Legal fail: Don’t use AI to sue Facebook users for calling you a bad date

法律惨败：别用 AI 起诉那些说你约会表现糟糕的 Facebook 用户

An attempt to pressure Meta into removing a critical post from a Chicago Facebook group called “Are We Dating the Same Guy” may end in sanctions for lawyers whose takedown arguments appeared to rely on fake AI citations to support doxing claims. 为了迫使 Meta 删除芝加哥 Facebook 群组“Are We Dating the Same Guy”（我们是在和同一个人约会吗）中一篇批评性帖子，相关律师试图采取法律行动，但现在他们可能面临制裁，因为其撤帖论据似乎依赖于虚假的 AI 引用来支持“人肉搜索”（doxing）指控。

The case had already been dismissed with prejudice by a district court, which ruled there was no way to amend the complaint to possibly save it. But Nikko D’Ambrosio—who accused more than two dozen women of defaming him and blamed Meta for supposedly boosting the post to profit off its “entertainment value”—appealed anyway. 该案此前已被地方法院驳回且不得再次起诉，法院裁定该诉状已无法通过修改来挽回。但 Nikko D’Ambrosio 依然选择上诉，他曾指控二十多名女性诽谤他，并指责 Meta 为了获取“娱乐价值”而推流该帖子以从中获利。

Perhaps he felt confident despite his likely tough odds because he was relying on MarcTrent.AI, a law firm that claims to use AI to “uncover legal opportunities traditional firms miss” and “increase legal success rates by 35 percent through predictive modeling.” 尽管胜算渺茫，他或许感到自信，因为他依赖的是 MarcTrent.AI。这是一家声称利用 AI 来“发掘传统律所错失的法律机会”，并通过“预测建模将法律胜诉率提高 35%”的律师事务所。

In a 2025 blog discussing the case, founder Marc Trent confirmed that the firm had “utilized our tech team to draft” the initial complaint. He boasted that the “evolved” firm uses “everything related to AI now,” suggesting that “even Meta can’t beat us” and claiming that a win would make Facebook safer for everyone. 在 2025 年一篇讨论此案的博客中，创始人 Marc Trent 证实该律所“利用我们的技术团队起草了”最初的诉状。他吹嘘这家“进化版”律所现在“使用一切与 AI 相关的东西”，暗示“连 Meta 都打不过我们”，并声称胜诉将使 Facebook 对每个人来说都更安全。

Laying out the case, Trent said that he assumed that Meta “would quickly distance itself by removing the post.” But when Meta didn’t, he figured that overcoming Section 230 claims would be his biggest hurdle in the fight. However, he insisted that “his firm’s technological capabilities” would level the playing field, making it possible to beat Meta’s well-resourced legal teams who are deeply schooled at defending against Section 230 claims. 在陈述案情时，Trent 表示他曾以为 Meta “会通过删除帖子来迅速撇清关系”。但当 Meta 没有这样做时，他认为克服“第 230 条款”（Section 230）的抗辩将是他这场斗争中最大的障碍。然而，他坚称“他律所的技术能力”将拉平竞争环境，使他们有可能击败 Meta 资源雄厚且精通第 230 条款抗辩的法律团队。

However, during the appeal, judges agreed that the case was so weak that Section 230 didn’t even factor in. And the firm’s seeming reliance on AI to “execute” arguments “with precision” apparently did not help matters at all. 然而，在上诉过程中，法官们一致认为该案极其薄弱，甚至根本无需动用第 230 条款。而该律所似乎依赖 AI 来“精准执行”论点的做法，显然对案件毫无帮助。

In an opinion Friday, David Hamilton, a senior circuit judge for the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote that the three-judge panel agreed that “this is a relatively rare appeal in which sanctions appear to be appropriate.” Not only was the appeal deemed “frivolous” for failing to advance D’Ambrosio’s arguments, but it was also littered with “mistakes and fictitious quotations” that “bear the hallmarks of the misuse of generative artificial intelligence,” Hamilton said. 周五，美国第七巡回上诉法院高级巡回法官 David Hamilton 在一份意见书中写道，三名法官组成的合议庭一致认为，“这是一起相对罕见的上诉，对其进行制裁似乎是恰当的。”Hamilton 表示，该上诉不仅因未能推进 D’Ambrosio 的论点而被视为“轻率”，而且充斥着“错误和虚构的引文”，这些内容“带有滥用生成式人工智能的特征”。

“Briefs and other court submissions that include fictitious quotations—inaccuracies discoverable with elementary professional care—are unacceptable,” Hamilton wrote. MarcTrent.AI did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment on whether the firm plans to fight the potential sanctions. The firm has until June 16 to request a hearing or file statements on whether sanctions are warranted. “包含虚构引文的简报和其他法庭提交文件——这些通过基本的专业审慎即可发现的不准确之处——是不可接受的，”Hamilton 写道。MarcTrent.AI 没有立即回应 Ars 关于该律所是否计划反击潜在制裁的置评请求。该律所必须在 6 月 16 日之前申请听证会或提交关于制裁是否合理的陈述。

