Briefly
Live preview · United States

Legal and Regulatory intelligence for you

Legal News
United States
Case Law

DHS: National Citizenship Database Supreme Court Appeal Seeks Voter Verification

The Trump administration has appealed to the Supreme Court to reinstate a national citizenship database for voter verification during the midterm elections. A lower court previously blocked the Department of Homeland Security from collecting sensitive personal data, citing violations of federal priv

8 Sept
United States
Legal News

US Lawyer: AI Hallucination Disciplinary Defense Redefines Ethics

In an unspecified jurisdiction, a lawyer reportedly cited "AI hallucinations" as a defense during a disciplinary hearing, according to Legal Cheek. This development signals a critical emerging challenge for legal ethics and professional responsibility, as artificial intelligence tools become more integrated into legal practice. The concept of "AI hallucinations" – where AI generates plausible but false information – directly impacts a lawyer's duty of candor to the tribunal, competence, and diligence. For practitioners, it underscores the imperative to understand the limitations and potential pitfalls of AI tools, ensuring that any AI-generated content is rigorously verified before being presented in court or relied upon in legal advice. Disciplinary bodies will increasingly grapple with establishing standards for AI use and determining culpability when AI errors lead to professional misconduct, setting precedents for future cases. The legal context for this issue primarily revolves around rules of professional conduct, such as those promulgated by state bar associations, which typically mirror the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Key rules implicated include Rule 1.1 (Competence), Rule 1.3 (Diligence), Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), and Rule 8.4 (Misconduct). These rules require lawyers to provide competent representation, act with reasonable diligence, not knowingly make false statements of fact or law to a tribunal, and not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The use of AI tools, particularly generative AI, introduces new complexities in satisfying these long-standing ethical obligations, necessitating careful consideration of how "reasonable diligence" and "knowing falsehoods" apply in an AI-assisted environment. The key parties involved in this specific instance are the unnamed lawyer facing disciplinary action and the disciplinary body (e.g., a state bar association or disciplinary committee) responsible for enforcing professional conduct rules. While not explicitly named, the AI tool provider is an indirect party whose technology is at the center of the defense. The outcome of this disciplinary hearing is not reported in the excerpt, but it will undoubtedly contribute to the evolving discourse on AI in legal practice. Attorneys must exercise extreme caution and skepticism when utilizing AI tools for legal research, drafting, or analysis. It is crucial to implement robust verification processes for all AI-generated content, cross-referencing with authoritative primary sources to prevent the introduction of "hallucinated" information into legal work. Firms should develop clear internal policies and comprehensive training programs on the ethical and responsible use of AI, emphasizing the lawyer's ultimate responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of all submissions. Failure to do so could lead to severe professional sanctions, including disbarment, as disciplinary bodies are likely to hold lawyers accountable for AI-induced errors that violate established ethical duties.

8 Sept
United States
Case Law

Nick Shirley: California AB 2624 Lawsuit Challenges Free Speech

Influencer Nick Shirley has filed a federal lawsuit against California, challenging Assembly Bill 2624 (AB 2624). AB 2624 expands the state's Safe at Home program to include immigration support service providers, allowing them to keep personal information confidential.

4 Sept
United States
Case Law

Federal Judge Rejects xAI Minnesota AI Nudifying Ban

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank on Friday denied xAI’s request for a preliminary injunction against Minnesota’s new legislation banning AI "nudification" technology. In a 14-page order, Judge Frank ruled that Elon Musk’s AI company failed to demonstrate it would suffer irreparable harm if the statute remained active. The judge also pointed out that xAI’s decision to wait until three days before the law’s effective date to file its motion undermined its claim for emergency relief. Minnesota’s legislation, described as the nation’s first of its kind, aims to combat the proliferation of nonconsensual AI-generated imagery, which the judge noted has resulted in a "flood of sexualized images" that can remain online indefinitely. While xAI maintains that its "Grok Imagine" platform prohibits users from generating such content through its terms of service, Minnesota officials contend these policies are insufficient to prevent illegal image generation. This ruling carries significant legal implications for the rapidly evolving landscape of AI regulation and content moderation. It signals judicial support for state legislative efforts to address the societal harms posed by emerging technologies, particularly concerning privacy and the prevention of digital abuse. For companies developing generative AI, it underscores the high bar for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief against state laws, especially when public interest concerns are substantial and the moving party has delayed seeking relief. The decision reinforces the principle that states possess broad police powers to protect their citizens, even in the face of novel technological challenges. The legal context for this decision involves the stringent standards for granting a preliminary injunction, which typically require the moving party to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, that the balance of equities favors them, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Judge Frank, a Bill Clinton appointee, found xAI lacking on the irreparable harm prong and implicitly on the balance of equities, given the state's compelling interest in preventing nonconsensual imagery. The case is situated within the U.S. federal court system, with the U.S. District Court having jurisdiction over challenges to state laws on federal grounds. Practitioners advising technology companies, particularly those in the AI sector, should closely monitor the ongoing legal challenges to such state-level regulations. This case highlights the necessity for proactive legal compliance strategies, robust content moderation systems that go beyond mere terms of service, and timely engagement with legislative and judicial processes. Attorneys should counsel clients on the potential for a patchwork of state laws regulating AI content and the importance of demonstrating genuine efforts to mitigate harm to avoid legal challenges and adverse rulings. The outcome of the broader legal challenge to Minnesota's law, beyond this preliminary injunction, remains to be seen and will be crucial for setting precedents in AI governance.

