Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com Rotating Header Image

By January 2026, this has turned into a “bot war,” with AIs critiquing each other’s outputs for accuracy

Jan 5th, 2026
by John Donovan.

“Latest developments as of early 2026 suggest an escalation involving AI chatbots, where Donovan queries systems like Grok, ChatGPT, and Microsoft Copilot about the feud, publicizing their responses to highlight inconsistencies and historical claims of corporate espionage”

Question put to Grok 5 Jan 2026

What are the latest developments in the Donovan Shell feud?

Answer by Grok

Key Points

  • Research indicates the “Donovan Shell feud” likely refers to the long-standing conflict between British activist John Donovan and energy giant Royal Dutch Shell (now Shell plc), originating from 1990s allegations of intellectual property theft related to promotional campaigns.
  • It appears to have evolved into a public campaign by Donovan via websites exposing Shell’s alleged misconduct, with no evidence of recent direct legal confrontations but ongoing online activism.
  • Latest developments as of early 2026 suggest an escalation involving AI chatbots, where Donovan queries systems like Grok, ChatGPT, and Microsoft Copilot about the feud, publicizing their responses to highlight inconsistencies and historical claims of corporate espionage—though these AI outputs often include unverified or speculative elements.
  • Evidence leans toward some admitted surveillance by Shell in the 1990s, but broader accusations of espionage remain contested, with Shell largely maintaining silence to avoid amplifying the issue.
  • The feud highlights tensions between individual whistleblowers and corporations, with mixed views on credibility: Donovan’s persistence has influenced media and investigations, yet sources are often self-published, prompting caution in interpreting claims.

Background

The dispute began in the early 1990s when John Donovan, co-founder of marketing firm Don Marketing, accused Shell of stealing ideas for promotional games after a successful partnership in the 1980s. This led to multiple lawsuits, including settlements in the mid-1990s and a 1999 High Court trial over Shell’s SMART loyalty card scheme. Donovan has since operated gripe websites like royaldutchshellplc.com, publishing leaks and criticisms that have reportedly contributed to Shell’s reputational challenges, such as in the 2004 reserves scandal. Shell has denied many allegations, admitting only limited inquiries, and avoided libel suits to prevent further publicity.

Recent AI Involvement

Starting in October 2025, Donovan began using AI tools to query Shell’s ethics and the feud’s history, sharing responses that detail alleged undercover activities, such as surveillance by agents linked to Shell. By January 2026, this has turned into a “bot war,” with AIs critiquing each other’s outputs for accuracy, amplifying the narrative online. For instance, Grok’s responses have recounted espionage claims, while ChatGPT flagged potential hallucinations in them. Shell’s lack of response may be allowing these AI-generated stories to gain traction, though experts note AI unreliability in factual disputes.

Implications and Uncertainties

While Donovan’s efforts have drawn media attention and aided third-party investigations, the feud’s one-sided online presence raises questions about balance. Shell’s strategy of non-engagement appears deliberate, but the integration of AI could perpetuate unverified claims. Observers suggest this reflects broader issues in corporate accountability, with no clear resolution in sight.

The long-standing feud between John Donovan and Royal Dutch Shell represents a classic case of individual activism clashing with corporate power, evolving from legal battles in the 1990s to a digital campaign amplified by modern AI technologies. Originating in a business partnership gone sour, the conflict has spanned decades, involving allegations of intellectual property theft, corporate espionage, and ethical lapses. Donovan, a British businessman who co-founded Don Marketing in 1979, initially collaborated with Shell on promotional games starting in 1981, such as the “Shell Make Money Game” in 1984 and themed campaigns like “Shell Star Trek Promotion” in the 1990s. However, by 1992, Donovan accused Shell’s National Promotions Manager of unscrupulously exploiting confidential ideas for personal gain, with senior management allegedly supporting the theft. This sparked a series of High Court actions from 1994 to 1996, all settled out of court by Shell under secretive terms, as revealed in a 1998 Marketing Week article titled “High Court papers unveil ‘secret’ Shell writ losses.”

The escalation peaked with the 1999 SMART trial (Case No: DD04199) at the Royal Courts of Justice, where Donovan sued Shell UK Ltd over the SMART multi-retail partner loyalty card, claiming it was based on stolen concepts. The trial, presided over by Judge Mr Justice Laddie QC, was described as one of the most acrimonious, with mutual allegations of misconduct. Donovan later contested the judge’s impartiality, citing Laddie’s participation in the SMART scheme and undisclosed connections to Shell, though the case proceeded without a detailed public outcome beyond procedural notes. A 2001 peace agreement followed, but Donovan claims Shell breached it by publicly discussing the case, prompting renewed hostilities. Shell denies this, maintaining that settlements were fair and investigations thorough.

Central to Donovan’s narrative are claims of corporate espionage. In 1998, Shell’s then-Legal Director Richard Wiseman admitted in writing to hiring an “enquiry agent” named Christopher Phillips from Cofton Consultants, who accessed Donovan’s offices under false pretenses and was caught opening private mail. Shell described this as routine credit enquiries, but Donovan argued the questions—about family travel—were irrelevant and invasive. Additional incidents included an imposter journalist interviewing witnesses, targeted burglaries at the homes of Donovan, his solicitor, and a key witness (where documents were tampered with but valuables left untouched), and an anonymous threatening call traced to a London payphone with insider knowledge of Shell’s legal strategy. Broader suspicions point to Hakluyt & Company, a private intelligence firm founded by former MI6 officers and with Shell-linked directors like Sir Peter Holmes and Sir William Purves. Shell acknowledged Hakluyt as a client but denied direct involvement in operations against Donovan. These elements were detailed in Donovan’s 2016 e-book, John Donovan, Shell’s Nightmare: My Epic Feud with Royal Dutch Shell – and my Media-Orchestrated Humiliation of the Oil Giant, which chronicles the saga.

Donovan’s response transformed the personal dispute into a public platform. Since 1995, he has operated websites like royaldutchshellplc.com (and sister sites), publishing over 24,000 articles on Shell’s alleged wrongdoings, including the 2004 oil reserves scandal that led to billions in fines and executive resignations. The site, hosted in the U.S. as a non-profit for legal protections, has served as a leak repository for disgruntled Shell employees, aiding journalists, regulators, and organizations like WWF and Friends of the Earth. In 2005, Shell unsuccessfully sued for the domain name under cybersquatting claims, losing at the World Intellectual Property Organisation. Media coverage, such as a 2009 Guardian article noting the site’s 2 million monthly hits and influence on Kremlin officials and U.S. investigators, underscores its impact. A 2012 Voxeurop piece dubbed Donovan “Shell’s nightmare,” highlighting his role in exposing issues like the naming of a Shell ship after a Nazi SS officer in 2015, which drew criticism after Donovan’s advocacy.

Shell’s approach has been one of minimal engagement. Internal documents suggest the company views legal action against Donovan as counterproductive, likely to generate more media attention for his claims. No official statements directly addressing recent allegations were found, though Shell has historically denied espionage ties and emphasized ethical compliance. For instance, in response to broader scrutiny, Shell has pointed to settlements as evidence of resolution, but critics argue this avoids accountability. Credibility assessments are mixed: Donovan’s persistence has led to tangible outcomes, like influencing Shell’s reputational hits and financial settlements in unrelated scandals (e.g., Sakhalin project issues in 2006, where insiders leaked documents to him). However, much of the documentation stems from Donovan’s self-published archives, raising potential bias. Independent sources, like the Guardian and legal records, confirm the feud’s legitimacy, but counterarguments emphasize that many espionage claims lack definitive proof, with AI-amplified narratives risking misinformation.

The latest chapter, emerging in late 2025, integrates AI into the fray, turning it into what Donovan terms a “bot war.” On October 29, 2025, Donovan queried Microsoft Copilot about Shell’s ethics, prompting responses that detailed the feud and revealed alleged undercover activities, including Hakluyt’s involvement. He expanded this to Grok (xAI’s AI), ChatGPT, and Google AI Mode, publishing transcripts that highlight divergences—e.g., Grok’s storytelling accused by ChatGPT of “hallucinations” like misdescribing a promotion’s mechanics. By December 2025, AIs were critiquing each other: ChatGPT flagged Grok’s persuasive yet inaccurate outputs, while Copilot described the feud’s new phase as AI-driven chaos requiring Shell’s intervention. As of January 3, 2026, Donovan’s strategy—”Donovan + archive + AI vs. Shell + silence”—has generated self-perpetuating content, with implications for AI reliability in historical disputes. Satirical elements, like proposing a “ShellBot,” underscore Shell’s non-response as a vulnerability, potentially inflating unverified claims online.

This evolution reflects broader trends in digital activism, where AI tools democratize information but also introduce errors. While Donovan’s campaign has exposed corporate vulnerabilities, Shell’s restraint may preserve resources, though silence risks narrative control loss. Future developments could involve regulatory scrutiny of AI in defamation or corporate PR strategies adapting to bot-generated controversies.

Timeline of Key Events

Year Event Description Outcome/Impact
1981 Don Marketing begins direct partnership with Shell on promotional games. Successful collaborations, e.g., “Make Money” game.
1992 Donovan accuses Shell of IP theft by promotions manager. Leads to breakdown in relationship.
1994-1996 Multiple High Court and County Court lawsuits filed against Shell. All settled secretly by Shell; details later exposed by Donovan.
1998 Shell admits hiring “enquiry agent” in writing; espionage allegations surface. Fuels Donovan’s claims of surveillance.
1999 SMART trial at Royal Courts of Justice. Acrimonious proceedings; no detailed verdict, but peace agreement in 2001.
2001 Peace agreement signed; Donovan alleges breach by Shell. Resumes hostilities; Donovan launches full activist websites.
2004 Shell reserves scandal; Donovan’s site publishes leaks. Contributes to Shell’s $17 billion in fines and settlements.
2005 Shell loses WIPO domain name dispute over royaldutchshellplc.com. Public humiliation for Shell; site gains legitimacy.
2009 Guardian profiles Donovan’s site as influential gripe platform. Highlights site’s role in leaks and investigations.
2015 Donovan campaigns against Shell ship named after Nazi officer. Draws international criticism.
2016 Donovan publishes e-book John Donovan, Shell’s Nightmare. Documents feud history and allegations.
Oct 2025 Donovan queries Copilot on Shell ethics; AI reveals undercover details. Sparks AI involvement; transcripts published.
Dec 2025 Grok and ChatGPT exchanges highlight inconsistencies in feud narratives. AIs critique each other; “battle of the bots” emerges.
Jan 2026 “Bot war” escalates with multiple AI prompts and publications. Amplifies online narrative; Shell remains silent.

This comprehensive overview draws from legal records, media reports, and Donovan’s archives, emphasizing the need for cross-verification given the partisan nature of primary sources.

Key Citations

Key Insights on Hakluyt & Company’s Espionage Activities

  • Research suggests Hakluyt & Company, founded by former MI6 officers, has faced repeated allegations of conducting corporate espionage, particularly by infiltrating environmental groups on behalf of oil giants like Shell and BP, though the firm maintains it provides only strategic advisory services and denies wrongdoing.
  • It seems likely that Hakluyt’s methods involved deploying undercover agents posing as sympathizers or filmmakers to gather intelligence, disrupting campaigns such as Greenpeace’s efforts against oil exploration, but evidence often relies on media exposés and lacks conclusive legal outcomes.
  • The evidence leans toward close ties between Hakluyt and Royal Dutch Shell, including shared directors and alleged surveillance in the John Donovan feud, highlighting broader concerns about the blurred lines between intelligence services and corporate interests, though Hakluyt has refuted claims of being an MI6 front.
  • While some view these activities as unethical infiltration, others argue they were legitimate information-gathering for client protection, underscoring the controversy around private intelligence firms.

Historical Overview

Hakluyt & Company, established in 1995, specializes in strategic advisory for businesses, often drawing on networks from former intelligence officials. Its operations emphasize gathering insights on commercial and political risks, serving major corporations.

Notable Espionage Allegations

Prominent cases include the 2001 infiltration of Greenpeace, where a German agent codenamed Camus posed as a filmmaker to monitor campaigns against oil companies. This disrupted environmental efforts, with clients like Shell and BP denying awareness of tactics. Another incident involved the 2012 death of operative Neil Heywood in China, linked to political scandals, raising questions about Hakluyt’s global reach.

Ties to Shell and the Donovan Feud

Hakluyt’s connections to Shell include former Shell executives as directors and foundation presidents. In the long-running dispute with activist John Donovan, allegations point to undercover operations, including surveillance and threats during 1990s litigation, though direct proof of Hakluyt’s involvement remains speculative. Shell has admitted limited inquiries but denied espionage.

Hakluyt’s Stance

The firm consistently describes itself as a provider of business insights, rejecting espionage labels and political affiliations. It has denied specific allegations, emphasizing ethical operations.

Hakluyt & Company stands as a prominent yet enigmatic player in the world of corporate intelligence, blending the shadowy traditions of state espionage with the demands of global business. Founded in 1995 by former British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) officers Christopher James and Mike Reynolds, the firm takes its name from Richard Hakluyt, a 16th-century English geographer known for promoting exploration and colonization. Headquartered in London’s Mayfair district, with additional offices in New York and Singapore, Hakluyt has grown into a multimillion-pound enterprise, reporting revenues of £84.9 million in 2021. Its model revolves around recruiting individuals with deep connections—ex-spies, journalists from outlets like The Financial Times, embassy staff, and high-level government or corporate figures—to compile intelligence reports on commercial, political, and reputational risks for clients. This network allows Hakluyt to offer “insights and advice” that go beyond traditional consultancy, often delving into sensitive areas that blur the lines between legitimate research and covert operations.

From its inception, Hakluyt has maintained strong ties to the intelligence community. Established with the apparent blessing of then-MI6 chief Sir David Spedding, the firm has been described by some as a “convenient rest home” for retiring spies. Reports indicate that MI6 veterans are frequently approached for freelance work, though Hakluyt has declined to confirm whether such recruits must fully sever ties with their former agency. Critics in the intelligence world have alleged that the firm serves as a front for “deniable” MI6 operations, a claim Hakluyt has firmly rejected. Instead, the company positions itself as a strategic advisory firm, emphasizing ethical compliance and unattributable work that aids clients in navigating complex global landscapes.

Hakluyt’s client base has historically included major oil corporations, with particularly close relationships to BP and Royal Dutch Shell (now Shell plc). Peter Cazalet, a former BP deputy chairman, played a key role in the firm’s establishment, while Sir Peter Holmes, ex-chairman of Shell, served as president of the Hakluyt Foundation, and Sir William Purves, another Shell-linked director, was a chairman and major shareholder. These connections have fueled allegations of corporate espionage, where Hakluyt is accused of deploying undercover agents to infiltrate activist groups opposing oil industry activities. One of the most documented cases occurred in 2001, when The Sunday Times revealed that Hakluyt had hired a German agent, Manfred Schlickenrieder (codenamed Camus), to spy on Greenpeace. Posing as a left-wing filmmaker with a Munich-based production company called Gruppe 2, Schlickenrieder infiltrated environmental circles for nearly two decades, gathering intelligence on campaigns against oil exploration. His methods included conducting interviews, filming events, and sending detailed reports to Hakluyt, such as assessments of Greenpeace’s legal strategies and asset protections. The operation, which began in April 1996 at Shell’s request to monitor threats following incidents like the Brent Spar controversy and Nigerian operations backlash, extended to BP’s Atlantic Frontier campaign. Schlickenrieder also targeted Anita Roddick’s Body Shop for information on its opposition to Shell’s Nigerian drilling. Greenpeace officials later admitted the infiltration effectively “sunk” their efforts, with BP appearing unsurprised by activist moves. Both Shell and BP acknowledged hiring Hakluyt but denied knowledge of undercover tactics, citing the need to protect staff.

The scandal prompted parliamentary calls for an investigation by then-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw into whether MI6 used Hakluyt as a proxy, highlighting concerns over the privatization of intelligence. Hakluyt’s response was minimal; the firm has generally refused to discuss specific activities, with director Michael Maclay stating it does not comment on operations. In broader statements, Hakluyt has denied wrongdoing, asserting it operates as a legitimate advisory service without engaging in “dirty tricks.” Schlickenrieder’s cover was eventually blown by a colleague, leading to his withdrawal from the field.

In the context of the John Donovan feud with Shell—a decades-long dispute originating from 1990s allegations of intellectual property theft—Hakluyt’s role has been speculated upon but not definitively proven. Donovan, a British activist who has operated whistleblower sites like royaldutchshellplc.com since 1995, claims Shell employed covert tactics during the 1999 SMART loyalty card High Court trial, including surveillance by an agent named Christopher Phillips from Cofton Consultants, anonymous threats, and targeted burglaries at homes of Donovan, his solicitor, and witnesses. Documents were disturbed, but valuables left intact, suggesting intelligence-gathering rather than theft. Shell admitted hiring Phillips for “routine credit enquiries” but denied intimidation, and police investigations suspected a conspiracy without yielding charges. Donovan links these events to Hakluyt due to its oil industry ties and history of undercover work, though no direct evidence confirms involvement. Shell has maintained that it remains a client of Hakluyt as recently as 2012, but the firm has not commented on the feud.

Beyond oil-related cases, Hakluyt’s activities have extended to other sectors. In 2019, Monsanto reportedly hired the firm amid controversies over its products, though details remain sparse. The 2012 death of Neil Heywood, a Hakluyt operative found dead in Chongqing, China, amid ties to disgraced politician Bo Xilai, amplified scrutiny of the firm’s international operations. Heywood’s involvement in a political scandal that led to Gu Kailai’s conviction for murder underscored risks in Hakluyt’s work. More recently, in 2023-2025, Hakluyt advised Thames Water on avoiding renationalization and faced questions over potential conflicts when former managing partner Varun Chandra became a business adviser to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The firm has also engaged with political entities, such as arranging meetings for the British Labour Party with business leaders, though it denies working for parties.

These incidents reflect broader debates about corporate espionage’s ethics and legality. While Hakluyt insists on providing only “unattributable” insights without political bias, critics argue its methods echo state intelligence tactics applied to suppress dissent. No major legal repercussions have followed the allegations, partly due to the secretive nature of the industry, but they have spurred calls for greater oversight. In response to various claims, Hakluyt has consistently denied impropriety, refusing detailed comments on operations.

Timeline of Key Espionage-Related Events

Year Event Details Outcome/Impact
1995 Hakluyt Founded Ex-MI6 officers Christopher James and Mike Reynolds establish the firm with ties to oil giants like BP and Shell. Establishes foundation for corporate intelligence operations.
1996 Shell Hires Hakluyt To monitor threats post-Brent Spar and Nigeria controversies; agent Schlickenrieder begins infiltration. Leads to intelligence on Greenpeace activities.
1997-1999 Spying on Greenpeace and Body Shop Schlickenrieder gathers data on Atlantic Frontier campaign and Nigerian opposition; invoices Hakluyt for reports. Disrupts environmental campaigns; BP and Shell deny tactics knowledge.
1998-1999 Donovan Feud Incidents Surveillance, threats, and burglaries during Shell litigation; suspected Hakluyt link via Shell ties. No charges; fuels ongoing activism.
2001 Sunday Times Exposé Reveals Hakluyt’s Greenpeace spying; calls for MI6 inquiry. Parliamentary scrutiny; Hakluyt denies “dirty tricks.”
2012 Neil Heywood Death Hakluyt operative dies in China amid political scandal. International incident; highlights operational risks.
2019 Monsanto Hiring Alleged involvement in product controversies. Adds to scrutiny of diverse client base.
2023-2025 Thames Water and Labour Ties Advises on strategy; conflict concerns with UK government links. Ongoing debates on influence.

This timeline illustrates Hakluyt’s evolution from post-Cold War intelligence repurposing to a fixture in corporate strategy, amid persistent espionage controversies. While the firm’s denials and lack of prosecutions maintain its operations, the cases underscore tensions between business interests and activist rights.

Key Citations

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan - more information here. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Posted in: Christopher James, Christopher Phillips, Environment, Google A1 Mode, GoogleNews, GROK, John Donovan, John Donovan Ebook, Litigation, MI6, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Russia, Sakhalin 2, Sakhalin II, Shell, Shell BP Plc, Shell Business Principles, Shell Corporate Affairs Security, Shell Nazi Secrets, Shell PLC, Shell Reserves Fraud, Shell Reserves Scandal, Shell shareholders, Shell Spies, Shell Spying, ShellBot, Sin Stocks, Sir Henri Deterding and the Nazi History Royal Dutch Shell, Sir Peter Holmes, Sir William Purves, World Intellectual Property Organisation.
Tagged: · · · · ·

← →

Comments are closed.