Commentary
A lawful task, an unauthorized intrusion
A lawful instruction, an unauthorized intrusion, and the choices that should determine responsibility.
Read moreKey topic
Liability and safety
How courts assign responsibility when automated systems cause or compound harm.
Analysis
Design as risk
How social-media litigation is reshaping the argument over AI liability.
Read moreAnalysis
AI defamation: from the model's account to the record
Starbuck v. Google tests the evidence behind generated statements, fabricated sources, and notice to the people responsible for AI outputs.
Read moreAnalysis
What happens when AI governance enters the record?
Private assurances and California's frontier-model law expose the difference between governance evidence reconstructed in litigation and records created before a dispute.
Read moreAnalysis
When the AI becomes a witness against you
Three federal rulings show why AI-related protection disputes turn on governing doctrine, procedural posture, counsel direction, and the material actually claimed.
Read moreRecords on this topic
N.D. Cal. · Nos. 3:26-cv-03701 through 3:26-cv-03707
Stacey v. Altman (Tumbler Ridge failure-to-warn cluster)
The original seven related suits by families of the Tumbler Ridge mass-shooting victims allege that OpenAI's systems flagged the shooter's gun-violence planning, that safety staff urged notifying the RCMP, and that leadership instead deactivated an account the shooter re-registered within minutes. The complaints plead negligence, design defect, failure to warn, UCL violations, wrongful death, and survival claims. All allegations are pleaded, not found.
N.D. Cal. · No. 4:24-cv-04722-YGR
Musk v. Altman
The court adopted an advisory limitations verdict without reaching the Phase I merits. It did not certify the ruling for immediate appeal, and Phase II claims remained under pending dismissal motions and mediation.
Post-trial order (RECAP) (opens in a new tab)Summary-judgment order (RECAP) (opens in a new tab)Fraud-claim dismissal order (RECAP) (opens in a new tab)Advisory verdict form (RECAP) (opens in a new tab)Rule 54(b) request (RECAP) (opens in a new tab)Opposition to Rule 54(b) request (RECAP) (opens in a new tab)Microsoft joinder (RECAP) (opens in a new tab)Joint index of admitted exhibits (RECAP) (opens in a new tab)Remaining-claims order (RECAP) (opens in a new tab)Mediation order (RECAP) (opens in a new tab)Remaining-claims list and answer stipulation (RECAP) (opens in a new tab)Plaintiffs' answer to amended counterclaims (RECAP) (opens in a new tab)Public CourtListener docket (opens in a new tab)
N.D. Cal. · No. 4:26-cv-10743
British Columbia v. Altman
The Province of British Columbia and the Peace River South school board allege that ChatGPT reinforced violent ideation and challenge product design, warnings and the response to an allegedly known threat. These are complaint allegations, not findings.
M.D. Fla. · No. 6:24-cv-01903
Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.
A Florida pleading-stage ruling treated the application as a product insofar as claims concerned app defects rather than ideas or expression. It did not finally settle the speech classification of chatbot output.
California · binding law
California SB 53
California's Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act creates tiered disclosure, framework, incident-reporting, and employee-protection duties for statutorily defined frontier developers.