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.
Recent AI hallucination cases in China, Germany and the U.S. show courts are increasingly holding AI providers responsible for managing and mitigating hallucination risks.
Shimeng Cai
AIGP
Data Privacy and AI Governance Manager
Novartis
Large language models are built to predict probable words, not verify facts, making artificial intelligence hallucinations difficult to eliminate. Courts in China, Germany and the U.S. are now confronting the resulting question: Who bears responsibility when those hallucinations cause harm.
Four recent cases — two from China, one from the U.S. and one from Germany — show how courts are beginning to answer that question. Although the claims and legal frameworks differ, the cases raise several recurring issues: whether AI providers can avoid responsibility by pointing to the AI or positioning themselves as neutral platforms, whether liability turns on eliminating hallucinations or reasonably mitigating their risks, and whether the hallucination caused legally recognized harm.
The Chinese student case. A Chinese AI chatbot gave a student inaccurate information about a university campus and, when corrected by the student, insisted it was right and promised RMB100,000 in compensation if it ended up being wrong.
The student sued seeking compensation for harm based on the chatbot's promise, but the Hangzhou Internet Court dismissed the claim.
The court reached its conclusion through three findings. AI is not a legal person, so its unprompted compensation promise did not bind the provider, the chatbot is a service subject to fault-based rather than strict product liability, and the provider was not at fault given its limitation warnings and hallucination safeguards, while the student showed no actual harm.
Walters v. OpenAI. When journalist Frederick Riehl asked ChatGPT to summarize a lawsuit, it falsely claimed the complaint accused radio host Mark Walters of embezzlement.
Shimeng Cai
AIGP
Data Privacy and AI Governance Manager
Novartis
From original research reports and daily news coverage to legislative trackers and infographics, we have the information you need to stay ahead of change.
Make valuable professional connections through more than 160 local IAPP KnowledgeNet chapters in 70 countries.
Connect with top thinkers in privacy, AI governance and cybersecurity for fresh ideas and insights.
The IAPP is a policy neutral, not-for-profit association founded in 2000 with a mission to define, promote and improve the professions of privacy, AI governance and digital responsibility globally.
Certification
Training
Membership
Conferences and Events
Community
News and resources
Certification
Training
Membership
Conferences and Events
Community
News and resources
North America headquarters
Portsmouth, NH, US
EMEA headquarters
Brussels, Belgium
ANZ office
Sydney, Australia
© 2026 IAPP. All rights reserved.