Man fails to scrub menacing text from Facebook

男子未能从 Facebook 上清除威胁性文字

D’Ambrosio’s legal fight started when a woman whom he briefly dated, Abbigail Rajala, blocked his number, and he persisted in sending a menacing text by using an alternate number. D’Ambrosio 的法律斗争始于他短暂约会过的对象 Abbigail Rajala 拉黑了他的号码，而他随后坚持使用另一个号码发送了一条威胁性短信。

Rajala posted a screenshot of the text in a thread where more than two dozen women started sharing photos of D’Ambrosio and criticizing him. Importantly, Rajala did not urge any call to action, like contacting his family or employer, or reveal his phone number or any other identifying information. Rajala 在一个帖子中发布了该短信的截图，随后有二十多名女性开始分享 D’Ambrosio 的照片并对他进行批评。重要的是，Rajala 并没有呼吁任何行动，例如联系他的家人或雇主，也没有泄露他的电话号码或任何其他身份信息。

Since the post was popular, it stuck to the top of the Facebook group’s feed, frustrating D’Ambrosio, who tried to claim that Meta was disregarding his safety by promoting the post. None of his arguments won out, but D’Ambrosio was hoping the court would agree that Rajala—and her parents, since she posted using their home Internet connection—had doxed him. 由于该帖子很受欢迎，它一直置顶在 Facebook 群组的动态顶部，这让 D’Ambrosio 感到沮丧。他试图声称 Meta 通过推广该帖子而无视他的人身安全。他的所有论点都没有成功，但 D’Ambrosio 希望法院能认定 Rajala——以及她的父母（因为她使用他们家的互联网连接发帖）——对他进行了“人肉搜索”。

He also tried to accuse Meta of profiting off his likeness by running ads alongside the post. Additionally, he tried to blame Rajala for another woman’s reply on the thread, which linked to a mug shot of a convicted rapist. 他还试图指控 Meta 通过在帖子旁边投放广告来利用他的肖像获利。此外，他还试图将另一名女性在帖子下的回复归咎于 Rajala，该回复链接了一名被定罪强奸犯的入狱照。

Despite the mug shot link displaying another man’s name and photo, D’Ambrosio claimed he had been defamed and had “suffered emotional distress, emotional loss, loss of professional opportunities, and damage to his reputation and relationships.” 尽管入狱照链接显示的是另一个人的名字和照片，但 D’Ambrosio 声称自己受到了诽谤，并“遭受了精神痛苦、情感损失、职业机会丧失以及名誉和人际关系的损害”。

His goal, Hamilton’s opinion noted, was to sue “anyone remotely associated with those posts for all possible, imaginable claims, including the woman who dated him and her parents, women commenting on posts, the operators of the Facebook group, and Facebook itself.” Hamilton 的意见书指出，他的目标是起诉“与这些帖子有任何关联的任何人，提出所有可能想象得到的索赔，包括与他约会的女性及其父母、在帖子下评论的女性、Facebook 群组的运营者以及 Facebook 本身。”

In his blog, Trent acknowledged that these Facebook groups “were ostensibly created to help women navigate dating safely,” but he claimed that some women abuse the groups to instead trigger harassment campaigns by accusing innocent men of spreading sexually transmitted infections or forcing women to having abortions. “They’re facilitating having people contact their bosses, their employers, to take the harm even further,” Trent alleged. 在他的博客中，Trent 承认这些 Facebook 群组“表面上是为了帮助女性安全地进行约会”，但他声称一些女性滥用这些群组，通过指控无辜男性传播性传播疾病或强迫女性堕胎来发起骚扰活动。“他们正在促使人们联系他们的老板和雇主，从而将伤害进一步扩大，”Trent 声称。

Importantly, D’Ambrosio failed to allege any concrete harm caused by the post, and there is no evidence that the post led to improper contact in the real world. He also never argued that anything that the women said about him was false. 重要的是，D’Ambrosio 未能证明该帖子造成了任何具体的伤害，也没有证据表明该帖子导致了现实世界中的不当接触。他也从未辩称这些女性关于他的言论有任何虚假之处。

Extremely late in the game, his lawyers tried to save his case by arguing that it was possible that the screenshot Rajala shared was doctored. But the panel rejected that argument since D’Ambrosio had ample opportunity to dispute the text’s authenticity earlier in the litigation, and never did it before oral arguments during the appeal. 在诉讼的最后阶段，他的律师试图通过辩称 Rajala 分享的截图可能是伪造的来挽救案件。但合议庭驳回了这一论点，因为 D’Ambrosio 在诉讼早期有充足的机会对短信的真实性提出质疑，却从未在上诉的口头辩论前这样做过。

An Internet law expert monitoring the case, Eric Goldman, explained that D’Ambrosio’s case is similar to other lawsuits in which men have tried and failed to have critical posts removed from “Spill the Tea”-branded Facebook groups like the Chicago-based “Are We Dating the Same Guy” group. 一位关注此案的互联网法律专家 Eric Goldman 解释说，D’Ambrosio 的案件与其他诉讼类似，在这些诉讼中，男性试图从“Spill the Tea”（爆料）品牌的 Facebook 群组（如芝加哥的“Are We Dating the Same Guy”群组）中删除批评性帖子，但均以失败告终。