Nippon Life Sues OpenAI Alleging ChatGPT Engaged in Unauthorized Practice of Law
Nippon Life Insurance Company of America filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT acted as an unlicensed attorney by advising a former disability claimant to reopen a settled case and drafting dozens of meritless motions. The insurer claims the AI's actions constitute unauthorized practice of law under Illinois statute and seeks $300,000 in compensatory damages. OpenAI has denied the allegations, calling the complaint meritless. The case is pending in federal court in Chicago.
- Company involved
- OpenAI
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
2 source articles · read the reporting →
Evans v. Robertson (4) (E.D. Michigan): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Briefs (both sides) struck
The AI system generated hallucinated legal citations in court filings, causing the court to strike the briefs of both plaintiff and defendant.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Yasiel Puig Valdes v. All3Media America, LLC, et al. (SCA California (Los Angeles)): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Referral
The AI generated fake legal citations that were included in a court filing, potentially harming the plaintiff's case.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
1 source article · read the reporting →
Doiban v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (CA Oregon): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction
The AI system generated fabricated case citations and quotations that were included in a legal brief, leading to a monetary sanction against the lawyer.
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 →
Unnamed Brazilian litigant (): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Appeal partially granted (reintegration suspended, rent imposed), but
AI-generated fake court precedents were included in a legal appeal, leading to sanctions against the litigant for bad-faith litigation.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
1 source article · 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 →
Johnson / Estate of Fisher v. City of Annapolis (D. Maryland): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, (Attorney was dismissed by…
The AI generated fabricated case law and quotes that were included in a court filing, affecting the plaintiffs and the judicial process.
- Company involved
- City of Annapolis
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 →
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 →
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 →
Jessica Fuller v. Hyde School, et al. (D. Maine): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, CLE; Firm procedures and certification; Serve…
The AI generated fictitious legal citations that were submitted to the court in a legal filing.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT or Claude
1 source article · read the reporting →
Answer.AI tests Devin and reports 14 failures in 20 tasks
Answer.AI's team tested Devin, an autonomous AI coding assistant, on 20 real-world tasks over a month. Devin succeeded in only 3 tasks, failed 14, and was inconclusive in 3. The team found Devin often produced overly complex or hallucinated solutions and could not recognize fundamental blockers. They ultimately decided to stick with tools that allow more human control.
- AI system involved
- Devin
5 source articles · read the reporting →
Brazilian judge investigated for AI-generated ruling errors
Brazilian authorities are investigating federal judge Jefferson Rodrigues after he published a ruling that contained incorrect legal citations and precedents, which he attributed to the use of AI tool ChatGPT. The National Justice Council summoned the judge to explain the errors, which included wrongly attributing past decisions to the Superior Court of Justice. Rodrigues described the mistakes as a "mere mistake" caused by work overload. This is reported as the first such case in Brazil.
- Company involved
- Federal judiciary of Brazil
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
8 source articles · read the reporting →
FTC settles with DoNotPay over deceptive AI lawyer claims
The FTC took action against DoNotPay, a company that claimed to offer an AI service that was 'the world's first robot lawyer.' The company promised to generate legal documents and replace human lawyers, but the FTC alleged it failed to test its AI output and did not hire any attorneys. DoNotPay agreed to a settlement requiring it to pay $193,000 and notify consumers about the limitations of its service.
- Company involved
- DoNotPay
- AI system involved
- DoNotPay
7 source articles · read the reporting →
EvenUp AI errors in personal injury demand letters lead to scrutiny
EvenUp, a legal tech startup valued at $1 billion, uses AI to draft personal injury demand letters. Former employees revealed that the AI system frequently makes errors, including missing injuries and fabricating medical conditions. The company defends its hybrid approach with human oversight, but critics allege overpromised AI capabilities.
- Company involved
- EvenUp
6 source articles · read the reporting →
State Bar of California admits using AI to develop bar exam questions
The State Bar of California admitted that it used artificial intelligence to develop multiple-choice questions for the February 2025 bar exam. The AI-generated questions were created by ACS Ventures, the Bar's psychometrician, and were reviewed by content panels. Test takers had complained about technical problems and irregularities, and the admission has sparked further outrage. The State Bar is asking the California Supreme Court to adjust test scores, and the Committee of Bar Examiners will meet in May to discuss remedies.
- Company involved
- State Bar of California
7 source articles · read the reporting →
California judge sanctions law firms for using AI to generate fake legal citations
Two law firms submitted a supplemental brief containing fake legal citations generated by AI systems including Google Gemini and Westlaw's CoCounsel. Judge Michael Wilner imposed $31,000 in sanctions after discovering the citations were fabricated. The lawyers admitted using AI without proper review or disclosure.
- Company involved
- K&L Gates
- AI system involved
- Google Gemini, Westlaw Precision with CoCounsel
5 source articles · read the reporting →
Authors sue OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement over AI training
In January 2024, journalists and authors Nicholas Basbanes and Nick Gage sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement. The lawsuit alleges that the companies used their published journalism to train large language models without permission or compensation. The case has been folded into a class action brought by the Authors Guild. The AI firms have denied any wrongdoing, and the case is still making its way through the legal system.
- Company involved
- OpenAI
- AI system involved
- Large language model (ChatGPT)
8 source articles · read the reporting →
Dutch probe into chatbots' voting advice raises EU AI Act risk for OpenAI, xAI, Mistral
A Dutch privacy probe into election advice has appeared to expose early violations of the EU AI Act's rules for general-purpose AI models by OpenAI, xAI and Mistral, according to MLex. The companies' chatbots provided distorted voting advice to users. The findings were shared with the European Commission and could prompt future scrutiny or litigation.
- Company involved
- OpenAI, xAI and Mistral
6 source articles · read the reporting →
Thomson Reuters wins copyright lawsuit against AI startup Ross Intelligence
In 2020, Thomson Reuters filed a copyright lawsuit against legal AI startup Ross Intelligence, alleging that Ross reproduced materials from its Westlaw legal research service. In February 2025, a US District Court judge ruled in Thomson Reuters' favor, finding that Ross infringed copyright and that fair use did not apply. Ross Intelligence had shut down in 2021 due to litigation costs.
- Company involved
- Ross Intelligence
- AI system involved
- Ross Intelligence
4 source articles · read the reporting →
Tyrone Walker v. Juliane Pierre (CA Massachusetts): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Struck from the record
The AI generated nonexistent legal citations that were included in a court filing, causing the court to strike them from the appellant's brief.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Kansas judge fines lawyers $12,000 for AI-generated fake citations in patent case
A Kansas federal judge fined four lawyers a total of $12,000 for filing court documents containing non-existent quotations and case citations generated by ChatGPT. The lawyers, representing patent holder Lexos Media IP, failed to verify the AI's output, which included hallucinated legal authorities. The judge imposed fines ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 and ordered one lawyer to report the incident to state disciplinary authorities. The sanctioned attorneys acknowledged the error and stated that firms should implement strict policies for AI use.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
2 source articles · read the reporting →
