Clearon AI

AI law and governance intelligence

Tag: Legal Risk

  • AI Sanctions Are Moving Beyond Fake Cases

    AI Sanctions Are Moving Beyond Fake Cases

    The first wave of AI sanctions cases had an easy headline: fake cases.

    That problem has not gone away. But the next wave is broader and harder to catch. Courts are now calling out false quotations, inaccurate descriptions of real cases, unsupported legal propositions, fabricated record references, and correction filings that repeat the same verification failure they were supposed to fix.

    That shift matters because a fake case name is often easy to spot. A real case with a fake quotation is more dangerous. It can survive a quick citation check, especially if the lawyer confirms that the case exists but never reads what it actually says.

    Recent decisions from the Sixth Circuit and Michigan Court of Appeals, plus a new Oregon Court of Appeals notice, point in the same direction: legal teams need source-level verification, not just citation-level verification.

    Farris: Real Cases, False Quotations

    In United States v. Farris, the Sixth Circuit did not decide the merits of the criminal appeal. It stopped to address the conduct of appointed appellate counsel.

    The court said counsel admitted using Westlaw CoCounsel to draft the briefs and then filing them without properly verifying the legal authorities. The problem was not simply that the briefs cited nonexistent law. The briefs cited genuine authorities but attributed quotations and propositions to them that did not appear in the sources.

    One example involved the Sentencing Guidelines commentary. Other examples involved Sixth Circuit cases that were described as reversing role enhancements when they did not support the propositions asserted. The court said the briefs misrepresented the holdings of United States v. Washington and United States v. Anthony.

    The Sixth Circuit drew a line that every litigation team should build into its review process: citing a real case does not make an AI-assisted brief safe if the quotation is fabricated or the holding is misdescribed.

    The consequences were serious. The court ordered that counsel not be compensated under the Criminal Justice Act for the appeal, forwarded the opinion for possible disciplinary proceedings, served the opinion on district court and Kentucky Bar authorities, and separately removed counsel from further representation. Replacement counsel would be appointed and the briefing schedule reset.

    The court also made an important vendor-neutral point. Lawyers cannot assume that a legal AI product is reliable merely because it comes from an established legal technology provider.

    Barber: The Correction Filing Was Also Wrong

    The Michigan Court of Appeals reached a similar point in Barber v. Morawa, a published medical-malpractice appeal.

    The merits issue was straightforward: the court affirmed denial of a motion for a new trial or evidentiary hearing. The sanctions issue was not. Plaintiff's counsel had cited nonexistent cases in the trial court, relied on criminal authorities in a civil case, and then filed an appellate brief that cited another nonexistent case and used real authorities for propositions they did not support.

    After the defendant identified the defects, counsel eventually filed a "Notice of Correction." But that notice, which counsel acknowledged was also prepared with AI assistance, repeated the problem by attributing quotations and legal propositions to cases that did not contain them.

    The Michigan court held that counsel's repeated submission of fabricated and unsupported authority violated MCR 7.216(C)(1) and MCR 1.109(E)(5). It remanded for a determination of actual damages and reasonable attorney fees incurred because of the appeal, payable personally by counsel, and directed the clerk to forward the opinion to the Attorney Grievance Commission.

    That is the deeper lesson of Barber: a correction cannot be just another AI-assisted filing. Once a court or opposing party flags possible fabricated authority, the next filing should be treated as a high-risk verification event.

    Oregon Turns The Warning Into A Court Notice

    The Oregon Court of Appeals has now posted a notice specifically warning about fabricated authority produced by AI.

    The notice says the court has received an increasing number of filings containing fabricated authorities, including citations that do not exist, quotations that do not appear in the cited authority, propositions of law not reasonably related to the citation, and factual support with no basis in the record.

    The listed consequences include striking the filing, monetary sanctions payable to the court, attorney-fee awards payable to the opposing party, and dismissal of the appeal.

    The notice also gives a practical verification rule. Anyone using generative AI to prepare court-filing content must verify that all cited cases exist, that all quotations actually appear in the cited cases, and that all paraphrased propositions of law are objectively reasonable in light of what the case actually says.

    That is a useful checklist because it is not limited to fake case names. It reaches the subtler errors that are becoming common in appellate sanctions orders.

    The Pattern Is Broader Than One Tool Or One Court

    These developments fit the recent sanctions record.

    In Lnu v. Blanche, the Ninth Circuit sanctioned lawyers for briefs containing nonexistent cases, misattributed quotations, and gross misrepresentations of real authority. The court emphasized that the discipline became more serious because of the lawyers' responses after the errors came to light.

    In Withers v. City of Aberdeen, a Mississippi federal court sanctioned and removed all counsel after filings from both sides contained AI-generated fabricated authority. The order is a sharp warning for local counsel and sponsoring counsel: signing and sponsoring are not administrative formalities.

    In State v. Coleman, an Ohio appellate court sanctioned counsel after a filing contained ChatGPT-generated fabricated transcript quotations prepared by a paralegal. The AI problem there was not fake caselaw. It was a fake record.

    Together, the cases show the sanctions framework maturing. Courts are no longer asking only whether a case exists. They are asking whether the filing honestly represents law and fact.

    What Litigation Teams Should Change

    The review process should be built around propositions, not just citations.

    Before filing AI-assisted work, litigation teams should verify:

    • every cited case, statute, rule, and record reference exists;
    • every direct quotation appears in the cited source;
    • every parenthetical accurately describes the source;
    • every paraphrased proposition is fairly supported by the authority;
    • every record quotation or factual assertion matches the underlying record;
    • the lawyer signing the filing has personally satisfied the required level of review; and
    • any correction filing receives independent source review before submission.

    It is not enough to ask whether the tool hallucinated a case. A real case can be turned into a false authority if the quotation, holding, or procedural posture is wrong.

    Bottom Line

    The AI sanctions story is moving from fake cases to false authority.

    That is a harder problem and a more practical one. Lawyers have always had to verify the law and the record before filing. AI makes that duty more visible, not less binding.

    The practical rule is simple: if a filing relies on a source, someone must read the source.

    Sources

  • FTC’s Active Listening Settlement Turns AI-Washing Into a Privacy Problem

    FTC’s Active Listening Settlement Turns AI-Washing Into a Privacy Problem

    The Federal Trade Commission's proposed "Active Listening" settlements connect three risks that often travel together: AI-washing, adtech targeting claims, and weak consent theories.

    The FTC says Cox Media Group and two marketing firms falsely claimed to offer an AI-powered service that could target localized ads based on conversations captured from consumers' smart devices. According to the FTC, the service did not use voice data at all. It allegedly resold data-broker email lists at a markup and did not accurately place ads in customers' desired locations.

    That would be a straightforward deception case on its own. But the FTC went further. It also said the companies misled customers by claiming consumers had opted into the alleged listening service. And the agency added a point that should get the attention of every company making privacy-sensitive AI claims: if the service had actually worked as advertised, collecting and using consumers' voice data from inside their homes without adequate consent would itself violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.

    In other words, the problem was not only that the AI claim was false. The claimed AI capability was itself a privacy-risk representation.

