### The Ascension and Decline of DoNotPay: The “Automated Attorney” That Deceived Consumers
In the swiftly changing realm of artificial intelligence (AI), few developments have garnered public interest like **DoNotPay**, a startup that labeled itself as “the world’s pioneering automated attorney.” Originally launched in 2015 to assist users in disputing parking violations, DoNotPay rapidly broadened its offerings, alleging support in over 200 legal areas, ranging from contract disputes to divorce agreements. Nevertheless, recent undertakings by the **Federal Trade Commission (FTC)** have uncovered that the firm’s assertions were largely misleading, culminating in a settlement and a wider crackdown on false AI advertising.
#### The FTC’s Measures Against DoNotPay
On **Wednesday, September 2024**, the FTC revealed it had initiated action against DoNotPay for asserting false claims concerning its AI capabilities. The company promoted that its AI chatbot could execute legal tasks comparable to those of a human attorney, despite lacking any testing to substantiate these claims. According to the FTC, DoNotPay also neglected to hire or consult with any lawyers to verify the legal counsel generated by its AI.
Under the settlement terms, DoNotPay consented to pay **$193,000** and inform consumers who subscribed from 2021 to 2023 about the limitations of its legal services. Additionally, the company is barred from making future assertions that its AI can substitute professional legal assistance without adequate proof.
#### The Misleading Advertising Behind DoNotPay
DoNotPay’s promotional strategy significantly contributed to its swift expansion. The company employed bold statements and deceptive advertisements to draw in customers. One of the most notorious instances cited by the FTC involved a quote allegedly from the **Los Angeles Times** that lauded the service, claiming, “what this automated attorney can achieve is astonishingly similar—if not superior—to what human attorneys accomplish.” However, the FTC uncovered that this quote originated from a high school student’s opinion piece published on the **Los Angeles Times’ High School Insider** platform, a site for user-generated content targeted at youth.
Beneath these misleading advertisements, DoNotPay’s legal services were primarily powered by an API linked to **OpenAI’s ChatGPT**, a chatbot trained to identify relationships between words but not on a comprehensive collection of federal and state laws. The FTC discovered that DoNotPay had not assessed the quality or accuracy of the legal documents produced by its service, nor had it engaged any attorneys to supervise the AI’s output.
#### The Formation and Growth of DoNotPay
DoNotPay originated as a complimentary service designed to assist users in challenging parking tickets, a fairly straightforward legal task. However, its founder, **Joshua Browder**, swiftly broadened its focus, asserting that the service could manage a vast array of legal issues. By 2018, Browder acknowledged to the **ABA Journal** that the service operated without any lawyer supervision, although he expressed only slight concern regarding possible lawsuits for unauthorized practice of law. At the time, Browder believed that since the service was free, it could evade legal challenges.
In 2019, DoNotPay began charging users **$36 every two months**, and its marketing tactics grew more aggressive. The company proclaimed that its AI could tackle intricate legal matters, including drafting demand letters, submitting small claims, and even aiding with job discrimination grievances. However, as the company expanded, so did the scrutiny of its services.
#### Legal Troubles and Controversies
By 2022, DoNotPay had received a cease-and-desist notice from the **California Bar**, which protested the company’s assertions that it was the “world’s first automated attorney.” Although DoNotPay consented to cease using this terminology, the FTC discovered that the company continued to make similar claims, resulting in additional legal actions.
In 2023, DoNotPay was hit with a lawsuit from a user named **Jonathan Faridian**, who contended that the service had delivered “subpar” legal documents. Faridian’s case underscored the rising discontent among some users, who perceived the AI-generated legal advice as insufficient. Browder dismissed the lawsuit as an attempt by a notable class-action firm to “intimidate” DoNotPay, yet the case contributed to the growing legal pressure on the company.
Arguably the most ambitious—and controversial—moment in DoNotPay’s timeline occurred in 2023 when Browder declared plans for the “automated attorney” to represent a client in court to contest a traffic violation. However, after receiving threats from state bar prosecutors, Browder abandoned the initiative, fearing potential jail time for unauthorized legal practice.
#### The Outlook for AI in Legal Services
The FTC’s action against DoNotPay is part of a larger initiative to regulate misleading AI claims. As part of its **”Operation AI Comply”**, the FTC has taken enforcement measures against various AI firms that have misrepresented their products’ capabilities. **FTC Chair Lina Khan**
