Close Menu
    Technik

    DoNotPay muss 193.000 US-Dollar Entschädigung für „weltweit ersten Roboteranwalt“ zahlen – Laut FTC hat das Unternehmen die Genauigkeit seines KI-Anwalts nie mit einem echten menschlichen Anwalt getestet


    DoNotPay muss 193.000 US-Dollar Entschädigung für „weltweit ersten Roboteranwalt“ zahlen – Laut FTC hat das Unternehmen die Genauigkeit seines KI-Anwalts nie mit einem echten menschlichen Anwalt getestet

    https://gizmodo.com/donotpay-has-to-pay-up-over-worlds-first-robot-lawyer-2000503265

    View 13 Comments

    13 Comments

    2. marketrent on

      Excerpts from [article](https://gizmodo.com/donotpay-has-to-pay-up-over-worlds-first-robot-lawyer-2000503265) by Matt Novak about FTC [statement](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-announces-crackdown-deceptive-ai-claims-schemes) and [complaint](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/DoNotPayInc-Complaint.pdf):

      *[…] DoNotPay has agreed to pay $193,000 and will be required to send a notice to any previous customers who used the AI lawyer from 2021 to 2023 warning about the limitations of the subscription service.*

      *The settlement will also “prohibit the company from making claims about its ability to substitute for any professional service without evidence to back it up,” according to a statement Wednesday from the FTC.*

      *The FTC complaint, which is available to read online, is filled with some rather odd details, including a quote that appeared on the DoNotPay website that purported to be from the Los Angeles Times: “What this robot lawyer can do is astonishingly similar—if not more—to what human lawyers do.”*

      *In reality, the quote was from the Los Angeles Times High School Insider website, a user-generated content platform for high school students, according to the FTC. […]*

    4. autotldr on

      This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://gizmodo.com/donotpay-has-to-pay-up-over-worlds-first-robot-lawyer-2000503265) reduced by 77%. (I’m a bot)
      *****
      > DoNotPay, the AI company best known for helping users cancel unwanted subscriptions and fight parking tickets, has reached a settlement with the FTC over an AI chatbot that was advertised as "The world's first robot lawyer." The AI lawyer didn't live up to its claims and DoNotPay never properly tested the chatbot tool, according to the FTC. In fact, the company reportedly never even hired a real human lawyer to work on the product.

      > DoNotPay has agreed to pay $193,000 and will be required to send a notice to any previous customers who used the AI lawyer from 2021 to 2023 warning about the limitations of the subscription service.

      > The AI tool also created legal documents like NDAs, business contracts, prenuptial agreements, and custody agreements, according to the FTC. DoNotPay had initially planned to use its AI lawyer in a physical courtroom but shut down that plan in early 2023 after receiving threats from State Bar associations.

      *****
      [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/1fpgfa1/donotpay_has_to_pay_193k_settlement_over_worlds/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ “Version 2.02, ~694358 tl;drs so far.”) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr “PM’s and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.”) | *Top* *keywords*: **DoNotPay**^#1 **FTC**^#2 **lawyer**^#3 **company**^#4 **statement**^#5

    5. AnotherUsername901 on

      Every company that rushed ai out thinking it was a Easy way to replace worker’s deserves this.

    6. SpoonFed_1 on

      I’m glad they fined him.

      that guy started out as the hero against corporate/municipal greed and ended up doing the same dang thing.

    7. throwawaystedaccount on

      I have very mixed feelings about this.

      – The idea and aim of this service is too appealing to ignore. Imagine when lawyers get serious competition from AI, the exorbitant fees they charge will go down and they problems that bad faith legal actors create might be broken much easier (IANAL, YMMV)

      – Peter Thiel put money into helping grow and sustain this, so I don’t know if it is actually a good thing. He often has grand plans for bad ends.

      – Lina Khan, a force for good in general, is fighting this because of misleading advertising / misrepresentation. But to me, the service is actually a promising alternative to depending on lawyers.

      – While it hurts the business today, in the long run, it teaches the founder that he needs to better the quality and become compliant with the actual law, and not get carried away by the “brilliance” or novelty of the tool. It must face sharp human intelligence and prove itself against the best argumentative minds in human history.

    9. CatProgrammer on

      To be fair even actual lawyers have gone and used generative AI without verifying it’s accuracy.

    12. ssczoxylnlvayiuqjx on

      Sounds like they got off way too easy!

      Where’s the punitive damages? Only grifters and fools would believe AI capable of “critical thinking”.

      Why can’t I sell legal services rendered by a wet mop?

    Leave A Reply