How Courts Are Responding to the Wave of AI-Generated Lawsuits

American courts have begun actively discussing the legal status of documents prepared with the help of AI chatbots. In February, a federal court in Michigan ruled that a user’s correspondence with ChatGPT during lawsuit preparation qualifies as protected legal work, inaccessible to the opposing party. On the same day, a New York court issued an opposing decision: documents created using Claude cannot be considered confidential, as AI is not a lawyer, and developers may share data with third parties.

Judge Allison Goddard of California noted that individuals without legal training often receive erroneous advice from chatbots. For instance, one plaintiff demanded $700,000 for an injury sustained in a store, though the actual claim value was significantly lower. Goddard compared such situations to "Dr. Google attending law school."

The question of liability for AI errors also sparks debate. In March, Japanese insurer Nippon Life Insurance filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, accusing ChatGPT of unauthorized legal practice. The company claims the chatbot helped a plaintiff reopen a closed case, leading to a wave of baseless claims. OpenAI sought dismissal, arguing that ChatGPT is not a lawyer and lacks legal expertise. The case remains under review.

Lawmakers are attempting to regulate this area. In New York, a bill has been proposed to prohibit chatbots from posing as lawyers, even if they disclose their AI status. The US Congress is also discussing legislation to ban chatbots from acting as licensed professionals. While these initiatives lack support, the debate continues.

Despite the risks, many citizens continue using AI to prepare for court proceedings. Judge Braswell noted that people have become more confident in responding to court questions after practicing with chatbots. "The judicial system is complex to understand, but AI makes it slightly more accessible," she emphasized.