Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 218 posts

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

#131

Post by ahmeneeroe-v2 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #105
ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is founder-raising-funds math (or VC looking for liquidity math). 200k subscribers might not mean paid subs and it certainly doesn't mean 1-year of paid subs. This could be $9M (a single-month of 250 paid subs) or lower.

Their point still stands though. If the output should be reviewed by a lawyer, then the penalty should be all the profits (and maybe also the wages of the CEO) to deter others from doing the same, and ensure that they don't continue in the belief that an occasional 1-2% is perfectly acceptable 'cost of doing business'.

Maybe $193k is all that the FTC felt could be attributed to the "deceptive business practices."

It's weird to think that the FTC is right about the investigation, but somehow flubbed the penalty

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

#133

Post by ahmeneeroe-v2 »

everforward wrote: post #81
ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I think you are right about that. Someone else called it "mad libs" and that is very much what it felt like back in 2017/18. Idk why they needed to have a lawyer involved though. Many processes in life just need an "official" sounding response: to get to the next phase, or open the gate to talk to a real human, or even to close the issue with a positive result. Many people are not able to conjure up an "official"…

"Lawyer" is a regulated term that comes with a lot of expectations of the "lawyer" (liability for malpractice, a bunch of duties, etc). You can't just say that something is a lawyer any more than you could do the same with doctors or police officers. Machines are also not allowed to be the "author" of court documents if they actually get to court (so far as I'm aware). A lawyer has to sign off and claim it as their o…

>You can't just say that something is a lawyer any more than you could do the same with doctors or police officers

Do you think WebMD should be renamed? Lawyers seem to be better at defending their turf than doctors or cops.

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

#134

Post by hinkley »

sixhobbits wrote: post #6
ziddoap wrote: post #4

> DoNotPay also did not "hire or retain any attorneys" to help verify AI outputs or validate DoNotPay's legal claims. Wow, that's brave. Create a wrapper around ChatGPT, call it a lawyer, and never check the output. $193k fine seems like peanuts. Sometimes I think about where I would be in life if I had no moral or ethical qualms. I'd probably be running a company like this.

DoNotPay predates GPT by quite a bit -- it used to be pretty positively received on HN e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13822289

On a long enough timeline we all (with the exception of narcissists) see our younger selves as little idiots.

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

#135

Post by gradyfps »

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #75
gradyfps wrote: post #7

"In 2021, Browder reported that DoNotPay had 250K subscribers; in May 2023, Browder said that DoNotPay had “well over 200,000 subscribers”. To date, DoNotPay has resolved over 2 million cases and offers over 200 use cases on its website. Though DoNotPay has not disclosed its revenue, it charges $36 every two months. Given this, it can be estimated that DoNotPay is generating $54 million in annual revenue, assuming th…

This is founder-raising-funds math (or VC looking for liquidity math). 200k subscribers might not mean paid subs and it certainly doesn't mean 1-year of paid subs. This could be $9M (a single-month of 250 paid subs) or lower.

Fair points. I hadn't considered that a trial subscription is still a subscriber.

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

#136

Post by antisthenes »

zahlman wrote: post #72
Aurornis wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it used to be pretty positively received on HN I think people love the idea of DoNotPay: A magical internet machine that saves people money and fights back against evil corporations. Before ChatGPT they were basically mad libs for finding and filling out the right form. Helpful for people who couldn't figure out how to navigate situations by themselves. There is real value in this. However, they've also been runnin…

>they're just another startup playing the growth hacking game When is humanity going to start seeing some patches against these exploits? Is common sense still in beta?

> common sense still in beta?

Common sense was relegated to a legacy feature status after "clout" and "fuck you got mine" were released.

It will not see further updates and will be sunset shortly. Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

#137

Post by glial »

gleenn wrote: post #128
glial wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally the legal system wouldn't be byzantine and prohibitively expensive for mere mortals to engage with.

I think the same could be said software engineers. I don't engage with the general public about writing people's next brilliant idea because it's a hige waste of my time when I could be making FAANG bucks talking to people who know that I'm worth it. While I will alwatry to explain to my mom how the internet works etc, it's not economically justifiable to engage laymen tonsolve their probno matter how altruistic it m…

Lawyers are the interface between the public and the justice system -- which would exist whether software did or not. It's an access and equity issue: people with money have access to the legal system. People without largely don't.

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

#138

Post by imoverclocked »

RankingMember wrote: post #118
szundi wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human lifespan is too short

Yep, need some way to image each new brain that comes online with some basics so it's not starting from 0 each time (and what basics to include would be a battle for the ages)

Oof, no thanks. Part of our resilience comes from each generation observing and learning what the world actually is without all of the dogma from the previous generation. Instilling a set of basics is probably the worst thing we could do to fight against gaming humanity.

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

#139

Post by xoa »

gradyfps wrote: post #7

"In 2021, Browder reported that DoNotPay had 250K subscribers; in May 2023, Browder said that DoNotPay had “well over 200,000 subscribers”. To date, DoNotPay has resolved over 2 million cases and offers over 200 use cases on its website. Though DoNotPay has not disclosed its revenue, it charges $36 every two months. Given this, it can be estimated that DoNotPay is generating $54 million in annual revenue, assuming th…

>$193K seems like a pittance compared to the money they're making off of this.

I don't have any special knowledge of this specific case, but it's important to note as a general principle that often the point of these fines is as the start of a process. It creates a formal legal record of actual damages and judgement, but the government doesn't see massive harm done yet nor think the business should be dead entirely. They want a modification of certain practices going forward, and the expectation is that the company will immediately comply and that's the end of it.

If instead the business simply paid the fine and flagrantly blew it off and did the exact same thing without so much as a fig leaf, round 2 would see the book thrown at them. Defiance of process and lawful orders is much easier to prove and has little to no wiggle room, regardless of the complexity that began an action originally. Same as an individual investigated for a crime who ends up with a section 1001 charge or other obstruction of justice and ends up in more trouble for that than the underlying cause of investigation.

So yes, not necessarily a huge fine. But if there weren't huge actual damages that seems appropriate too, so long as the behavior doesn't repeat (and everyone else in the industry is on notice now too).

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

#140

Post by digitaltrees »

bell-cot wrote: post #110
glial wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally the legal system wouldn't be byzantine and prohibitively expensive for mere mortals to engage with.

Too bad that the legal system is made of lawyers, whose interests run directly contrary to that ideal.

Legal systems becoming complex predates the emergence of lawyers.

Lawyers have also led significant efforts to simplify the law. For example the American Bar Association has consistently created simple model statute frameworks that eventually are adopted.

Law is complex because society is complex.

Post reply on HN