Any individual or company seeking to protect their reputation from false allegations in the online world already has a number of issues to contend with. But a new threat has now emerged in the shape of generative AI, and the use of content created by chatbots such as ChatGPT.
In June 2023, for example, Georgia radio host Mark Walters started legal proceedings in the US against OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, after the bot answered a query from a journalist by stating (incorrectly) that Mr Walters had been sued for “defrauding and embezzling funds”.
Meanwhile, a law professor at George Washington University was falsely accused by ChatGPT of sexually assaulting and harassing students, and an Australian mayor of having done jail time for bribery.
In its recent White Paper, the Government has made clear that there are no plans to create new AI-specific legal rights in the UK, so victims of an AI libel are left with the same rights and remedies as they would have in relation to a defamatory newspaper article or website.
The technology therefore throws up some interesting issues which will doubtless play out in the Royal Courts of Justice in the coming years.
Who gets sued?
Both the ‘author’ and the ‘publisher’ of a defamatory statement may be sued. The company behind an application like ChatGPT is arguably both author and publisher. But potentially so is the journalist, blogger or private individual who uses ChatGPT to provide content that turns out to be untrue, or is deliberately fabricated, such as deepfake pictures and videos.
Defamation is a ‘strict liability’ tort, meaning that intention is immaterial. So it would be no defence for the publisher of inaccurate AI-generated content to claim it did not realise the content was untrue.
And ‘publisher’ for these purposes is not confined to commercial publishers; it could be virtually any business or individual involved in circulating a libellous allegation, e.g. by retweeting (or re-Xing) an AI-generated deepfake.
What makes a statement defamatory?
If an AI-generated ‘statement’ makes or implies an allegation defamatory of a third party, which causes, or is likely to cause, serious harm to her or his reputation, the victim will be able to sue in defamation. That would include, for example, a deepfake picture or video.
There is no room in defamation law for legalistic or literal interpretations of what is said. The legal test is what it would be understood to mean to the average reasonable reader (or viewer). As such, a deepfake video ridiculing or denigrating a person will be actionable if viewers do not realise that it is fake.
Does it matter in the real world?
To be actionable, a defamatory statement needs to be published to one or more third parties. ChatGPT can say what it likes about you, to you. It’s only when there is publication to a third party that the legal line is crossed.
But it’s not hard to think of scenarios where that may happen. For example, private providers of due diligence checks, and indeed compliance teams in banks and other financial institutions, sometimes rely on unverified media stories and online allegations to ‘red flag’ individuals, who may then find it difficult to do business or may have their banking facilities withdrawn.
That is already a live issue, but if those due diligence platforms are now tempted to use generative AI to do the same task, it could become a much bigger issue: anyone incorrectly red-flagged by AI-driven due diligence would potentially have a claim. And where that red flag has caused them a financial loss (for example, because a counterparty has withdrawn from a planned transaction as a result), they could be entitled to very substantial compensation.
Can AI platforms disclaim liability for defamation?
ChatGPT users are shown a warning that the content generated may include “inaccurate information about people, places, or facts”. Similarly, Google has stated that its Bard chatbot “is not yet fully capable of distinguishing between what is accurate and inaccurate information”.
Such disclaimers may help to protect an AI platform from a legal claim by a user who has relied on information that turns out to be wrong, but they are unlikely to provide much cover in the event of being sued by a third party who has been libelled.
Viewed through the lens of a libel claim, such disclaimers start to look more like an admission of guilt.
David Engel leads the Reputation & Information Protection practice at law firm Addleshaw Goddard LLP.
Privacy Policy.
Revoke consent.
© Digitalis Media Ltd. Privacy Policy.
Digitalis
We firmly believe that the internet should be available and accessible to anyone, and are committed to providing a website that is accessible to the widest possible audience, regardless of circumstance and ability.
To fulfill this, we aim to adhere as strictly as possible to the World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 (WCAG 2.1) at the AA level. These guidelines explain how to make web content accessible to people with a wide array of disabilities. Complying with those guidelines helps us ensure that the website is accessible to all people: blind people, people with motor impairments, visual impairment, cognitive disabilities, and more.
This website utilizes various technologies that are meant to make it as accessible as possible at all times. We utilize an accessibility interface that allows persons with specific disabilities to adjust the website’s UI (user interface) and design it to their personal needs.
Additionally, the website utilizes an AI-based application that runs in the background and optimizes its accessibility level constantly. This application remediates the website’s HTML, adapts Its functionality and behavior for screen-readers used by the blind users, and for keyboard functions used by individuals with motor impairments.
If you’ve found a malfunction or have ideas for improvement, we’ll be happy to hear from you. You can reach out to the website’s operators by using the following email webrequests@digitalis.com
Our website implements the ARIA attributes (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) technique, alongside various different behavioral changes, to ensure blind users visiting with screen-readers are able to read, comprehend, and enjoy the website’s functions. As soon as a user with a screen-reader enters your site, they immediately receive a prompt to enter the Screen-Reader Profile so they can browse and operate your site effectively. Here’s how our website covers some of the most important screen-reader requirements, alongside console screenshots of code examples:
Screen-reader optimization: we run a background process that learns the website’s components from top to bottom, to ensure ongoing compliance even when updating the website. In this process, we provide screen-readers with meaningful data using the ARIA set of attributes. For example, we provide accurate form labels; descriptions for actionable icons (social media icons, search icons, cart icons, etc.); validation guidance for form inputs; element roles such as buttons, menus, modal dialogues (popups), and others. Additionally, the background process scans all of the website’s images and provides an accurate and meaningful image-object-recognition-based description as an ALT (alternate text) tag for images that are not described. It will also extract texts that are embedded within the image, using an OCR (optical character recognition) technology. To turn on screen-reader adjustments at any time, users need only to press the Alt+1 keyboard combination. Screen-reader users also get automatic announcements to turn the Screen-reader mode on as soon as they enter the website.
These adjustments are compatible with all popular screen readers, including JAWS and NVDA.
Keyboard navigation optimization: The background process also adjusts the website’s HTML, and adds various behaviors using JavaScript code to make the website operable by the keyboard. This includes the ability to navigate the website using the Tab and Shift+Tab keys, operate dropdowns with the arrow keys, close them with Esc, trigger buttons and links using the Enter key, navigate between radio and checkbox elements using the arrow keys, and fill them in with the Spacebar or Enter key.Additionally, keyboard users will find quick-navigation and content-skip menus, available at any time by clicking Alt+1, or as the first elements of the site while navigating with the keyboard. The background process also handles triggered popups by moving the keyboard focus towards them as soon as they appear, and not allow the focus drift outside of it.
Users can also use shortcuts such as “M” (menus), “H” (headings), “F” (forms), “B” (buttons), and “G” (graphics) to jump to specific elements.
We aim to support the widest array of browsers and assistive technologies as possible, so our users can choose the best fitting tools for them, with as few limitations as possible. Therefore, we have worked very hard to be able to support all major systems that comprise over 95% of the user market share including Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Opera and Microsoft Edge, JAWS and NVDA (screen readers), both for Windows and for MAC users.
Despite our very best efforts to allow anybody to adjust the website to their needs, there may still be pages or sections that are not fully accessible, are in the process of becoming accessible, or are lacking an adequate technological solution to make them accessible. Still, we are continually improving our accessibility, adding, updating and improving its options and features, and developing and adopting new technologies. All this is meant to reach the optimal level of accessibility, following technological advancements. For any assistance, please reach out to webrequests@digitalis.com