Login
AI-powered ‘robot lawyer’ facing lawsuit
The world’s first “robot lawyer” has been hit with class action proceedings in the United States for alleged unauthorised practice of law.
Jess Feyder
A lawsuit against DoNotPay — which has been using artificial intelligence (AI) and automated processes to help people with a range of legal issues, from drafting powers of attorney to creating divorce settlement agreements or filing suit in small claims court — was recently filed in San Francisco’s Superior Court (8 March).
Mr Faridian is seeking damages for alleged violations of California’s unfair competition law.
In his class action complaint and demand for a jury trial, Mr Faridian stated: “DoNotPay is not actually a robot, a lawyer, nor a law firm. DoNotPay does not have a law degree, is not barred in any jurisdiction, and is not supervised by any lawyer.
“DoNotPay is merely a website with a repository of — unfortunately, substandard — legal documents that at best fills in a legal adlib based on information input by customers.”
The court filing elaborates that DoNotPay is an AI-powered chatbot that uses natural language processing and machine learning algorithms to provide legal advice and assistance to users.
It is marketed as “the world’s first robot lawyer” and offers customers the ability to purportedly hire a lawyer at the click of a button to handle a variety of legal matters.
Among other things, it has offered to draft defamation demand letters and “sue anyone in small claims court”.
Joshua Browder, the chief executive of DoNotPay, has stated on Twitter that the robot lawyer has initiated over 1,000 small claims and lawsuits in 42 American states.
DoNotPay has also been called out publicly for practising law without a licence, most recently in relation to a stunt in which it sought to actively represent a client in court using AI.
“Providing legal services to the public, without being a lawyer or even supervised by a lawyer is reckless and dangerous. And it has real-world consequences for the customers it hurts,” Mr Faridan stated.
Mr Faridan was a client of DoNotPay until January 2023 and had it perform a variety of legal tasks, including: draft demand letters, an independent contractor agreement, a small claims court filing, two LLC operating agreements, and an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission job discrimination complaint.
He believed at the time that he was purchasing legal documents and services that would be fit for use from a lawyer that was competent to provide them, yet claimed the services provided were substandard and poorly done.
One example was when the demand letters DoNotPay drafted for him were to be delivered to the opposing party, yet they never made it to the intended recipient, and they were eventually returned undelivered to Mr Faridian’s home.
Upon opening one of the letters, he found it to be a blank piece of paper with his name on it. As a result of this delay, his claims may be time-barred.
Mr Faridian is bringing the proceedings on behalf of himself and a group of similarly situated individuals. He has alleged that DoNotPay is in contravention of the State Bar Act, which prohibits practising law without a licence.
He has claimed that DoNotPay’s actions are “substantially injurious to consumers, offend public policy, and are immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous as the gravity of the conduct outweighs any alleged benefits attributable to such conduct”.
The complaint seeks an order to declare that DoNotPay’s conduct is unlawful, that all unlawful activities must be ceased, and to award damages to the plaintiff and the proposed class action group.
Mr Browder has responded publicly, stating that the allegations hold “no merit” and that the company would fight against the lawsuit.
“The named plaintiff has submitted dozens of cases and seen significant success with our products,” DoNotPay said in a statement to Courthouse News Service.
“The case is being filed by a lawyer that has personally made hundreds of millions from class actions, so it’s not surprising that he would accuse an AI of ‘unauthorised practice of law.’
“Once we respond in court, this will be cleared up.”
