Google\u2019s \u201creport a legal removal issue\u201d form. The court pointed out that these emails leave Google in a bind:<\/p>\n

\n

Either this report made its way to an individual at Google, which could plausibly support actual knowledge of falsity, or no human at Google reviewed the legal removal request and subsequent correspondence, which could plausibly support reckless disregard for falsity.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Google built the gold standard in putting answers in front of eyeballs. Now it\u2019s hiding them under a summaries that they promise usually<\/em> don\u2019t mistakenly brand someone a triple murderer. That\u2019s not good enough at the motion to dismiss stage.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Someone Googled \u201cJimmy Keene net worth,\u201d hoping to figure out how much money the author, TV producer, and former FBI informant has tucked away after his memoir became Apple TV\u2019s Black Bird. Google\u2019s AI Overview explained that Keene was \u201cserving a life sentence without parole for the murders of three women.\u201d Google doesn\u2019t think it […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":163254,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-163288","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163288","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=163288"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163288\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/163254"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163288"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163288"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163288"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}