    What The FTC Alleged

    The FTC announced proposed settlements with CMG Media Corporation, doing business as Cox Media Group, plus MindSift LLC and 1010 Digital Works LLC. The alleged customers were businesses buying advertising and marketing services, not the consumers whose supposed smart-device conversations were described in the pitch.

    The companies allegedly marketed an "Active Listening" advertising service that could listen in on consumer conversations overheard by smart devices, detect relevant conversations in real time, and use that information to target ads to consumers in specific geographic areas.

    The FTC says that was not true. According to the agency, the service was not based on voice data, did not listen to consumer conversations, and did not accurately place ads in the customers' desired locations. Instead, the service allegedly consisted of reselling email lists obtained from data brokers.

    The agency also says the companies told customers that consumers had opted into the service. But the FTC says the companies did not seek or obtain consumer consent. The agency specifically rejected the idea that consumers "opted in" by clicking through mandatory app terms of service.

    That consent point is the heart of the case for AI governance teams. Many AI products rely on layered data flows, third-party data, contractual assurances, or generalized platform terms. The FTC's framing says those shortcuts may not support privacy-sensitive claims, especially where the asserted capability involves intimate in-home voice data.

    The Settlement Terms

    The proposed orders require a total of $930,000 in payments: $880,000 from CMG and $25,000 each from MindSift and 1010 Digital Works. The money is intended to provide redress to CMG customers affected by the alleged practices.

    The proposed orders would also prohibit each defendant from making misrepresentations about:

    • the qualities or features of advertising or marketing services;
    • the collection and use of voice data, including whether consumers consented to collection, use, or disclosure; and
    • the geographic targeting capabilities of advertising or marketing services.

    The FTC issued the proposed administrative complaints and accepted the consent agreements by a 2-0 vote. The agreements remain subject to a 30-day public-comment period after publication in the Federal Register. If the orders become final, each violation may lead to a civil penalty of up to $53,088.

    As usual, the settlements resolve allegations. They are not admissions of liability or litigated findings.

    Why The Money Is Procedurally Important

    The $930,000 payment should not be read as the FTC simply using Section 13(b) to disgorge money from the companies.

    That route is no longer available after the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC. In AMG, the Court held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act authorizes the FTC to seek prospective injunctive relief, but does not authorize courts to award equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement for past conduct.

    That matters here because the FTC is resolving the Active Listening allegations through proposed administrative consent orders, not by relying on Section 13(b) alone to obtain monetary relief in federal court.

    If the parties agree, the FTC can include monetary terms in a settlement package. If they do not agree and the FTC wants monetary relief for an ordinary unfair or deceptive act or practice, the post-AMG route is more cumbersome. The FTC generally must proceed administratively under Section 5, obtain a final cease-and-desist order, and then seek consumer redress under Section 19 if the statutory standard is met, including that a reasonable person would have known under the circumstances that the conduct was dishonest or fraudulent.

    Civil penalties are different again. A first-time Section 5 deception allegation does not automatically produce civil penalties simply because the FTC believes the conduct was deceptive. Penalties typically require an independent penalty hook, such as violation of a final FTC order, violation of certain rules, or another statutory basis. That is why the FTC's release says that if these proposed orders become final, future violations of the orders may carry civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation.

    So the practical sequence is:

    • settlement now, if the parties agree to money and conduct restrictions;
    • prospective injunctive relief under Section 13(b), but not standalone disgorgement or restitution after AMG;
    • administrative Section 5 proceedings followed by Section 19 redress for qualifying deceptive or unfair practices if there is no settlement; and
    • civil penalties later if a final order, rule, or other penalty-triggering authority is violated.

    What About AT&T?

    There are two AT&T references that can get confused.

    The Supreme Court's FCC v. AT&T Inc. decision does not do much work here. That case addressed whether corporations have "personal privacy" interests under FOIA Exemption 7(C). It is not an FTC Act remedies case and does not change the AMG limit on Section 13(b), the Section 5 administrative route, or the Section 19 redress path.

    The more relevant AT&T case for FTC authority is FTC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, the Ninth Circuit's 2018 en banc decision about the FTC Act's common-carrier exemption. The Ninth Circuit held that the exemption is activity-based, not status-based: a company is outside FTC Section 5 authority only to the extent it is engaged in common-carrier activity.

    That issue is not central to the Active Listening settlements because CMG, MindSift, and 1010 Digital Works are being treated as marketing and advertising-service defendants, not common carriers. But the case would matter if a telecom, broadband, or smart-device company raised a common-carrier defense to an FTC challenge involving AI-powered targeting, voice data, or marketing claims. In that setting, the question would be whether the challenged conduct is common-carrier activity or a non-common-carrier advertising, data, or marketing practice.

    Why This Is More Than an AI-Washing Case

    AI-washing cases usually focus on whether a product actually uses AI, whether the claimed performance is substantiated, or whether the term "AI-powered" is being used as a sales shortcut.

    This case adds a different lesson: the advertised AI function may create its own legal problem.

    If a company claims it can listen to private conversations through smart devices, the claim is not just a product-capability statement. It is a statement about data collection, surveillance, consent, security, and consumer expectations inside the home.

    The FTC's line is unusually direct. It says mandatory app terms do not equal opt-in consent for an invasive service or for the use of consumers' voice data from inside their homes.

    That matters even for companies that are not doing audio targeting. The same logic can apply to AI claims involving:

    • biometric inference;
    • location-based targeting;
    • health or mental-health signals;
    • children's or teens' behavior;
    • financial vulnerability;
    • workplace monitoring;
    • emotion detection;
    • private-message analysis; or
    • household-device data.

    When the marketed AI feature depends on sensitive data, the claim must be true, substantiated, and backed by a consent theory that fits the sensitivity of the data.

    The "Means and Instrumentalities" Piece

    The FTC also charged MindSift and 1010 Digital Works with providing CMG the "means and instrumentalities" to deceive customers through marketing materials, sales pitches, and responses to customer questions.

    That is an important vendor and partner lesson. A company does not necessarily avoid risk because another company owns the customer relationship. If it supplies misleading AI claims, sales materials, or talking points that others use with customers, it can become part of the deception theory.

    Adtech and AI vendors should treat this as a documentation and channel-control problem. Marketing claims should be reviewed not only on the vendor's website, but also in partner decks, reseller scripts, pitch emails, FAQs, demos, and objection-handling materials.

    What Companies Should Do Now

    The FTC's case points to several practical controls.

    First, inventory AI capability claims. Identify every place the company says an advertising, analytics, targeting, personalization, monitoring, or customer-intelligence product is "AI-powered," "real time," "listening," "detecting," "predicting," or "consent based."

    Second, match each claim to evidence. The proof should show not only that the technology can do what the company says, but that the deployed product actually does it in the advertised context.

    Third, separate data-source claims from model claims. Saying a system uses AI does not prove what data it uses. Saying a system uses a data source does not prove that consumers consented to that use.

    Fourth, review consent language with sensitivity in mind. Broad mandatory terms may not support claims about invasive data collection. If the advertised feature involves voice, biometrics, location, children, health, finances, or household data, the consent record needs to be much stronger.

