DoNotPay has to pay $193K for falsely touting untested AI lawyer, FTC says

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Perception of the Fine and Enforcement

  • Many see the $193K FTC fine as a “slap on the wrist,” especially relative to subscriber and revenue estimates.
  • Others argue fines often serve as a first formal warning; repeat violations could trigger much harsher penalties.
  • Some want penalties tied to ill‑gotten gains or total profits, plus personal liability (even jail) for executives or shareholders.

Nature of DoNotPay’s Product and Conduct

  • Early versions were described as narrow “mad-libs” style form generators that helped with simple tasks (e.g., parking tickets, landlord letters), and some users report genuine value.
  • Over time it shifted to broader claims, including being a “robot lawyer” and using ChatGPT, without attorney oversight or rigorous testing.
  • Commenters highlight deceptive marketing, dark patterns (difficult cancellation), and exaggerated AI claims as the core issues, not automation per se.

AI, Law, and Regulation

  • Strong consensus that unverified LLM output is unacceptable for high‑stakes legal work; hallucinated case law is worse than a bad human attorney.
  • FTC action is framed as about false advertising, not banning AI in legal services; commissioners explicitly said AI in law is acceptable in principle if honestly represented.
  • Some argue that because “lawyer” is a regulated term with duties and liability, you can’t market an automated tool as a lawyer without meeting those standards.

Access to Justice vs Consumer Protection

  • Many sympathize with the idea of cheap tools for ordinary people to fight corporations, predatory landlords, and abusive parking enforcement.
  • There’s tension between “fighting fire with fire” against systemic legal abuse and not becoming another exploitative, misleading business.
  • Some note that large firms already automate legal actions against individuals; the system tolerates that more than automation that empowers the public.

Views on AI Quality and Hype

  • Numerous comments are deeply skeptical of current AI quality: errors, shallow reasoning, generic prose, and unreliable code.
  • Others see real productivity gains in low‑stakes, templated tasks and expect lawyers will increasingly rely on LLMs for routine drafting, though not full replacement.

Legal Complexity and Gatekeeping

  • Several discuss law as “magic incantations”: exact wording matters, which justifies expertise but also creates exclusion and potential for abuse.
  • Debate over whether legal complexity is mainly due to genuine edge cases or political and economic interests protecting the status quo.