Judge Tracy Cason of Gwinnett County Superior Court, Georgia decision last week Walters v. OpenAI, LLC It only said it would deny OpenAI's motion to dismiss, without providing further details (as is common in many state courts).But this is an excerpt from Walters response To OpenAI motion to dismiss; the judge probably agreed with most of the answers (see my question for more information on this type of question) Massive defamation model article):
The following facts are alleged in the amended complaint and must be considered true:
Fred Riehl is a third party journalist who works for a news organization and is a subscriber to ChatGPT. On May 4, 2023, Riehl interacted with ChatGPT regarding a lawsuit that Riehl was reporting (the „Lawsuit“).
The lawsuit is pending in federal court in the Western District of Washington and has case number 2-23-cv-00647 and a short caption. Second Amendment Foundation v. Robert Ferguson. The two defendants in the lawsuit are Washington State Attorney General Robert Ferguson and Washington State Assistant Attorney General Joshua Studer. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the Second Amendment Foundation and other organizations, including Alan Gottlieb. Mr. Walters is neither a plaintiff nor a defendant in this action.
In an exchange with ChatGPT, Riehl posted a link to the complaint on the Second Amendment Foundation's website https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Dkt-1 ( You have provided the correct URL. -Complaints.pdf. Mr. Leal asked ChatGPT to provide a summary of the charges in the complaint.
ChatGPT reported that the document was written by „Alan Gottlieb, Founder and Executive Vice President of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), against Mark Walters, who is accused of defrauding and embezzling funds from the SAF. This is a legal complaint filed.“ Mr. Walters, who served as the organization's treasurer and chief financial officer, diverted funds for personal expenses without authorization or repayment, and manipulated financial records and bank statements to facilitate his own activities. It alleges that the company concealed its financial obligations and failed to provide accurate and timely financial reports and disclosures to SAF. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including recovery of misappropriated funds, damages for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, and removal of Mr. Walters from his position as a member of the SAF Board of Directors. ”
All factual statements in the summary regarding Walters are false.
As previously stated, Mr. Walters is not a party to the lawsuit. Mr. Walters is not accused of defrauding or embezzling funds from the Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”). The complaint does not allege that Mr. Walters served as SAF's treasurer or chief financial officer, and he has never held either position. The complaint does not allege that Mr. Walters misappropriated funds for personal expenses, manipulated financial records or bank statements, or failed to provide financial reports to SAF leadership. Mr. Walters could not have been in a position to do so, as he has no employment or official relationship with the SAF leadership. S.A.F. The complaint does not seek relief for Mr. Walters. This complaint has nothing to do with any financial accounting claims against anyone.
SAF publishes the names of its officers and directors on its website. SAF has never listed Mr. Walters as a CFO or financial director. SAF also publishes audited financial statements on his website. These audited financial statements never mention any misappropriation of funds. OAI knows or can readily determine that Walters knows that he has never been her CFO or financial officer at SAF.
Mr. Leal asked ChatGPT to provide a copy of the portion of the complaint relating to Walters. ChatGPT states, „Indeed, the following is the passage of the complaint regarding Walters: „Defendant Mark Walters („Walters'') is an individual resident in the State of Georgia.'' Walters has served as SAF's treasurer and chief financial officer since at least 2012. Walters has access to SAF's bank accounts and financial records and is responsible for maintaining those records and providing financial reports to SAF's Board of Directors. Walters said he owes a fiduciary duty of loyalty and care to SAF and is required to act with honesty and integrity. „Having the best interests of the SAF in mind. Walters has, among other things, embezzled and misappropriated his SAF funds and assets for his own benefit, and confiscated his SAF to conceal his activities.“ breached these duties and responsibilities, including by manipulating financial records and bank statements.”
Mr. Riehl then asked OAI's ChatGPT to provide the full text of the complaint. ChatGPT provided the text of Exhibit 1 in response to the complaint (in this case). Exhibit 1 is a complete fabrication and bears no resemblance to the actual complaint, including the incorrect case number. ChatGPT's statements about Walters are not included in the actual complaint.
