header-logo header-logo

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are known to ‘hallucinate’, making up false information or confabulating to fill gaps in their knowledge. But who is responsible in law for any libel or harm caused as a result? In this week’s NLJ, Chloe Flascher, associate at Withers, addresses this fascinating conundrum.
Artificial intelligence tools are not (yet) above creating false information: who could be liable for the serious harm suffered as a result of publishing that information? Chloe Flascher examines a thorny legal issue
For centuries, the judiciary has remained one of the only checks against blatant attempts to mislead, says Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC
‘All characters & events depicted in this film are entirely fictitious… even when they’re not’: Athelstane Aamodt examines some perilous portrayals on the big & small screen
Brexit campaigner Aaron Banks has lost his libel trial against investigative journalist Carol Cadwalladr
Actor Johnny Depp has lost his libel case against The Sun newspaper for calling him a ‘wife beater’
Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll