Mark Walters, a Florida radio host and self-proclaimed loudest voice in America fighting for gun rights, has filed a legal complaint against OpenAI, alleging that the company’s ChatGPT bot defamed him by providing false information about him, which was then presented to him through AmmoLand, a gun news website. The synopsis ChatGPT provided, falsely stated that a gun-ownership advocacy group, Second Amendment Foundation, sued Mark Walters for defrauding and embezzling funds from the organization as its treasurer and chief financial officer. Walters claims that the artificially intelligent ChatGPT bot provided information that is libelous and harmful to his reputation, even though it was not published by any media entity.
This case sets a precedent for any future civil litigations regarding AI-made statements that can be considered as defamatory. Lyrissa Lidsky of the University of Florida Levin College of Law says this case presents a real challenge for the courts due to how fault applies to a nonhuman actor. Normally, liability law around products and defamation law do not cover statements created by a chatbot, so the central question of fault is still up in the air.
While the average person may not consider the bot’s statements as factual, Walters argues that the bot has gone beyond getting the facts wrong and has created fake documentation that seems credible, right down to a phony case number. Walters may have the option of claiming false light invasion of privacy, which would be similar to defamation but would involve falsehoods that inflict emotional and personal injury on a plaintiff rather than reputational damage. However, Lidsky believes that this is unlikely, as the material was only shown to one person who did not believe it. Lidsky is, however, concerned that open.ai has disclaimers warning users not to presume that ChatGPT’s commentary is always accurate and believes that they aren’t going to do much to protect them from liability.
Given the lack of damages, it is unclear whether Walters will be successful with his allegations or not. The purpose of defamation law is to remedy specific damages caused by a false statement, not to provide compensation for hurt feelings or offense taken to someone’s words. Walters accuses OpenAI of defamation per se, where a statement does not require the plaintiff to prove damages because it’s clearly defamatory on its face, but that is also debatable. Ari Cohn, a Chicago attorney specializing in First Amendment and defamation law, believes that the combination of issues with this lawsuit means it’s not going anywhere.
Ultimately, this lawsuit could have a lasting influence on how we treat AI-written falsehoods. For now, they are algorithmic nonsense, but tomorrow, they could be actionable, and these questions regarding liability for AI-generated statements will need to be addressed.