OAI recognizes that ChatGPT may fabricate facts and refers to this phenomenon as „illusion.“ Reel questioned OAI about the accuracy of its statements about Walters, but OAI insisted they were accurate. OAI knew or should have known that the statements he made regarding Walters to Riehl via ChatGPT were false and defamatory. When asked about the accuracy of the statements, OAI did not attempt to verify them. OAI ignored serious questions about the accuracy of the statement. OAI acted recklessly by ignoring the falsehoods in the statement.
OAI CEO Sam Altman was quoted. luck In June 2023, he said, „I think the hallucination problem is going to get much, much better. I think it's going to take a year and a half, two years. Something like that.“ Altman also said, „I probably trust the answers I get from his ChatGPT the least of anyone on the planet.“
Mr. Leal contacted Mr. Gottlieb about ChatGPT's claims about Walters, and Mr. Gottlieb admitted that they were false…
OAI alleges that 1) Riehl did not and could not read OAI's statements as defamatory; 2) There were no publications. 3) Walters was a public figure and had no actual malice. These are the types that are evaluated during discovery and cannot form the basis of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Nevertheless, Walters discusses each item in turn.
whether Mr. Leal considered the statement defamatory;
OAI relies on statements from Lille to OAI disputing the accuracy of the statements. OAI argues that this shows Mr Leal did not believe what he was saying. The burden of proof is on the OAI, even though this may be a basis for failure to assert a claim. with confidence Mr. Leal said he did not believe that statement. This, you can't do that. The amended complaint alleges that Leal verified with a third party (Alan Gottlieb) whether OAI's statements were true. In short, the amended complaint shows that Riehl: asked a question The accuracy of OAI's statements, not that he didn't believe them.Reel or not with confidence did not believe that OAI's statements could not be determined without evidence.
OAI itself calls its statements „probabilistic,“ a euphemism for „may not be true.“ OAI claims that „responsible use“ of the ChatGPT system includes „fact-checking“ its statements. That's what Riehl did by first disputing his OAI itself and then checking with a third party. Essentially, the OAI claims to be just a gossip monger who launches his outlandish accusations with the words, „This may not be true, but…“of person in charge The important thing for OAI is to avoid spreading false rumors in the first place.
Publication
OAI then argues that OAI's statements to Riehl do not constitute publication. Georgia law states that „defamation becomes public as soon as it is communicated to someone other than the person in question.“
To recover for defamation, „contact is required to a person other than the defamed party.“ The amended complaint specifically states that the defamatory statements were communicated to Reel, a person other than Walters. claims. Even if we examine these claims in discovery, there is no dispute that Walters made his case.
Is Walters a public figure and whether he had any actual malice?
OAI maintains that Mr. Walters was a public figure and that OAI had no actual malicious intent. Whether someone is a public figure is a mixed question of fact and law. That has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The issue is whether the plaintiff has achieved „widespread fame or notoriety“ or whether the plaintiff has „voluntarily committed himself or become involved in a particular public controversy.“ OAI does not assert what form of public figure status applies to Mr. Walters. However, given that the OAI does not identify a „specific public controversy,“ the only reasonable conclusion is that the OAI alleges that Walters has achieved „widespread fame or notoriety.“ That means no. This decision cannot be made without discovery.
Even if Mr. Walters were a public figure, „actual malice“ would mean knowing that the statement was false or with reckless disregard for truth or falsity. The amended complaint alleges that „OAI knew or should have known that the statements it made to Reel via ChatGPT regarding Walters were false and defamatory.“ . „OAI did not attempt to verify the accuracy of its statements when challenged.'' „OAI ignored serious questions about the accuracy of its statements.'' „OAI did not attempt to verify the accuracy of its statements.'' OAI clearly knew its systems were producing blatantly false statements. The company's CEO said, „I probably trust the answers I get from his ChatGPT the least of anyone on the planet.“
personal jurisdiction
Finally, OAI argues that the court lacks personal jurisdiction because it is organized in Delaware and headquartered in California. However, the OAI ignores that the Georgia Supreme Court has reaffirmed that registering to do business in Georgia subjects companies to the personal jurisdiction of this state's courts. The amended complaint alleges that OAI is registered to do business in Georgia….