    Fifth, audit partner materials. Vendors and agencies should not assume that downstream sales claims are someone else's problem. Resellers should not repeat vendor claims without understanding what the product actually does and what evidence supports the claim.

    Finally, avoid "it would be worse if true" marketing. A privacy-invasive capability can create legal risk even when it is imaginary. If a company would need strong consent, privacy notices, security controls, and compliance review to lawfully operate the feature, it should not casually advertise that capability as a sales hook.

    Bottom Line

    The FTC's Active Listening settlements show how quickly AI marketing can become a privacy and consumer-protection case.

    The alleged service did not listen to consumers' conversations. But the FTC still treated the claim as serious because customers were told the service used AI to target ads from smart-device conversations and that consumers had opted in.

    That is the lesson for AI products generally: do not sell a capability the product does not have, and do not claim sensitive-data consent that the company cannot prove. When the AI story depends on surveillance-like data, the marketing review is also a privacy review.

    Sources

    Sources

  • Colorado’s AI Law Is Now a Rulemaking and a Court Fight

    Colorado’s AI Law Is Now a Rulemaking and a Court Fight

    Colorado's AI law is no longer just a statute on a compliance calendar. It is now moving on three tracks at once.

    The state has enacted a revised automated decision-making law. It has enacted a separate chatbot safety law. And the Colorado Attorney General has opened pre-rulemaking for both, with informal public input due July 13, 2026.

    At the same time, xAI is challenging Colorado's AI framework in federal court, and the U.S. Department of Justice has intervened against the state law. That means Colorado is becoming the first major test of what happens when state AI governance, federal constitutional objections, and practical compliance rulemaking all collide before the operative date.

    For companies, the practical point is simple: the January 1, 2027 compliance date still matters, but the rules that will define the day-to-day obligations are being shaped now.

    What Colorado Is Rulemaking

    The Colorado Attorney General's office is seeking input on rules under two laws:

    • Senate Bill 26-189, the Automated Decision-Making Technology Act.
    • House Bill 26-1263, the Chatbot Safety Act.

    SB26-189 repeals and reenacts Colorado's earlier AI framework with new requirements for automated decision-making technology used to materially influence consequential decisions. The statute defines automated decision-making technology, or ADMT, as technology that processes personal data and uses computation to generate outputs such as predictions, recommendations, classifications, rankings, scores, or other information used to make, guide, or assist a decision about an individual.

    The covered decision domains include education, employment, housing, financial or lending services, insurance, health-care services, and essential government services and public benefits.

    Starting January 1, 2027, developers of covered ADMT must provide deployers with technical documentation about intended uses, training-data categories, known limitations, and instructions for appropriate use and human review. Developers and deployers must also retain records needed to demonstrate compliance for at least three years.

    Deployers will have consumer-facing obligations too. They must provide notice at the point of interaction with covered ADMT. If a covered ADMT materially influences a consequential decision that results in an adverse outcome, the deployer must provide a plain-language post-adverse-outcome explanation within 30 days. Consumers also receive rights to request personal data, correct factually incorrect personal data used by the covered ADMT, and request meaningful human review and reconsideration.

    The Attorney General must adopt rules by January 1, 2027 to clarify post-adverse-outcome disclosures and meaningful human review. The statute also gives the Attorney General broader discretionary rulemaking authority, including the ability to clarify "materially influence."

    That phrase is likely to become one of the central compliance questions. The pre-rulemaking paper specifically asks for objective indicators that could distinguish material influence from de minimis or otherwise non-material use.

    The Chatbot Law Is Broader Than Disclosure

    HB26-1263 addresses publicly available conversational AI services that simulate human conversation through text, visual, or audio communications.

    Beginning January 1, 2027, operators must disclose that users are interacting with AI. They must use commercially reasonable or generally accepted methods to estimate user age. If an operator knows that a user or account holder is a minor, the law imposes additional duties, including restrictions on engagement incentives, safeguards against sexually explicit content and simulated emotional dependence, suicide and self-harm response protocols, privacy and account-setting tools, and annual reporting to the Attorney General.

    The law also prohibits operators from representing chatbot outputs as equivalent to services provided by specified licensed or certified professionals.

    The Chatbot Safety Act does not itself require rulemaking in the same way the ADMT Act does. But the Attorney General says rulemaking would help clarify compliance obligations, including the annual reporting requirement and any additional metrics necessary to assess safeguards and response protocols.

    That makes the rulemaking important for more than high-risk decision systems. Any company operating a public-facing conversational AI service with Colorado users should be watching the chatbot questions too.

    The Attorney General's Five Principles

    The pre-rulemaking paper says the Department of Law will use five principles:

    • Promote consumer rights.
    • Clarify ambiguities.
    • Facilitate efficient and expeditious compliance.
    • Harmonize with other state, national, and international frameworks.
    • Allow for innovation.

    That list matters because Colorado is trying to solve two problems at once. It wants enforceable consumer protections, but it also knows vague rules can make implementation harder and litigation more likely.

    The most important open questions include:

    • When does an ADMT "materially influence" a consequential decision?
    • What tools qualify as ADMT, and what tools merely summarize, organize, or present information?
    • How should the rules distinguish developers, deployers, and other participants in an AI supply chain?
    • What should post-adverse-outcome disclosures include in different sectors?
    • What does meaningful human review require in practice?
    • What metrics should chatbot operators report to the Attorney General?
    • How should Colorado's rules interoperate with other state, federal, and international AI, privacy, discrimination, and consumer-protection frameworks?

    Those are not abstract questions. They will determine whether the Colorado framework becomes a manageable compliance regime or a source of recurring uncertainty.

    The Litigation Shadow

    The rulemaking is happening while Colorado's AI law is under active federal challenge.

    xAI sued Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser in April 2026, challenging the state's algorithmic-discrimination framework. DOJ later moved to intervene, arguing that the Colorado law violates the Equal Protection Clause by requiring AI companies to prevent unintentional disparate impact based on protected characteristics while exempting some discrimination designed to advance diversity or redress historic discrimination.

    The DOJ intervention is significant even apart from the merits. It shows federal willingness to participate directly in litigation over state AI laws, especially where the federal government views state requirements as conflicting with national AI policy, constitutional limits, or innovation priorities.

    Separately, the docket reflects a procedural stay of Colorado Attorney General enforcement pending the preliminary-injunction sequence. That does not resolve the merits. It also does not make the rulemaking irrelevant. To the contrary, the preliminary-injunction schedule appears tied to final implementing rules, which makes the rulemaking record part of the litigation landscape.

    For covered companies, the wrong lesson would be to assume the lawsuit eliminates the need to prepare. The better reading is that the rulemaking record may define the obligations, the compliance burden, and the constitutional stakes.

    What Companies Should Do Now

    Companies do not need to wait for final regulations to start the useful work.

    First, inventory systems that may materially influence decisions about education, employment, housing, lending, insurance, health care, or government benefits. The key question is not whether a system is branded as AI. It is whether computation using personal data produces an output used to make, guide, or assist a decision about an individual.

    Second, map the supply chain. Colorado separates developer and deployer obligations, but many commercial arrangements are messier than that. Vendors, customers, integrators, model providers, and internal teams may all contribute to the final decision process.

    Third, test existing documentation against Colorado's likely documentation topics: intended uses, training-data categories, known limitations, appropriate use, human review, material updates, and compliance records.

    Fourth, design adverse-outcome workflows before the final rule lands. A deployer that cannot explain the role of ADMT in a specific adverse decision will struggle to meet a 30-day disclosure requirement.

    Fifth, review chatbot operations for minor-facing risk. Age estimation, recurring AI disclosure, self-harm escalation, emotional-dependence safeguards, privacy tools, and professional-services disclaimers are design and governance issues, not just legal copy.

    Finally, consider commenting before July 13. The Attorney General is asking for concrete feedback on ambiguity, unintended consequences, compliance burdens, sector-specific examples, and interoperability. Companies that wait for formal draft rules may miss the best chance to shape the starting point.

    Bottom Line

    Colorado is becoming an early operational test for state AI governance.

    The state is trying to turn broad statutes into working rules. The federal government is challenging parts of the framework. Companies are trying to build notices, documentation, review rights, and chatbot safeguards before January 2027.

    That makes the current pre-rulemaking window more than a routine comment period. It is an early chance to shape what compliance may look like when consequential-decision systems and conversational AI services are regulated in practice.

    Sources

    Sources

  • AI Court Rules Are Becoming Verification Rules

    AI Court Rules Are Becoming Verification Rules

    The next phase of legal AI regulation looks less like a blanket ban and more like a verification record.

    Florida now requires filers to stand behind the existence and accuracy of cited legal authorities. New York now allows AI-assisted court papers without a statewide disclosure requirement, but requires independent verification. The Ninth Circuit just sanctioned lawyers for AI hallucinations and lack of candor. A Mississippi federal judge just removed all four lawyers from a case after both sides filed AI-tainted briefs.

    Different courts. Same message: the tool is not the issue. The filing is.

    The New Rule: Verify First

    Florida's amended Rule 2.515(d)(2), effective June 15, 2026, says that by filing a document, the signer represents that "the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited." If that representation is false, sanctions can include reprimand, contempt, striking the filing, dismissal, costs, attorneys' fees, or other relief.

    That is deliberately broader than AI. A lawyer cannot escape the rule by saying a fake case came from a chatbot, a legal research product, an associate, local counsel, a vendor, or a recycled brief.

    New York's Part 161, effective June 1, takes a different route but lands in the same place. It permits AI use in court submissions and does not impose a statewide disclosure mandate. But users must understand the technology's limits and independently ensure that filings do not contain fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material.

    So the emerging split is not "AI allowed" versus "AI banned." It is disclosure versus no disclosure, with verification underneath both.

    The Sanctions Cases Are Getting Less Patient

    In Lnu v. Blanche, the Ninth Circuit sanctioned two lawyers after filings contained nonexistent cases, misattributed quotations, and serious misreadings of real cases. The court stressed that it was not punishing AI use by itself. It was punishing false filings and the lawyers' later lack of candor.

    That distinction matters. A bad citation is a serious problem. A bad explanation can become the larger one.

    The Mississippi sanctions order in Withers v. City of Aberdeen is even more vivid. The case started as a fee dispute brought by Louisiana lawyer Tom Withers III against Aberdeen, Mississippi. After transfer to the Northern District of Mississippi, the court found hallucinated authorities in filings from both sides.

    The plaintiff side included Louisiana pro hac vice counsel Kathleen M. Wilson and Mississippi local counsel Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway. The defense side included Texas pro hac vice counsel Kathryn Y. Williams and Mississippi local counsel Mark C. McClinton. The court removed all four lawyers from the case, revoked both pro hac vice admissions, barred the two out-of-state lawyers from appearing in the district for two years, imposed monetary sanctions, and referred the order to disciplinary authorities.

    The local-counsel lesson is hard to miss: signing is not clerical. Sponsoring is not ceremonial. If your name is on the filing, the verification problem is yours too.

    California May Be Next

    California is also moving from guidance toward rules. The State Bar has opened public comment on proposed amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct related to AI, after the California Supreme Court asked it to consider incorporating generative-AI guidance and addressing agentic AI tools.

    That is not a court-filing rule like Florida's or New York's. But it shows the same maturation curve. Soft guidance is starting to harden.

    What To Do Before The Next Filing

    Litigation teams should assume courts will ask a simple question: who checked this?

    • Check the courtwide rule, local rule, judge's standing order, and part rules before filing.
    • Identify whether AI touched research, drafting, editing, factual summaries, record citations, or proposed orders.
    • Verify every cited authority in an authoritative source.
    • Read the authority, not just the citation.
    • Confirm quotations, parentheticals, holdings, procedural posture, and subsequent history.
    • Trace facts and record cites back to the record.
    • Make signing, local, and sponsoring counsel confirm the verification process.
    • If an error is found, correct it quickly and candidly.

    The hardest AI errors are not always fake case names. Sometimes they are real cases used for propositions they do not support. A citation check is not enough; the proposition has to survive too.

    Bottom Line

    Courts are not focused on whether AI helped with the first draft. They want to know whether a lawyer verified the final filing.

    The practical rule is now simple: use the tool if the forum, client, confidentiality obligations, and governing orders allow it. But before anything is filed, someone qualified must verify the authorities, quotations, facts, and record references. And someone with a signature block must be ready to say so.

    For a broader inventory of court rules, sanctions orders, privilege decisions, protective-order restrictions, and tribunal guidance, see Clearon's AI Litigation Practice Tracker.

    Sources

    Sources

  • AI-Assisted Legal Filing Verification Checklist

    AI-Assisted Legal Filing Verification Checklist

    Generative AI can accelerate legal work, but it does not change who is responsible for a court filing. Use this checklist before filing any paper that may contain AI-assisted research, drafting, revision, or analysis.

    It is a practical starting point, not a substitute for the requirements applicable to a particular matter.

    Quick Rule

    Do not file an AI-assisted document until a qualified human has independently verified every legal authority, quotation, factual assertion, record citation, and representation about the proceeding against an authoritative source.

    If any item cannot be checked, stop and resolve it before filing.

    1. Confirm Permitted Use

    • [ ] Identify the AI tools used and the portions of the filing they may have affected.
    • [ ] Confirm the use complies with client instructions, protective orders, confidentiality duties, firm policy, and applicable law.
    • [ ] Check local rules, standing orders, judge-specific practices, and filing instructions for AI restrictions or disclosure requirements.
    • [ ] Confirm no protected information was entered into an unapproved system.

    2. Verify Authorities and Quotations

    • [ ] Open and read every cited authority in an authoritative source.
    • [ ] Confirm each citation identifies the correct authority and current version.
    • [ ] Confirm that each authority supports the precise proposition for which it is cited.
    • [ ] Check precedential status, subsequent history, negative treatment, and applicable citation limits.
    • [ ] Compare every quotation and pinpoint citation against the original source and surrounding context.
    • [ ] Confirm parentheticals, paraphrases, and descriptions accurately characterize the source.

