Welcome to the forefront of conversational AI as we explore the fascinating world of AI chatbots in our dedicated blog series. Discover the latest advancements, applications, and strategies that propel the evolution of chatbot technology. From enhancing customer interactions to streamlining business processes, these articles delve into the innovative ways artificial intelligence is shaping the landscape of automated conversational agents. Whether you’re a business owner, developer, or simply intrigued by the future of interactive technology, join us on this journey to unravel the transformative power and endless possibilities of AI chatbots.
27
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
Liability surrounding AI tools remains an open question, and litigants are testing the limits of such liability via novel legal theories. As discussed in a recent alert, some litigants and legislators are trying to graft traditional product liability frameworks onto AI technologies.
Now, a newly filed lawsuit takes a different approach, seeking to expand the scope of cognizable claims against AI tools. In Nippon Life Insurance Company of America v. OpenAI Foundation, et al., 1:26-vb-2448 (N.D.Ind.), the plaintiff brings claims for tortious interference with contract, abuse of process, and unlicensed practice of law.
Nippon’s claims involve the alleged breach of a settlement agreement with a policyholder in a prior lawsuit. In that lawsuit, a policyholder, Dela Torre, sued to recover certain long-term disability benefits that were allegedly denied. In January 2024, Dela Torre and Nippon resolved that dispute and entered into a settlement agreement releasing all claims.
Yet, after finalizing the settlement, Dela Torre became dissatisfied with the agreement and sought her attorneys’ advice on rescinding the release. After her attorneys advised her that she was bound by the settlement agreement, Dela Torre sought a second opinion — this time turning to ChatGPT for advice. The AI tool allegedly produced outputs saying that Dela Torre was misled by her attorneys and that she could seek to undo the settlement.
As a result of this guidance from the AI tool, Dela Torre began using the tool to craft legal arguments, draft legal documents, and determine strategies for vacating the settlement agreement. In just under a year, Dela Torre has made 58 separate filings in a second lawsuit against Nippon related to the parties’ settlement agreement. Some of these filings allegedly include citations to fictitious cases and other unfounded legal arguments.
Nippon’s complaint asserts three causes of action against OpenAI related to Dela Torre’s actions:
Nippon alleges a cause of action for tortious interference with contract. This claim is premised on the assertion that ChatGPT’s outputs knowingly persuaded Dela Torre to seek to vacate the settlement agreement in the prior lawsuit. Due to the “advice” of ChatGPT, Nippon has been forced to expend resources to enforce the settlement agreement and to respond to the multitude of filings from Dela Torre.
Nippon asserts that the numerous filings from Dela Torre were meritless and constituted an abuse of process. Since ChatGPT aided in developing the strategy for, and assisted in the drafting of, these filings, ChatGPT facilitated Dela Torre’s abuse of the judicial process.
Last, Nippon alleges that ChatGPT engaged in the unlicensed practice of law by providing Dela Torre with outputs containing legal analysis and advice. The AI tool also assisted in drafting legal filings. Together, these actions allegedly constitute the practice of law. Yet, ChatGPT is not a lawyer, thus any practice of law would be unlicensed.
In addition to monetary relief, Nippon seeks to enjoin OpenAI form allowing its AI tools to provide legal assistance in the state of Illinois.
Until the legal framework surrounding AI tools is clarified, it is important to keep abreast of new developments in this field. The approaches to AI liability are varied with some calling for total prohibitions on liability while others seek to impose product liability or other liability frameworks on these tools.
Where courts and legislatures will ultimately land on these debates remains uncertain; however, staying up to date on new developments may assist in reacting to new trends in this area of law.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC
Find Your Next Job !
Liability surrounding AI tools remains an open question, and litigants are testing the limits of such liability via novel legal theories. As discussed in a recent alert, some litigants and legislators are trying to graft traditional product liability frameworks onto AI technologies.
Now, a newly filed lawsuit takes a different approach, seeking to expand the scope of cognizable claims against AI tools. In Nippon Life Insurance Company of America v. OpenAI Foundation, et al., 1:26-vb-2448 (N.D.Ind.), the plaintiff brings claims for tortious interference with contract, abuse of process, and unlicensed practice of law.
Nippon’s claims involve the alleged breach of a settlement agreement with a policyholder in a prior lawsuit. In that lawsuit, a policyholder, Dela Torre, sued to recover certain long-term disability benefits that were allegedly denied. In January 2024, Dela Torre and Nippon resolved that dispute and entered into a settlement agreement releasing all claims.
Yet, after finalizing the settlement, Dela Torre became dissatisfied with the agreement and sought her attorneys’ advice on rescinding the release. After her attorneys advised her that she was bound by the settlement agreement, Dela Torre sought a second opinion — this time turning to ChatGPT for advice. The AI tool allegedly produced outputs saying that Dela Torre was misled by her attorneys and that she could seek to undo the settlement.
As a result of this guidance from the AI tool, Dela Torre began using the tool to craft legal arguments, draft legal documents, and determine strategies for vacating the settlement agreement. In just under a year, Dela Torre has made 58 separate filings in a second lawsuit against Nippon related to the parties’ settlement agreement. Some of these filings allegedly include citations to fictitious cases and other unfounded legal arguments.
Nippon’s complaint asserts three causes of action against OpenAI related to Dela Torre’s actions:
Nippon alleges a cause of action for tortious interference with contract. This claim is premised on the assertion that ChatGPT’s outputs knowingly persuaded Dela Torre to seek to vacate the settlement agreement in the prior lawsuit. Due to the “advice” of ChatGPT, Nippon has been forced to expend resources to enforce the settlement agreement and to respond to the multitude of filings from Dela Torre.
Nippon asserts that the numerous filings from Dela Torre were meritless and constituted an abuse of process. Since ChatGPT aided in developing the strategy for, and assisted in the drafting of, these filings, ChatGPT facilitated Dela Torre’s abuse of the judicial process.
Last, Nippon alleges that ChatGPT engaged in the unlicensed practice of law by providing Dela Torre with outputs containing legal analysis and advice. The AI tool also assisted in drafting legal filings. Together, these actions allegedly constitute the practice of law. Yet, ChatGPT is not a lawyer, thus any practice of law would be unlicensed.
In addition to monetary relief, Nippon seeks to enjoin OpenAI form allowing its AI tools to provide legal assistance in the state of Illinois.
Until the legal framework surrounding AI tools is clarified, it is important to keep abreast of new developments in this field. The approaches to AI liability are varied with some calling for total prohibitions on liability while others seek to impose product liability or other liability frameworks on these tools.
Where courts and legislatures will ultimately land on these debates remains uncertain; however, staying up to date on new developments may assist in reacting to new trends in this area of law.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC