Accusations Against Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt
The ex-mistress of Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, has leveled serious allegations against him, including stalking, abuse, and what she terms “toxic masculinity.” These claims were made in legal documents filed in December 2024 as she sought a domestic violence restraining order.
Recent court documents reveal that Michelle Ritter submitted these claims on December 11, shortly after agreeing with Schmidt on a “substantial payment.” Nonetheless, she later retracted from this deal on January 6 after a new agreement was reportedly reached.
Ritter, who is 31, began her relationship with 70-year-old Schmidt in 2021. During this time, he assisted in funding her AI startup, Steel Perlot, with a significant sum of $100 million. It’s worth noting that Schmidt has been married to his wife, Wendy, since 1980, and there have long been reports of their open relationship.
In her court filing, Ritter, a graduate from Columbia Law School, alleged that Schmidt exploited her technical skills to restrict her access to his startup’s website. She described a situation of “absolute digital surveillance,” suggesting that he monitored her phone calls and emails to a degree that undermined her privacy.
Ritter expressed concerns about Schmidt’s strength and capability, claiming he used all means available to interfere with her access to secure data, devices, and even finances, denying her a peaceful life.
The documents also indicate that Ritter sought to gain access to Schmidt’s mansion in Bel Air, where she had previously stayed. In response, Schmidt’s legal team dismissed her accusations as “patently false” and an exploitation of the judicial system.
Furthermore, Ritter alleged that Schmidt requested she agree to a gag order barring any discussion of sexual assault and harassment allegations and to sign a declaration stating that no such claims had ever been made.
In a notable request, she asked for custody of her German shepherd named Henry, alongside access to the Bel Air residence. Schmidt’s representatives rebuffed Ritter’s stance as unfounded and described it as a misuse of the court system.
Subsequent filings revealed that Ritter had entered into a new agreement with Schmidt and had withdrawn her demand for a temporary restraining order. However, she later claimed that Schmidt failed to respect this agreement. She argued that he was attempting to bankrupt her through ongoing legal expenses amid arbitration, which Schmidt purportedly claimed he couldn’t afford.
A hearing concerning these matters is set for December 4 in Los Angeles. Both Ritter’s legal counsel and Schmidt’s publicist chose not to make any comments when approached.
