OpenAI Seeks Dismissal of Defamation Suit Arising From False ChatGPT Content

Mark Walters, nationally syndicated talk show host of Armed American Radio, "fails to establish the basic elements of a defamation claim" when he alleges OpenAI’s ChatGPT service defamed him to a reporter, said OpenAI’s motion to dismiss Friday (docket 1:23-cv-03122) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. OpenAI removed Walters’ June 2 defamation complaint to federal court July 14 from Gwinnett County Superior Court, and it’s basing its defense on disclosures to ChatGPT users that AI-generated content is “not always factual.”

In his complaint against OpenAI, Walters describes the actions of journalist Fredy Riehl, editor of AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, to use ChatGPT to research a lawsuit filed May 3 in the Western District of Washington in Seattle. In the actual complaint, a pro-firearms group, the Second Amendment Foundation, alleges Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson (D), a gun control advocate, improperly is using state consumer protection laws to harass foundation members and leadership through a series of “civil investigation demands” when they have committed no crimes.

Though Walters has no involvement in the Seattle lawsuit, when Riehl asked ChatGPT to summarize the case, it generated a synopsis that falsely said Walters was accused in the case of defrauding and embezzling funds from the foundation, said Walters’ removed complaint. When Riehl asked ChatGPT for the full text of the actual complaint, he found no mention of Walters in the document, let alone any accusations he was an embezzler, it said. Walters alleges OpenAI “knew or should have known its communication to Riehl regarding Walters was false, or recklessly disregarded the falsity of the communication.”

But while Walters claims that ChatGPT’s response to Riehl contained false information about Walters and the Seattle complaint, “nothing about ChatGPT’s interaction with Riehl can be characterized as ‘defamation’ under Georgia law,” said OpenAI’s motion to dismiss. Riehl didn’t and couldn’t “reasonably read” ChatGPT’s output as defamatory, said the motion.

By its “very nature,” AI-generated content “is probabilistic and not always factual,” said OpenAI’s motion to dismiss. There’s “near universal consensus” that responsible use of AI “includes fact-checking prompted outputs before using or sharing them,” it said. OpenAI “clearly and consistently conveys these limitations to its users,” and does so “immediately below the text box where users enter prompts,” it said.

The full transcript of Riehl’s interaction with ChatGPT, which Walters didn’t disclose in his complaint, “reveals that when Riehl asked ChatGPT to summarize a legal complaint, it immediately responded it couldn't access the complaint and Riehl needed to consult a lawyer for ‘accurate and reliable information’ about a legal matter,” said the motion to dismiss. “Riehl then continued to push ChatGPT, disregarding its repeated warnings,” it said. “The full transcript also reveals that Riehl never viewed ChatGPT’s output as an assertion of fact about Walters,” it said.

Even “more fundamentally,” Riehl’s use of ChatGPT didn’t cause a “publication” of the outputs, said the motion to dismiss. OpenAI’s terms of use make clear that ChatGPT is a tool “that assists the user in the writing or creation of draft content and that the user owns the content they generate with ChatGPT,” it said. Riehl agreed to abide by those terms, including the requirement that users verify and take ultimate responsibility for the content being published, it said. “As a matter of law,” it said, this creation of draft content for the user’s internal benefit is not “publication.”

OpenAI never made statements about Walters, a public figure, with “actual malice,” because OpenAI had no knowledge of the specific statements generated by Riehl’s prompts at all, said the motion to dismiss. The facts before the court “plainly demonstrate” that Walters can’t establish the basic elements of a defamation claim, it said. The case should be dismissed with prejudice, it said.