    3. Verify Facts and the Record

    • [ ] Trace every material factual assertion to the record or another permissible source.
    • [ ] Open and verify every record citation, exhibit reference, transcript page, docket entry, and date.
    • [ ] Check names, entities, amounts, calculations, timelines, tables, and summaries.
    • [ ] Distinguish allegations, evidence, findings, holdings, inferences, and argument.

    4. Review and Approve the Final Filing

    • [ ] Have a qualified human independently review the final version.
    • [ ] Check the requested relief, legal standard, jurisdiction, deadlines, service representations, and procedural history.
    • [ ] Check for placeholders, invented citations, inconsistent names, unsupported cross-references, and omitted controlling authority.
    • [ ] Verify appendices, exhibits, certificates, signature blocks, and proposed orders.
    • [ ] Complete any required AI-use disclosures or certifications.
    • [ ] Obtain informed approval from the signing lawyer and responsible supervising, local, or sponsoring counsel.

    Ready to File

    • [ ] Every authority, quotation, fact, and record citation has been independently verified.
    • [ ] The final version has not changed since verification.
    • [ ] Applicable AI rules, client restrictions, and disclosure duties have been satisfied.
    • [ ] The signing lawyer can accurately explain how the filing was prepared and checked.
    • [ ] The team preserved a concise record of who reviewed what and when.

    If an Error Is Discovered After Filing

    • [ ] Stop using the affected material and notify responsible lawyers immediately.
    • [ ] Independently determine the error's full scope and preserve relevant records.
    • [ ] Assess duties to the client, court, opposing counsel, insurer, firm, and disciplinary authorities.
    • [ ] Correct material errors promptly and candidly using the required procedure.
    • [ ] Review other filings or matters that may have used the same workflow.

    Candor after discovery can materially affect the court's response. Recent sanctions orders show that concealment, blame shifting, and repeated inaccuracies can be more damaging than the original mistake.

    Bottom Line

    AI assistance does not reduce the duty of inquiry attached to a court filing. Independent verification, meaningful supervision, signer approval, and prompt candor are still the core requirements.

    For examples of how courts are applying those principles, see Oregon Supreme Court's First AI Hallucination Sanctions Show What Courts Punish Most and Clearon's AI Litigation Practice Tracker.

    Sources

    Sources

  • Oregon Supreme Court’s First AI Hallucination Sanctions Show What Courts Punish Most

    Oregon Supreme Court’s First AI Hallucination Sanctions Show What Courts Punish Most

    The Oregon Supreme Court has issued its first sanctions orders involving court filings attributed to generative artificial intelligence. The significance is not a new AI-specific rule. It is that the court applied familiar duties of accuracy, reasonable inquiry, supervision, and candor to filings containing AI-generated errors.

    They also show that the response after an error is discovered can matter almost as much as the original filing.

    In one case, a self-represented litigant accepted responsibility, fully responded to the court, and received a $500 sanction with permission to submit a corrected filing. In the other, self-represented litigants acknowledged fabricated authorities but submitted more nonexistent cases less than 12 hours after the court's show-cause order. The court struck their filings and dismissed the proceeding.

    The lesson extends well beyond Oregon and beyond self-represented litigants. Courts across the country have imposed monetary sanctions, fee awards, dismissal, disqualification, practice suspensions, bar referrals, mandatory disclosures, and other remedies for filings containing fabricated or materially inaccurate authorities.

    Key Takeaways

    • *The Oregon Supreme Court sanctioned self-represented litigants, not lawyers.* The orders make clear that the obligation not to inject false authority into a proceeding applies to everyone who files.
    • *Courts are punishing the filing, not the mere use of AI.* The recurring issue is whether the signer verified that authorities exist, quotations are accurate, and cases support the propositions asserted.
    • *Candor changes the sanction analysis.* Prompt disclosure, correction, and acceptance of responsibility can mitigate sanctions. Repetition, concealment, blame shifting, and misleading explanations can sharply increase them.
    • *The signature and supervision duties are nondelegable.* Lawyers cannot avoid responsibility by pointing to an associate, contract lawyer, local counsel, vendor, internal AI tool, or firm policy.
    • *Financial penalties are only part of the risk.* Dismissal, disqualification, suspension, bar referral, and mandatory notice to clients and other courts can be more consequential than a fine.

    Oregon's Two New Orders

    The Oregon Supreme Court issued both orders on June 4, 2026, and announced them publicly the next day.

    Aldridge v. Tussing: Repeating the Error Led to Dismissal

    In Aldridge v. Tussing, the relators filed a petition for a writ of mandamus supported by nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations. The court ordered them to verify every citation under penalty of perjury, explain the errors, and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

    The relators acknowledged that fabricated authorities had been included and attributed the errors to a service called LegalAI. But less than 12 hours after receiving the show-cause order, they submitted another declaration containing at least four nonexistent cases.

    The court struck the petition and the show-cause response and dismissed the proceeding. Its explanation was direct: injecting false precedent undermines the integrity of a proceeding, and repeating the conduct in response to a show-cause order warrants a meaningful sanction.

    Witkin v. McGreevy: Acceptance of Responsibility Mitigated the Result

    In Witkin v. McGreevy, a self-represented respondent filed a response containing fictitious authorities and inaccurate legal arguments generated with AI. After receiving a show-cause order, the respondent addressed each fabricated authority, explained the AI use, and accepted responsibility.

    The court still struck the filing and imposed a stipulated $500 sanction. But it allowed the respondent to file a corrected response, provided that any revised filing certified that every cited, quoted, or paraphrased source of law had been verified to exist.

    The contrast is the point. Both filings contained false authority. The litigant who responded candidly and corrected course received a limited financial sanction and another opportunity to file. The litigants who repeated the misconduct after a direct warning lost the proceeding.

    Oregon Already Had a Six-Figure Warning for Lawyers

    The state-court orders arrived only months after a separate federal case from Oregon demonstrated how large the financial exposure can become.

    In Couvrette v. Wisnovsky, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon addressed summary-judgment briefing containing nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations. The court struck the briefing, dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, imposed monetary sanctions, and awarded the opposing parties $94,704.38 in fees and costs directly resulting from the briefing.

    The March 2026 fee order allocated the award between lead counsel and local counsel. The local lawyer was ordered to pay 15% after the court found that he had failed to meaningfully participate despite serving as required local counsel for a lawyer admitted pro hac vice. The lead lawyer was ordered to pay the remaining 85%. The court also required local counsel to attach the sanctions order to future motions in which he sought to sponsor pro hac vice counsel in the district.

    Together with the court's earlier monetary sanctions, the financial consequences exceeded $110,000. More important, the case shows that local counsel and supervising lawyers cannot treat their role as providing a name, bar number, or signature while leaving the substance unchecked.

    The Sanctions Menu Is Expanding

    The early headline case was Mata v. Avianca. In 2023, the Southern District of New York imposed a $5,000 penalty after lawyers submitted fabricated cases and fake opinions generated by ChatGPT and continued to defend the material after its authenticity was questioned. The court also required notice to the client and to judges falsely identified as authors of the fabricated opinions.

