Google DeepMind Workers Seek Freedom to Discuss AI Risks Publicly
Some London-based staff want lifetime non-disparagement language dropped from their contracts, The Washington Post reports.
Published
Last updated / Fact-checked on
Some Google DeepMind staff in London are pushing executives to drop non-disparagement clauses that bar them from criticizing the company for life, even after they leave, The Washington Post reported on November 3. Google says it removed the post-employment part for new hires and does not enforce it against former staff.
Photo: WikiImages / Pixabay
The report at a glance
| Who | Some UK-based Google DeepMind staff |
| Issue | Lifetime non-disparagement clauses |
| Sourcing | One reviewed contract, two anonymous employees |
| Google's change | Post-termination clause removed for new hires |
| Workers' ask | Drop it from existing contracts too |
The report is based on a contract reviewed by the paper and interviews with two current Google DeepMind workers in London who spoke anonymously to avoid retribution. Those workers said the agreements prevent them from communicating publicly about AI’s potential impacts.
In London, a major base for Google DeepMind, some staff are forbidden by their employment contracts from criticizing the company for the rest of their lives, even after leaving, according to the contract reviewed by The Washington Post and the two anonymous employees. The employees said they want the clause removed from existing contracts, not only from new ones, to give them legal certainty.
Contracts and Internal Concerns
Dozens of employees joined an internal discussion about the contract language on a company messaging platform, one of the current workers told The Washington Post. Some criticized the non-disparagement clause directly, and some posted a “1984” emoji referring to the dystopian novel. The complaints followed former DeepMind employee Sofia Liguori telling the BBC last month that she had ignored contract restrictions to speak publicly against Google building military AI. That statement prompted current UK staff to check their own contracts, one employee said.
British law protects public-interest whistleblowers, The Washington Post reported. One of the anonymous employees said they did not believe the lifetime restriction was enforceable under that law, but that it could still lead to self-censorship. “If it’s not enforceable then the reason is to basically intimidate people,” the employee told The Washington Post.
Company Response
On Friday, a Google executive responded internally and said the company would not enforce the clause for people who had left, according to The Washington Post. A Google spokesperson said in an email on Tuesday, as reported by The Washington Post: “We’ve always encouraged an open dialogue about safety and responsibility... Recently, we’ve updated our terms for new hires, which included removing the post-termination aspect of non-disparagement clauses.” The spokesperson added that Google does not enforce such clauses after people leave and that the company has internal channels for workers to escalate concerns to top leaders.
The two current employees who spoke to The Washington Post said the company should still drop the language entirely from existing contracts. One told the paper: “The people who work on this technology have a role to play in shaping where it’s going. It’s not just another technology. It has potentially very large impacts on humanity and democracy.”
Why It Matters
The dispute turns on how freely workers can discuss AI risks with the public.
Restrictive contract language, even if not enforced after departure, can discourage speech while people remain employed or create uncertainty for those who leave. Public debate about AI safety and societal effects depends in part on information from people who build the systems.
The Google spokesperson’s statements indicate the company has already adjusted terms for new hires and does not plan to enforce post-employment clauses, but the workers who spoke to The Washington Post want the change applied to current contracts as well.
What to watch
- Existing contracts. Whether Google amends current employees' terms.
- Formal policy. Whether the non-enforcement pledge is put in writing.
- Other labs. Whether similar clauses surface elsewhere in the industry.
More coverage is on our Artificial Intelligence hub.
How we reported this
This article relies on The Washington Post's reporting, which is based on one contract the paper reviewed and two current employees who spoke anonymously. We could not see the contract and do not know how many staff it covers. Google's responses are quoted as reported by the Post.
Published and fact-checked November 3, 2026.
Sources
- The Washington Post, Gerrit De Vynck, "Google researchers are fighting the company to tell the world what they know about AI," Nov. 3, 2026: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/11/03/google-deepmind-staff-protest-lifetime-ban-criticizing-company/
- Techmeme, summary of The Washington Post, Nov. 3, 2026: https://www.techmeme.com/261103/p23
DailyMech used AI tools to help research and draft this article; it was fact-checked by our editors.