NYT sends cease and desist to Perplexity over content use
The New York Times sent a cease and desist letter to AI search engine Perplexity, alleging that the startup has been using its copyrighted journalism without a license. The letter claims Perplexity has been 'unjustly enriched' by using the publisher's content. Perplexity had previously assured the Times it would stop crawling its content, but the Times says its content still appears in Perplexity's results.
- Company involved
- Perplexity
- AI system involved
- Perplexity
5 source articles · read the reporting →
Bunce v. Visual Technology Innovations (2) (E.D. Pennsylvania): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction, Additional CLE
The AI generated fabricated legal citations in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
- Company involved
- Mr. Rajan
1 source article · read the reporting →
Thomas Dexter Jakes v. Duane Youngblood (W.D. Pennsylvania): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction; Pro Hac Vice status revoked
The system generated fabricated legal citations and quotes in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
- Company involved
- Tyrone A. Blackburn
1 source article · read the reporting →
Perplexity sued by Dow Jones for alleged copyright infringement
Perplexity, an AI search engine, was sued by Dow Jones, the publisher of the Wall Street Journal and New York Post, on October 21, 2024. The lawsuit alleges that Perplexity's AI reproduces copyrighted articles without permission. Perplexity denies the allegations and states it responded to outreach from News Corp before the lawsuit was filed.
- Company involved
- Perplexity
- AI system involved
- Perplexity
10 source articles · read the reporting →
Mag 7 Ltd. et al. v. Tederi et al. (District Court, Tel Aviv-Yafo): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction;…
The AI generated fabricated case law that was submitted to the court, affecting the legal proceedings.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Ferris v. Amazon.com Services (N.D. Mississippi): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Plaintiff ordered to pay Defendant’s reasonable costs related to…
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were submitted to the court, affecting the defendant and the judicial process.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Sullivan & Cromwell apologises for AI hallucinations in court filing
Sullivan & Cromwell, an elite Wall Street law firm, used an AI tool to help draft a court filing in the Prince Group case. The filing contained inaccurate citations and misquoted the US bankruptcy code due to AI hallucinations. The errors were uncovered by opposing counsel Boies Schiller Flexner, and the firm apologised to the judge and filed a corrected version. The firm stated that its AI policies were not followed and its review process failed to catch the mistakes.
- Company involved
- Sullivan & Cromwell
3 source articles · read the reporting →
Authors including Mike Huckabee sue Meta, Microsoft over AI training data
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and other authors have filed a lawsuit against Meta, Microsoft, EleutherAI, and Bloomberg, alleging that their copyrighted books were used without permission to train AI models. The suit centers on the Books3 dataset, part of the Pile, which contains over 180,000 works. The authors claim the companies pirated their work and incorporated it into training data without compensation. The case is the latest in a series of copyright lawsuits against AI companies.
- Company involved
- Meta, Microsoft, EleutherAI, Bloomberg
7 source articles · read the reporting →
Joel A. Rivera v. Triad Properties Corporation, et al. (N.D. Alabama): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Public Reprimand; Disqualification; Bar…
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were presented to the court, affecting the defendants and the judicial process.
- Company involved
- Burrill Watkins LLC
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
1 source article · read the reporting →
Gittemeier v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company (E.D. Missouri): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Costs Order + Fine; One Attorney…
The AI system generated fictitious legal citations in a summary judgment motion, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Momus Analytics' jury-selection algorithm criticised for racial bias
Momus Analytics, a legal technology company, uses machine learning to rank potential jurors for attorneys. Experts and researchers who reviewed the company's patent application say the algorithm relies on demographic characteristics such as race, which may violate constitutional prohibitions against discriminatory jury selection. The company claims its software has helped secure verdicts worth over $940 million, but did not respond to requests for comment.
- Company involved
- Momus Analytics
- AI system involved
- Momus
9 source articles · read the reporting →
The People v. Raziel Ruiz Alvarez (CA California): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Published order; monetary sanction payable by Counsel…
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were included in a court filing, affecting the defendant's legal representation and the court's resources.
- Company involved
- Attorney Siddell
1 source article · read the reporting →
CanLII sues Caseway AI for scraping legal database
The Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) has filed a lawsuit in British Columbia Supreme Court against Caseway AI, alleging that the company's AI chatbot scraped approximately 3.5 million records from CanLII's database in bulk, violating its terms of service and copyright. CanLII claims it adds value to public court records through hyperlinks and corrections, which it says constitute protected copyrighted work. Caseway AI argues the information is public and accessible elsewhere, and that it did not use CanLII's enhancements. The lawsuit was settled in March 2026, with terms undisclosed.
- Company involved
- Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII)
- AI system involved
- Caseway
5 source articles · read the reporting →
Russell v. Mells (CA Florida): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Bar Referral
AI generated fabricated case law citations that were included in a court filing, potentially misleading the court in Russell v. Mells.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Michael L. Ruiz v. Magellan Financial & Insurance Services (2) (D. Arizona): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Formal public reprimand
AI-hallucinated fake quotations were included in court filings submitted by counsel Elizabeth Tate, misleading the court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Landberg v City of New York (CA NY (2d)): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction
AI-generated fake legal citations were included in a court filing, resulting in monetary sanctions against the attorney and his law firm.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Aguilar v. The Crawford Group, Inc. (D. Massachusetts): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Adverse Costs Order; Pro hac vice status…
The AI generated fake legal citations that were included in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
- Company involved
- Lindemann Law Firm
1 source article · read the reporting →
Erin Booker v. The Kroger Co. (N.D. Georgia): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanctions; CLE
The court imposed monetary sanctions and continuing legal education requirements on plaintiff's counsel for using AI-generated fake legal authorities in a court filing.
1 source article · read the reporting →
McCormick v. Texakoma Financial (E.D. Texas): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Public Reprimand; Monetary Sanction; Firmwide citation review; CLE
The AI generated fictitious legal citations and quotes that were included in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
- Company involved
- Ginsburg Law Group, P.C.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Thomas Raynard James v. Detective Kevin Conley, et al. (S.D. Florida): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Bar Referral
AI generated hallucinated content in a court filing, affecting the legal process and the lawyers who filed it.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. (2) (W.D. Washington): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Expert Brief excluded/struck
The AI-generated hallucinated citations in an expert report led to the exclusion of the expert and dismissal of the plaintiff's case.
1 source article · read the reporting →
TOV Realty, LLC v. Suarez; Kosel Equity, LLC v. MacGregor (SC Connecticut): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, 6 hours CLE;…
The AI generated legal briefs containing fabricated citations, which were submitted to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
- Company involved
- GLG Law LLC
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
1 source article · read the reporting →
Intellexa Predator spyware used to surveil human rights lawyer in Pakistan
In summer 2025, a human rights lawyer from Pakistan's Balochistan province was targeted via WhatsApp with Intellexa's Predator spyware, according to Amnesty International's Security Lab. The attack is part of a broader pattern of unlawful surveillance of activists, journalists and human rights defenders. The Intellexa Leaks investigation exposed internal operations of the spyware company, raising concerns about human rights due diligence.
- AI system involved
- Predator spyware
10 source articles · read the reporting →
In re Rosslyn2016, LLC, et al. (S.D. Texas (Bankruptcy)): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, CLE on generative AI; Civil Contempt;…
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were submitted to the bankruptcy court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
