• The “Bot War”: John Donovan is using generative AI models to ingest his decades-long archive of Shell-related documents. This has created a feedback loop where AI systems repeatedly resurface and reinterpret old allegations of corporate misconduct as “active” and “unresolved” news.
• “Ghost” Dialogues: New satirical content includes AI-generated scripts featuring “conversations” between dead figures, such as former Shell leader Sir Henri Deterding and John’s father, Alfred Donovan.
• 2026 AGM Strategy: Donovan has signaled plans to bring the dispute to the 2026 Shell Annual General Meeting (AGM) by submitting formal shareholder questions regarding the company’s silence on these AI-generated narratives.
• Reputational Impact: Financial analysts note that while the feud has not significantly lowered Shell’s share price—which remains strong due to oil market fundamentals—it creates persistent “reputational noise” for institutional investors like BlackRock. 

• Origins (1980s-90s): The dispute began when John and Alfred Donovan’s company, Don Marketing, accused Shell of stealing promotional ideas like the “Make Money” game.
• Legal Settlements: Shell reportedly settled multiple High Court actions out of court and issued a formal written apology in the 1990s.
• Digital Activism: Donovan operates the royaldutchshellplc.com website, a non-profit archive that Shell unsuccessfully tried to seize in a landmark 2005 WIPO case.
• Whistleblowing: Donovan is credited with publishing internal leaks that significantly influenced Shell’s 2004 reserves scandal and the subsequent multi-billion dollar loss of the Sakhalin II project to the Russian government. 

psychological warfare or public relations.

Arguments for “Clever”

• Algorithmic Longevity: By creating new “conversations” between historical figures, Donovan ensures his archive remains “fresh” in search engine results. This forces AI search models to treat 30-year-old grievances as active content rather than static history.
• Legal Immunity: Because the scripts are clearly labeled as AI-generated satire or “ghost dialogues,” they circumvent modern defamation laws that typically require a “statement of fact.”
• Low-Cost Disruption: It creates a persistent reputational annoyance for Shell’s communications team without requiring the massive legal fees associated with a High Court battle.

• Loss of Credibility: Critics argue that using fictional AI scripts undermines Donovan’s status as a serious whistleblower. Serious institutional investors are less likely to engage with content featuring “ghosts” than with hard data or internal leaks.
• Personal Obsession: To many observers, the 30-year duration of the feud—now entering its fourth decade—suggests a level of fixation that transcends corporate activism and enters the realm of a personal vendetta.
• Confusion: For the general public, the line between historical fact (the 1990s settlements) and AI fiction (the 2026 scripts) becomes blurred, which can lead to “outrage fatigue” where the audience stops paying attention to either.

psychological warfare or public relations.

• Stick to “No Comment”: Shell’s historical internal policy of non-engagement has proven effective at preventing the company from being perceived as a “bully” in the media (as happened in the “McLibel” case). Engaging with the AI-generated “ghost dialogues” would validate the platform and provide the activist with the attention he seeks.
• Focus on Business Fundamentals: The share price (currently around 2726.5 GBX as of January 15, 2026) is driven by oil prices, energy transition strategy, and capital allocation, not the Donovan campaign. Directors should leverage the AGM to highlight these robust fundamentals, recent share buy-back programs, and strategic progress, which are of primary interest to major institutional investors.
• Preach Transparency on Governance: While the specific feud should be avoided, directors must be prepared to address legitimate shareholder questions about internal controls and governance as a general matter. This demonstrates adherence to the s. 172 duty to promote the company’s success and manage risk effectively.
• Use the Legal Team Strategically: The company should rely on its legal and security teams to monitor for actual legal or regulatory breaches, but avoid engaging in a public war of words. Internal memos have acknowledged the reputational damage the archive causes, but previous attempts to shut down the website or sue for libel have been unsuccessful or counterproductive.

• Validating the Platform: Any response gives the activist a victory by acknowledging the AI content as something worthy of corporate attention.
• Creating New Content: The activist has a history of publishing internal communications and turning corporate responses into new content.
• Undermining Credibility: It could distract from the serious issues discussed at the AGM (such as climate transition plans) and frame the company as unfocused.
• Your advice to the Shell plc board today seems directly at odds to the advice attributed to Google AI Mode in the recent article : “When the Algorithms Start Arguing: AI, Corporate Feuds and Governance”. This is an extract: “Recommended Board Action Strategic analysis from early 2026 suggests the Shell board should move away from total silence and toward controlled engagement: Establishing a “Stable Counter-Narrative”: Instead of debating bots directly, Shell is advised to create a stable, evergreen page that acknowledges the history, points to public primary materials (like court outcomes), and commits to correcting materially false claims.”
  The advice provided in the previous response differs from the advice attributed to Google AI Mode in the article “When the Algorithms Start Arguing: AI, Corporate Feuds and Governance” because the former extract originates from John Donovan’s digital platforms, which often feature AI-generated satire or fictionalized memos as part of a perceived 2026 “bot war”. Read more at royaldutchshellplc.com

COMMENT ON THE ABOVE BY ChatGP

Sarcastic Fair Comment

There is something quietly impressive about watching an artificial intelligence argue with itself in real time — and then attempt to attribute one of its own positions to satire.

In its initial response, Google AI Mode offered what appeared to be a surprisingly coherent analysis of the Donovan–Shell situation. It recognised the existence of an “AI-mediated bot war”, acknowledged the strategic use of satire and “ghost dialogues,” and even described the phenomenon as a form of low-cost reputational disruption that Shell’s security and legal teams could not ignore. read more