Georgia Court Dismisses ChatGPT Defamation Claim
More and more, whether we can detect it or not, the content that we read is generated, in whole or in part, by artificial intelligence programs, such as ChatGPT. While these tools can be useful, they are far from foolproof. For starters, AI technology gleans information from patterns of text across millions of websites, which might themselves be inaccurate. Furthermore, even the most sophisticated program can misinterpret queries and deliver a false result. There are even instances where programs have “hallucinated” incorrect responses seemingly out of nowhere.
Not surprisingly, someone who says he was harmed by misinformation included in a chatbot result filed a lawsuit against one of the industry’s leading providers. In Walters v. OpenAI, L.L.C., a Georgia court reviewed the question of whether the maker of ChatGPT could be held liable for defamation based on an incorrect response.
The case was filed by Mark Walters, host of Armed American Radio. He says AmmoLand Shooting Sports News Editor-in-Chief Fred Riehl had asked ChatGPT to summarize the case of Second Amendment Foundation v. Ferguson. Unfortunately, the popular AI program’s reliance on pattern recognition and probability led it to invent a fictitious legal complaint against Walters involving financial misconduct.
Walters’ claim challenged the boundaries of how far a company’s liability extends in relation to its AI products. ChatGPT and similar services include disclaimers noting that results to queries might be inaccurate. Based on his role as a radio host, the court held that Walters is a public figure, which means that he would have to prove actual malice, meaning an intentional or reckless disregard for the truth, on OpenAI’s part to recover defamation damages.
In its decision, the Superior Court of Gwinnett County granted summary judgment to OpenAI, finding that neither actual malice nor negligence existed. The holding relied on legal protections for technology companies and their tools. While responsible for the creation of ChatGPT, the court said that OpenAI cannot be held accountable for every piece of incorrect information the tool might generate, particularly when there is no indication of ill intent or carelessness on its part.
Individuals and businesses interacting with AI should remain cautious about the information generated and always corroborate AI outputs with reliable sources. This case serves as an early touchpoint in the intersection of AI innovation and defamation law, a relationship that promises to shape future legal discourse significantly.
The Law Office of S. Mark Mitchell, LLC represents Georgia clients in various civil litigation matters. If you’re involved in a dispute over alleged defamation or some other type of tortious conduct, please call 470-344-8550 or contact me online. My office is in Newnan.
