Louisiana Attorney General Challenges NetChoice Expert Over AI Fabricated Quotes

What's Happening?

The Louisiana Attorney General's office has accused a NetChoice expert of using artificial intelligence to fabricate quotes and citations in a legal case concerning the state's age verification law for social media platforms. The expert, Dr. Anthony Bean, is the sole expert for NetChoice in the litigation. The state claims that a simple comparison between Bean's report and the original sources would have revealed discrepancies. NetChoice, a tech trade group with members like Google, Meta, and X, has filed multiple lawsuits against state age verification laws. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill criticized the use of AI-generated quotes, emphasizing the need for technology companies to comply with age verification laws. The state attorneys highlighted errors in Bean's report, including incorrect website links and misformatted references, suggesting the report was generated by AI.

Why It's Important?

This development underscores the growing concerns about the reliability of AI-generated content in legal proceedings. The use of fabricated quotes in expert testimony could undermine the credibility of legal arguments and affect the outcome of cases involving significant public policy issues, such as age verification on social media. The case highlights the tension between technology companies and state regulations aimed at protecting minors online. If the court excludes the expert testimony, it could set a precedent for how AI-generated content is treated in legal contexts, potentially impacting future litigation involving tech companies and state laws.

What's Next?

The Louisiana Attorney General's office is seeking to exclude the expert testimony and prevent NetChoice from amending or extending the testimony. The court's decision on this matter could influence how AI-generated content is scrutinized in legal settings. Additionally, the outcome may affect NetChoice's strategy in challenging state age verification laws, potentially leading to increased compliance or further legal battles. The case is part of a broader trend where courts are grappling with the implications of AI in legal proceedings, which may lead to new standards or guidelines for the use of AI-generated content in expert reports.