    Since then, courts have used a much broader range of remedies:

    • *Sanctions for every signer:* In Wadsworth v. Walmart, the District of Wyoming imposed $5,000 in combined sanctions and revoked one lawyer's pro hac vice admission after a filing cited eight nonexistent cases. The court treated the duty to ensure a filing is supported by existing law as nondelegable.
    • *A $10,000 appellate sanction:* In Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., the California Court of Appeal imposed $10,000 in sanctions after an appellate brief contained fabricated quotations and other inaccurate authority. The published opinion warned that lawyers must personally read and verify the authorities they cite.
    • *Disqualification and bar referrals instead of a fine:* In Johnson v. Dunn, the Northern District of Alabama publicly reprimanded and disqualified three lawyers, required broad distribution of the sanctions order, and referred the matter to licensing authorities. The court concluded that a fine and public embarrassment were insufficient deterrents.
    • *Suspension from appellate practice:* In Lnu v. Blanche, the Ninth Circuit imposed $2,500 sanctions on each of two lawyers, suspended both from practice before the circuit for six months, required notice to clients, opposing counsel, judges, and the lawyers' firm, and imposed a two-year AI-use disclosure and verification requirement. The court emphasized that the more serious discipline resulted from repeated failures of candor after the errors came to light.
    • *Both sides sanctioned:* In Withers v. City of Aberdeen, the Northern District of Mississippi sanctioned and removed all four lawyers after filings from both sides contained hallucinated authorities. The two out-of-state lawyers were also barred from appearing in the district for two years.

    These cases do not establish a uniform sanctions schedule. They show that courts are calibrating remedies to the conduct, the harm, the lawyer's role, prior warnings, remediation, and candor.

    What Courts Appear to Punish Most

    The orders point to several aggravating factors.

    Filing Without Reading the Authorities

    Checking whether a case name exists is not enough. Courts expect lawyers to read the authority and confirm that quotations are accurate, procedural posture is correctly described, and the case actually supports the proposition asserted.

    The Ninth Circuit drew a useful distinction between fabricated authorities and subtler inaccuracies. A fake case may be easy to detect. A real case mischaracterized by an AI tool may be more dangerous because it can survive a superficial citation check.

    Treating Signatures as Administrative

    Courts repeatedly reject the idea that a lawyer can lend a signature without assuming responsibility for the filing. That principle reaches supervising lawyers, local counsel, partners, and lawyers whose names appear in signature blocks even when they did not personally use AI.

    Repeating or Concealing the Problem

    An inaccurate filing creates a serious problem. Misleading the court about how it happened, replacing fake citations without disclosing the original problem, or submitting additional fabrications after a warning creates a larger one.

    The Oregon Supreme Court's two orders make the distinction unusually clear. So does the Ninth Circuit's order in Lnu, where the court said lesser sanctions might have been warranted if the lawyers had promptly disclosed the AI use and accepted responsibility.

    Relying on a Policy Without Enforcing It

    Having a written AI policy is not a defense when actual workflows allow unverified material to reach the court. Policies must identify who checks citations, quotations, propositions, facts, and record references before filing. They also need a clear escalation process when an error is discovered.

    What Litigation Teams Should Do Now

    For a practical pre-filing workflow, use Clearon's AI-Assisted Legal Filing Verification Checklist.

    • Require verification of every citation, quotation, factual assertion, and record reference against the original source before filing.
    • Make the signing lawyer responsible for confirming that verification occurred.
    • Apply the same controls to work prepared by associates, contract lawyers, local counsel, clients, vendors, and AI tools.
    • Preserve enough information about the drafting and verification process to explain it accurately if questioned.
    • When an error is discovered, notify the court and opposing counsel promptly, identify the nature and source of the error, and propose a concrete correction.
    • Do not describe a fabricated authority as a typographical error or silently swap in a different citation.
    • Train lawyers to detect mischaracterizations of real cases, not only nonexistent citations.
    • Treat show-cause orders as urgent risk events requiring independent review and senior oversight.

    Bottom Line

    The Oregon Supreme Court's first AI-related sanctions orders do not ban AI. They show how courts protect the integrity of filings when AI-assisted work reaches the docket without real verification.

    The technology may explain how a false citation appeared, but it does not change who is responsible for filing it. Courts are increasingly focused on three questions: Was the filing verified? Who accepted responsibility for it? What happened after the error was discovered?

    The emerging sanctions record suggests that the last question can determine whether the result is a correctable mistake, a monetary penalty, a lost case, or a career-level disciplinary problem.

    For the broader court-rule landscape, see Federal Court AI Orders Are Splitting Into Clear Patterns and Clearon's AI Litigation Practice Tracker.

    Sources

    Sources

  • Trump’s New AI Executive Order Turns Frontier Models Into a Cybersecurity Priority

    Trump’s New AI Executive Order Turns Frontier Models Into a Cybersecurity Priority

    President Donald Trump signed a new artificial intelligence executive order on June 2, 2026, and the center of gravity is clear: cybersecurity, critical infrastructure, and the most capable frontier models.

    The order, titled "Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security," does not create a broad AI licensing regime. It expressly says it should not be read to authorize mandatory preclearance, licensing, or permitting for the release of new AI models. But it still gives the federal government a more formal role near the front end of model release: identifying high-capability frontier models and arranging early, secure access before those models are shared more widely with trusted partners.

    This is not a general-purpose AI rulebook. It is a national-security and cybersecurity order. Advanced AI is treated as both a defensive asset and a possible accelerant for cyber risk.

    What the Order Does

    Four pieces do most of the work.

    First, it directs federal cybersecurity leaders to prioritize AI-enabled cyber defense across national security systems, Department of War systems, and civilian federal government systems. Within 30 days, CISA, in consultation with OMB and other White House cyber and national-security officials, is directed to issue binding operational directives and other guidance where appropriate.

    Second, it creates an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse. Treasury, the Department of War through NSA, DHS through CISA, and the National Cyber Director are directed to form a voluntary clearinghouse with AI companies and critical-infrastructure operators. The goal is to coordinate vulnerability scanning, validation, remediation, and patch distribution.

    Third, it directs federal officials to develop a classified benchmarking process for advanced cyber capabilities in AI models. That process will help determine when an AI model should be treated as a "covered frontier model" under the order.

    Fourth, it calls for a voluntary framework under which AI developers can work with the federal government to determine whether models under development meet the covered-frontier-model threshold. Developers may then give the government secure access to covered models, with confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, intellectual-property, and nondisclosure protections, for up to 30 days before release to other trusted partners.

    That is the legal story for AI companies. The order does not say, "submit your model for approval." It says the federal government wants a structured way to spot advanced cyber capability, review certain models before broader trusted-partner release, and coordinate deployment where national cybersecurity interests are implicated.

    Why It Matters

    The order keeps the administration's pro-innovation posture, but it also shows where federal oversight is likely to harden first. Not around generalized consumer AI rules, at least not here. Around cybersecurity, national security, critical infrastructure, and model capability thresholds.

