Kevin O'Leary has a new strategy for dealing with opposition to his Utah data center project: claim the protesters aren't real. Some are "professional activists," the Shark Tank star says. And some? Powered by AI.
Let's be clear about what's happening here. O'Leary is a savvy businessman who knows exactly what he's doing. When you can't win the argument on its merits, you delegitimize the people making it. And in 2026, nothing delegitimizes like claiming your opponents are bots.
The data center project has faced genuine local opposition from Utah residents concerned about water usage, energy consumption, and environmental impact. These are reasonable concerns about infrastructure projects that can strain local resources. But rather than address those concerns directly, O'Leary is reaching for the AI playbook.
"Some of these protesters are professional activists, and frankly, I believe some are AI-powered," O'Leary told reporters, according to Business Insider. It's a remarkable claim—one that requires exactly zero evidence to make headlines and plant doubt about the opposition's legitimacy.
This is the new dismissal tactic, and it's insidious precisely because it's unfalsifiable. How do you prove you're not AI? Do protesters now need to show up with birth certificates and blood tests? The accusation itself is the point.
Data centers are critical infrastructure, and the AI boom has made them more important than ever. Utah's tax incentives and cheap power make it attractive for these facilities. But local communities deserve real answers about environmental impact, not conspiracy theories about AI-powered activists.
O'Leary has built a brand on being direct and data-driven. This AI accusation is neither. It's a distraction from legitimate questions about a project that will consume significant local resources. If the project makes economic sense, make that case. If it addresses environmental concerns, show the data.
But claiming your opponents are AI bots isn't a business argument—it's an admission that you don't have one. The technology exists to do amazing things. Using it as a rhetorical smokescreen isn't one of them.