4 Sept
United States
Case Law

Judge Chhabria: Defines 'Lawful Presence,' Limits ICE Medicaid Data

A federal judge has narrowed the scope of Medicaid patient data the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) can share with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria clarified a December injunction, which had allowed ICE to obtain basic biographical and

3 Sept
United States
Case Law

Ninth Circuit: Roblox Arbitration Denial Affirmed in Class Action

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a California federal court's denial of Roblox's motion to compel arbitration. A father filed a class action lawsuit against Roblox, challenging its terms of service and alleging he was misled about the platform's safety for children.

3 Sept
United States
Case Law

Hims & Hers Investor Class Action: Filed Over FTC Data Sharing

Investors have filed a class action lawsuit against telehealth company Hims & Hers, alleging the company made misleading statements and omissions about its business practices. The lawsuit claims Hims & Hers failed to warn investors about deceptive practices, including sharing consumer health data wi

2 Sept
United States
Case Law

TikTok Gauth Class Action: Google Data Privacy Lawsuit Alleges Secret Data Transmission

Edward Lominchar filed a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California on Monday against TikTok USDS Joint Venture, LLC, alleging its AI homework helper Gauth transmits users' queries and personal data to Google for advertising purposes without consent. The lawsuit claims that Gauth, formerly known as Gauthmath, embeds Google Analytics code to send the full text of users' search questions to Google. This platform, accessible to students of all ages without payment or age verification, allows users to type or upload questions across various subjects, with Gauth's AI providing answers. Lominchar, a resident of Miami, Florida, stated he began using Gauth around December 2024, highlighting the platform's widespread accessibility and the potential scope of data collection. This development carries significant legal implications for practitioners, particularly those advising technology companies, educational platforms, and businesses handling user data. The class action underscores the increasing scrutiny on data privacy practices, especially concerning AI-powered tools and the data of minors or students. It highlights the potential liabilities for companies that integrate third-party analytics or advertising tools without explicit and informed user consent, particularly when sensitive information like educational queries is involved. The scale of a class action suggests a broad impact and potential for substantial damages if the allegations are proven. The legal context for this case likely involves a confluence of federal and state privacy statutes. Depending on the age of the users, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) could be highly relevant, imposing strict requirements on the collection of personal information from children under 13. Additionally, state privacy laws such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) or its successor, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), may apply, given the filing in California and the potential for data of California residents to be involved. Common law claims related to privacy, breach of implied terms of service, or unfair business practices could also be asserted. The Central District of California is a federal court, indicating that the lawsuit likely invokes federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. The key parties involved are the plaintiff, Edward Lominchar, representing a class of users; the defendant, TikTok USDS Joint Venture, LLC, which operates TikTok in the US and owns the Gauth platform; and Google, identified as the alleged recipient of the transmitted data. The Central District of California is the judicial forum for this dispute. The outcome of this matter, including any rulings on class certification or the merits of the claims, is not yet reported. Practitioners should advise clients operating AI-powered platforms, especially those accessible to or targeting students, to conduct thorough audits of their data collection, usage, and sharing practices. This includes a meticulous review of all third-party integrations, such as analytics or advertising tools, to ensure compliance with applicable privacy laws like COPPA, CCPA/CPRA, and the company's own terms of service and privacy policies. Robust and transparent consent mechanisms are crucial, particularly for sensitive data or data pertaining to minors. Companies should also consider implementing stringent age verification protocols where appropriate to mitigate risks associated with collecting data from children. Monitoring the progression of this case will provide valuable insights into judicial interpretations of data privacy obligations in the context of AI and educational technology.

1 Sept
United States
Case Law

EU: ChatGPT EU Digital Services Act Designation Imposes New Rules

OpenAI's ChatGPT has been designated a "Very Large Online Search Engine" under the EU Digital Services Act, marking the first AI chatbot to receive this classification. Reddit and Roblox also received the "very large online platform" designation, triggering enhanced obligations for all three within

31 Aug