    That should get the attention of several groups.

    AI developers will need to assess whether their model-development processes can support secure government engagement without compromising trade secrets, release timelines, or customer commitments. Even a voluntary framework can become practically significant when major labs, cloud platforms, federal contractors, or critical-infrastructure vendors are involved.

    Federal contractors and regulated entities should watch the CISA and OMB guidance that follows. The order directs action on federal systems, but it also points to access for state and local authorities and operators of critical infrastructure, including rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities. That suggests downstream cybersecurity expectations may reach beyond Washington.

    Legal and compliance teams should also pay attention to the documentation burden. If a model could plausibly fall within a classified benchmarking process, companies will want a defensible internal record of model capabilities, cyber-risk testing, access controls, deployment plans, and third-party release decisions.

    The Frontier-Model Piece

    "Covered frontier model" may be the most consequential phrase in the order.

    The order directs federal officials to build a classified benchmarking process to assess advanced cyber capabilities and identify the threshold for that designation. The designation decision is assigned to NSA leadership in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, CISA, and Department of War representatives.

    That approach keeps the most sensitive capability assessment out of public view. It also means companies may never get a clean public checklist for what makes a model covered. They may instead be dealing with a government-facing process built around classified benchmarks, agency judgment, and secure communications with federal officials.

    From a legal-risk perspective, this creates several practical questions:

    • How will a company determine whether to initiate voluntary engagement?
    • What internal evidence should support the company's view that a model is or is not likely to meet the threshold?
    • How will pre-release access be governed contractually?
    • How will intellectual property, model weights, system prompts, evaluations, logs, and vulnerability findings be protected?
    • What happens if a company disagrees with the government's assessment?

    The order does not answer those questions. It starts the process that will create them.

    Not a Licensing Regime, But Not Nothing

    The anti-licensing language is not throwaway. It appears designed to reassure industry that the administration is not recreating a mandatory pre-release approval system for frontier AI.

    But legal teams should not mistake that reassurance for irrelevance. Voluntary frameworks can still shape market expectations, procurement preferences, liability arguments, insurance underwriting, and board-level risk controls. If the federal government creates a recognized process for secure early access and frontier-model cyber benchmarking, companies that ignore it may eventually have to explain why.

    That is especially true in sectors where AI models are deployed into cybersecurity products, vulnerability detection, incident response, financial services, health systems, utilities, or other sensitive environments.

    The Altman-Musk Divide

    The industry's early reaction shows why that anti-licensing language was probably necessary.

    OpenAI has publicly embraced the final order's basic structure. Sam Altman reportedly said the order "gets the balance right," and OpenAI's chief global affairs officer, Chris Lehane, framed the issue as one for democratic institutions, technical experts, and public stakeholders. That fits OpenAI's broader posture: accept government-informed safety testing and standards for high-capability systems, while resisting a regime that turns every major model release into a permission slip.

    Elon Musk and xAI appear to be in a different, more skeptical lane. Axios reported that Musk, along with Meta's Mark Zuckerberg and White House AI adviser David Sacks, spoke with President Trump before an earlier version of the order was delayed. The final version that emerged was narrower: voluntary rather than mandatory, built around a 30-day pre-release access window, and explicit that it does not authorize preclearance, licensing, or permitting for new AI models.

    That does not mean xAI is rejecting federal testing. In May, xAI, Google, and Microsoft agreed to give the federal AI Safety Institute, now CAISI, access to models for security testing before release. The better reading is narrower: xAI appears willing to participate in government model testing, while the Axios reporting suggests Musk was part of the industry pushback against a heavier pre-release review regime.

    For legal teams, that distinction is useful. The frontier labs are not simply dividing into "regulated" and "unregulated" camps. They are drawing boundaries around the legal character of the process: voluntary cooperation, safety benchmarking, and secure government access on one side; mandatory licensing, public approval gates, and open-ended release delays on the other.

    Enforcement Against AI-Enabled Cybercrime

    The order also directs the Attorney General to prioritize enforcement against people who use AI to unlawfully access or damage computer systems, steal data, or facilitate other crimes. It specifically references federal computer crime and fraud statutes, including 18 U.S.C. 1028, 1030, and 1343.

    That section is short, but it does some work. It frames AI-enabled cyber misuse as an enforcement priority rather than a wholly new legal category. The administration appears to be saying that existing criminal laws already reach many AI-assisted cyber offenses, and DOJ should treat AI use as a reason to prioritize those cases.

    Companies should read that as a controls issue. AI agents, autonomous scanning tools, security research workflows, and employee use of AI in technical environments all need clear authorization boundaries. A tool that accelerates defensive work can also create evidence problems if it is used the wrong way.

    What To Watch Next

    The next 30 to 60 days will tell us more than the headline did.

    CISA guidance and any binding operational directives will show how federal agencies are expected to use AI-enabled cyber tools and whether contractors will see new expectations in security programs. Treasury, NSA, DHS, and the National Cyber Director's clearinghouse work will show how much private-sector coordination the government can realistically achieve. The classified benchmarking process will determine whether "covered frontier model" becomes a narrow national-security category or a broader marker for advanced AI cyber capability.

    The order is not a comprehensive AI law. It is not a privacy law, a copyright law, or a civil-liability framework. It does show where federal AI governance may harden first: cybersecurity.

    For AI companies and the organizations that rely on them, the practical takeaway is direct: model capability, cybersecurity readiness, release governance, and critical-infrastructure impact now belong in the same review process.

    Editorial Notes

    Suggested dek: The June 2 order does not create a mandatory AI licensing system, but it does create a federal path for frontier-model cyber benchmarking, secure early access, and AI-enabled cyber defense.

    Suggested social: The new AI executive order is not a broad licensing regime. It is something more targeted: a cybersecurity and national-security framework for frontier-model capability, pre-release access, and critical infrastructure defense.

    Related follow-ons:

    • What AI companies should document before engaging with the voluntary frontier-model framework.
    • Why CISA's next AI guidance may matter more than the executive order itself.
    • How AI-enabled cybercrime enforcement could affect companies using autonomous agents.

    Sources

  • Disney v. Midjourney and the Broader Copyright Question for AI Users

    Disney v. Midjourney and the Broader Copyright Question for AI Users

    Disney v. Midjourney makes the AI copyright fight more concrete.

    The case is about training data, but it is also about outputs that allegedly look too much like famous protected characters and franchise imagery.

    What the case is actually about

    Disney, Universal, and affiliated rights holders sued Midjourney in federal court in Los Angeles on June 11, 2025.

    The case is:

    • Case: Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Midjourney Inc.
    • Court: C.D. Cal.
    • Docket: 2:25-cv-05275
    • Status: pending

    The studios' position is straightforward. They say Midjourney was built using copyrighted works and that the service can generate outputs that are too close to protected characters and expressive elements. The complaint reportedly includes example prompts and output images involving well-known properties, which is part of why the case landed so clearly in public discussion.

