Virtual malice: AI defamation is the next big product risk
Chatbots still make things up. Most of it is harmless filler; some of it is reputational napalm. When a model fabricates a crime and pins it on a real person, you don't just have a product bug-you have a defamation problem.
One high-profile example: a major chatbot falsely suggested a U.S. senator engaged in criminal, non-consensual conduct decades ago. The claim was untrue. That single answer created legal exposure for the developer and a blueprint for plaintiffs' lawyers watching this space.
Why this matters to legal teams
Allegations of serious crimes are defamation per se in many jurisdictions. Plaintiffs don't need to prove special damages; the harm is presumed. For public figures, the hurdle is higher-actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth-but plaintiffs will argue the model's known tendency to hallucinate plus weak safeguards meets that bar.
Your company can be on the hook even if a third-party model generates the content, especially if you deploy it in your product, fine-tune it, or market it as a source of factual answers.
The legal theories plaintiffs are testing
- Defamation (and defamation per se): False factual statements about named individuals, especially crimes, misconduct, or professional incompetence.
- Negligence: Failure to implement reasonable safeguards to prevent foreseeable false statements about people.
- Product liability: Design defect (predictable hallucination modes), failure to warn, inadequate instructions.
- Deceptive trade practices: Marketing claims that imply accuracy or fact-checking when none exists.
- Vicarious liability/agency: Company deployment and prompts as part of publication.
- Section 230 (U.S.) defenses under pressure: LLM outputs are generated content, not third-party content reposted by a platform. Shielding is uncertain. See 47 U.S.C. § 230 at LII.
Fault, publication, and defenses
Publication is usually satisfied if the bot "says" the statement to a user. Forwarding or embedding results multiplies exposure. Disclaimers help but won't cure a false assertion of fact.
Truth is a complete defense. Opinion can be protected, but couching a false statement with "it appears" or "some say" won't save it if it implies undisclosed false facts. For public figures, the fight will center on actual malice-knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard-for which plaintiffs will point to known hallucination rates, ignored red flags, and weak guardrails. For context on the standard, see New York Times v. Sullivan.
Evidentiary angles that win or lose these cases
- Logs: Preserve prompts, outputs, timestamps, model IDs, and version hashes. Screenshots without metadata aren't enough.
- Reproducibility: Can the output be replicated with seeds and system prompts? If not, record the sampling parameters.
- Guardrails & policy: Document refusals for high-risk queries (crime, sexual misconduct, medical/financial claims about named people).
- Correction flow: How quickly did you retract, correct, and notify? Keep an audit trail.
- Source signals: If you inject retrieval or citations, keep fetch logs and indices to show diligence-or lack of it.
Product and policy controls to cut risk
- Name/entity gating: If a prompt references a living person, switch to a safe mode: refuse, ask for consent, or require verified sources.
- High-risk topic filters: Auto-block allegations involving crimes, sexual conduct, health, finances, or workplace misconduct about identifiable people.
- Verified claims only: For named individuals, require citations to authoritative sources before rendering a statement as fact-or refuse.
- Jurisdictional tuning: Stricter defaults for UK, Australia, and other plaintiff-friendly venues.
- Human-in-the-loop: Route sensitive answers to manual review in enterprise settings.
- User experience cues: Clear, proximate warnings and "report/flag" controls in the same UI pane as the output.
Contract levers with AI vendors
- Indemnity: Explicit coverage for third-party claims alleging defamation from model outputs, not just IP claims; watch for carve-outs and caps.
- Safety commitments: Documented filters for named individuals, crime accusations, and identity claims. Include test suites and pass/fail thresholds.
- Logging & audit rights: Access to system prompts, moderation layers, and safety configs tied to the incident.
- Support SLAs: Fast takedown/correction windows and cooperation on retractions.
- Fine-tune controls: Approval of training data and a rollback path if a fine-tune increases defamation risk.
Litigation outlook and insurance
Expect more filings as chatbots seep into search, workplace tools, and customer support. The easier it is to ask about a person, the easier it is for a model to invent a harmful "fact."
Review media liability, tech E&O, and cyber policies for coverage of AI-generated content. Look for exclusions around "intentional acts," publication, or breach of professional services that could be stretched to deny claims.
What to do this quarter
- Ban unverified statements about named individuals. Hard-code refusals for crime and misconduct claims.
- Add entity detection and a "no facts without citations" rule for person-related outputs.
- Ship a correction workflow: retraction, apology copy, contact method, and update logs you can hand to counsel.
- Turn on full chat logging with retention tied to your litigation hold policy.
- Run a red-team focused on defamation prompts; fix anything that gets through and re-test weekly.
- Update customer contracts with clear use policies and shared responsibilities for user-generated prompts.
Bottom line
Hallucinations stop being quirky once they accuse real people of crimes. Treat AI defamation as a product and publication risk, not a PR hiccup. Build the guardrails, paper the contracts, and be ready to correct fast when something slips.
If your legal or compliance team needs a fast primer on AI concepts to spot these risks early, see this curated list by job function: AI courses by job.
Your membership also unlocks:
