Legal fail: Don’t use AI to sue Facebook users for calling you a bad date
A man's lawsuit against Meta and women who criticized him on a Facebook group has been dismissed, with his lawyers potentially facing sanctions for using "fictitious quotations" resembling AI-generated content. The appeals court found the case meritless, highlighting the dangers of relying on generative AI for legal arguments and the protection offered to online opinions.
A man who sued Meta and several women for defamation on a Facebook group, "Are We Dating the Same Guy," has had his appeal dismissed with prejudice. His lawyers, from the firm MarcTrent.AI, are now facing potential sanctions for presenting "fictitious quotations" that appear to be generated by artificial intelligence. This case highlights the risks of integrating AI into legal practices without rigorous oversight.
The plaintiff, Nikko D’Ambrosio, accused over two dozen women of defaming him and claimed Meta profited from a popular critical post. He specifically targeted a post by Abbigail Rajala, a woman he briefly dated, who shared a screenshot of a menacing text he sent. Rajala’s post, described as an opinion, did not call for punitive action against D’Ambrosio.
MarcTrent.AI, which boasts of using AI to "uncover legal opportunities," drafted the initial complaint. The firm’s founder, Marc Trent, had expressed confidence in their AI-driven approach, even suggesting they could overcome Meta’s legal team. However, the appeals court found the case so weak that Section 230 — which protects platforms from liability for user-generated content — was not even a factor.
Senior Circuit Judge David Hamilton noted the appeal was "frivolous" and contained "mistakes and fictitious quotations" indicative of "misuse of generative artificial intelligence." Such inaccuracies, he stated, "are unacceptable" in court submissions. The firm has until June 16 to respond to the potential sanctions.
Legal experts monitoring the case, such as Eric Goldman, note its resemblance to other unsuccessful lawsuits by men attempting to remove critical posts from similar Facebook groups. These attempts often fail because the posts are protected as opinions under the First Amendment and state defamation laws.
Related articles
When the Trump administration cracks down on Anthropic, who benefits?
The Trump administration issued an export control order against Anthropic, forcing the AI company to pull its newest models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, offline. This move has sparked debate over AI policy and digital sovereignty, with some suggesting political motivations and others questioning Anthropic’s own messaging around AI safety.
Signal’s Meredith Whittaker wants you to remember that AI chatbots ‘are not your friends’
Signal President Meredith Whittaker cautions against the over-reliance on AI chatbots, emphasizing they are not sentient and can pose significant privacy risks. She highlights concerns about pervasive data access when integrating AI into personal and sensitive applications.
Ethics & SocietyCritical Copilot vulnerability allowed hackers to seal 2FA code from users
Microsoft patched a critical vulnerability in its M365 Copilot AI platform that allowed attackers to extract sensitive data, including 2FA codes, from users. This vulnerability, dubbed "SearchLeak," exploited Copilot's inability to distinguish between user instructions and malicious commands embedded in third-party content.