    Two examples from the complaint show why the output issue is getting so much attention:

    Cropped complaint comparison image showing an alleged Midjourney Homer Simpson output beside Disney reference images.
    Cropped complaint comparison image showing an alleged Midjourney Homer Simpson output beside Disney reference images. Source: Complaint, Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Midjourney Inc., No. 2:25-cv-05275 (C.D. Cal.), page 32.
    Cropped complaint comparison image showing an alleged Midjourney Minions output beside Universal reference images.
    Cropped complaint comparison image showing an alleged Midjourney Minions output beside Universal reference images. Source: Complaint, Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Midjourney Inc., No. 2:25-cv-05275 (C.D. Cal.), page 51.

    Midjourney’s likely response is also familiar. Training is not the same as republishing a work. Not every prompted image is substantially similar enough to infringe. And not every reference to a known character, franchise, or visual style cleanly collapses into liability for the platform.

    That is why this case matters. Both sides are arguing about where the legal line sits when a model produces commercially useful images that unmistakably evoke existing protected expression.

    Can businesses use Midjourney images commercially?

    Midjourney’s published guidance says customers generally own the images and videos they create and may use them commercially, subject to its terms and plan requirements. For businesses with more than $1 million in annual gross revenue, Midjourney says a Pro or Mega Plan is required for commercial use.

    That contractual permission is only one part of the analysis. It does not guarantee that a particular output is noninfringing, that the user owns every element in the output, or that the output qualifies for copyright protection. Midjourney’s terms provide the service and assets on an “as is” basis, disclaim a warranty of noninfringement, and place responsibility for using or redistributing assets on the customer.

    For business use, the practical controls should include:

    • confirming that the account and subscription plan permit the intended commercial use;
    • screening prompts and outputs for recognizable characters, logos, protected expression, and other third-party rights;
    • retaining records of prompts, source materials, edits, and human review;
    • requiring additional clearance before using AI-generated images in prominent campaigns, products, or customer deliverables; and
    • reviewing vendor terms regularly because platform rules and protections can change.

    Commercial-use permission from the platform answers whether Midjourney permits the use. It does not answer whether a rights holder may challenge it.

    Related Clearon AI analysis: OpenAI copyright MDL and data governance and AI-generated code and copyleft risk.

    The bigger issue

    For companies, the issue is not just whether Midjourney wins or loses.

    It is whether the business has decided what level of copyright and brand-adjacent risk it is actually willing to accept when employees use generative AI in public-facing work.

    Many legal teams are comfortable saying obvious character replication is out of bounds. The harder question is the gray zone. Is the company willing to rely on a fair use argument if a marketing image is styled to evoke Disney, South Park, or another highly recognizable visual world? Is it comfortable arguing that a prompt drew on a style, not a protected work? Is it willing to defend that position after publication, in a customer campaign, or in court?

    That is the governance issue this case sharpens. Companies need a view on where they are comfortable being aggressive, where they want to be conservative, and which arguments they are actually prepared to stand behind if challenged.

    They also need to account for contract risk, not just copyright doctrine. Most, if not all, major AI image providers put the user on the hook for at least some infringement risk tied to prompts, inputs, or outputs. Even when a vendor offers limited indemnity, it is often narrow and conditional. So a company deciding to operate in the gray zone may also be deciding that it, not the service provider, will carry much of the downstream claim risk.

    The Clearon AI takeaway

    Disney v. Midjourney turns AI copyright risk into a risk-allocation question for users, not just model developers.

    The practical lesson is less “never touch this” and more “decide, in advance, which copyright arguments your company is truly willing to own.”

    Sources

  • The UK Is Moving Automated Decision-Making Away From the EU Model

    The UK Is Moving Automated Decision-Making Away From the EU Model

    Estimated reading time: 3 minutesTopics: Policy & Compliance · AI Governance · International AI Regulation · Legal Risk · In-House AI Adoption

    The UK's recent data-law changes matter for AI governance because they suggest a real break from the EU approach to automated decision-making.

    If you want the official legislation, the UK law is here: Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

    Under section 80 of the Data (Use and Access) Act, the UK has replaced the old Article 22 framework with a more permissive structure: automated decision-making with safeguards, rather than a prohibition-first starting point.

    This is a real shift

    Under the classic Article 22 model, the analysis usually began with a restriction. The UK's newer approach is more operational and less categorical. The question becomes less "is this forbidden unless an exception applies?" and more "what safeguards, transparency, and review rights are required when this happens?"

    That may sound subtle, but it matters. It gives companies more room to deploy automated systems, while also increasing pressure to justify how those systems are used.

    What multinational teams should watch

    A lot of organizations still hope they can run one clean global policy for AI-enabled decision-making. The UK’s move makes that harder. If the EU and UK keep drifting apart here, legal teams may need separate assessments for profiling, scoring, and model-driven recommendations that affect individuals.

    That does not just affect flashy AI products. It can reach ordinary systems used in employment, insurance, financial services, fraud detection, customer eligibility, and prioritization workflows.

    The takeaway

    The UK is not abandoning regulation. It is choosing a different posture. A permission-with-safeguards model still requires governance, and in some ways it requires better governance because companies have more room to act.

    Cross-border AI compliance is starting to look less like one policy problem and more like jurisdiction management. That is the part legal teams should plan around now.

  • Illinois Is Turning AI in Employment Into a Notice and Recordkeeping Problem

    Illinois Is Turning AI in Employment Into a Notice and Recordkeeping Problem

    Estimated reading time: 3 minutesTopics: Employment / Workplace AI · Policy & Compliance · AI Governance · Legal Risk · In-House AI Adoption

    Illinois is becoming one of the clearest examples of where employment AI regulation is heading: notice, documentation, and practical scrutiny of how tools influence decisions.

    If you want the official bill history, Illinois’s law is here: HB 3773. The Illinois Department of Human Rights also has a direct summary page here: Artificial Intelligence in Employment.

    Recent draft rules from the Illinois Department of Human Rights would implement the state's newer restrictions on AI discrimination in employment. The bigger point is the compliance model taking shape around them.

    The trigger looks broad

    The reported standard is not limited to futuristic hiring bots. The rules would apply when AI is used “to influence or facilitate” covered employment decisions, including recruiting, hiring, promotion, discipline, discharge, training selection, and terms or conditions of employment.

    That deserves attention because the notice trigger may be broader than many employers expect. If AI is involved in screening resumes, targeting job ads, evaluating candidates, analyzing interviews, or helping shape employment outcomes, notice may be required even if the employer did not intend discrimination.

    Employment AI is becoming an operations issue

    The trend line is clear: employment AI law is moving away from “prove the tool caused unlawful bias first” and toward “tell people when the tool is in the process, document what it is doing, and be ready to defend the workflow.”

    That is why legal teams need a real inventory of where AI shows up in the employment stack, not just in one recruiting product. AI can appear in sourcing, ranking, interview analytics, assessments, chatbots, promotion systems, and workforce-monitoring features.

    The takeaway

    The answer is not to ban every automated feature. It is to map the tools, define which ones influence covered decisions, and decide where notice, contract review, testing, and documentation are required.

    Illinois is sending a simple message: if AI helps shape employment outcomes, silence is not a compliance strategy.