DoNotPay has to pay $193K for falsely touting untested AI lawyer, FTC says
US regulators have fined legal-tech startup DoNotPay $193,000 for deceptive advertising after it marketed an untested “AI lawyer” as capable of matching or exceeding human attorneys. Commenters argue the penalty is tiny relative to the company’s revenues and debate whether such tools meaningfully expand access to justice or simply exploit consumers with dark patterns and exaggerated AI claims. More broadly, the exchange reflects growing concern that AI is being pushed into high‑stakes domains like law without adequate validation, oversight, or accountability.
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.