Blog Post

By: Anastasia Hinojosa

When a company’s AI customer service chatbot promises a deal, who should bear the cost of believing it? According to a recent social media post, a customer of a small UK business secured an 80% discount, placed an order worth thousands of pounds, only to have the order cancelled [1]. The problem? The discount was negotiated between the customer and the company’s AI chatbot, and the customer reportedly spent an hour convincing the AI to create and then to repeatedly increase the discount [2]. Once the discount reached 80%, the AI generated a coupon code for the customer [3]. The AI had no actual authority to negotiate or issue discounts, but the customer relied on it nonetheless. When the system failed to accept the discount code, the customer paid a deposit on the large order and provided the code in the comments [4]. The business owner remedied the situation by refunding the deposit, cancelling the order, and providing an explanation that the AI code was not valid [5]. While this case has a more straightforward resolution due to the customer’s actions, it begs the question: is a customer justified in relying on statements made through an official customer-service channel? When a business deploys an AI chatbot as customer service, should it be bound by what the chatbot promises? Agency law offers a familiar answer.

The question at hand is not what the chatbot was allowed to do (actual authority), but what the business led customers to believe it could do (apparent authority). Actual authority is the protocols and scripts that the program has been given. Apparent authority requires actions by the principal that lead a reasonable customer to rely on its agent’s actions. Customer service chatbots have a branded interface, official customer-service roles, and can give conversational assurances. Why would a customer think it needs to fact-check it? A customer could reasonably rely on this AI chatbot to give it only accurate information. 

In the Canadian case Moffatt v. Air Canada, the Tribunal found Air Canada liable for incorrect information given by its AI chatbot to a customer regarding the airline’s policy for discounted bereavement fares [6]. The chatbot told the customer that he could apply for bereavement fares within 90 days after the flight [7]. Mr. Moffatt followed the chatbot’s instructions to get the retroactive discount and submitted a refund form with a death certificate within that timeframe, but Air Canada refused the request [8]. The customer prevailed in the claim of negligent misrepresentation and was awarded damages [9]. A seller can be negligently misrepresentative when it does not use reasonable care to ensure its representations are accurate and not misleading [10]. Air Canada had argued that the AI chatbot was a separate legal entity responsible for its own actions, but the Tribunal found Air Canada responsible for all information on its website, including information relayed by the chatbot. [11]

Businesses should be held liable for the promises made by their AI customer-service chatbots. Agency doctrine properly allocates the risk of automation to the party best positioned to prevent consumer harm. Businesses choose to deploy chatbots, control the training data (directly or by inherent risk), establish user procedures and protocols, and monitor for compliance. Consumers have no way to assess whether a chatbot’s promises are authorized or unauthorized at the moment they rely on them. Even when a chatbot contradicts other information available on the business’s website, a customer would not inherently know which is true. 

Treating chatbots as apparent agents incentivizes businesses to maintain meaningful customer-service oversight rather than externalizing the costs of cheaper automation onto consumers. Allowing businesses to disclaim chatbot promises would turn cost-cutting automation into a liability shield, would incentivize the deployment of poor quality systems, and would undermine consumer protection. Apparent authority ensures that businesses internalize the risks of replacing human customer service with AI. It does not require recognizing AI as a legal person or expanding agency law. Existing apparent authority doctrine covers this.

One objection to this viewpoint is that holding businesses liable for chatbot promises will limit innovation by discouraging companies from experimenting with AI-driven customer service. Faced with potential liability for errant chatbot statements, firms may delay adoption of new technology or over-invest in compliance, which will slow technological progress. In practice, apparent authority encourages businesses to innovate responsibly by improving chatbot accuracy, designing clearer limitations, and preserving meaningful human review. The law has held businesses responsible for the acts of its agents from junior employees to automated checkout systems. AI chatbots are not meaningfully different simply because their errors are generated probabilistically.

Apparent authority does not prohibit innovation; it ensures that businesses internalize the foreseeable risks of the tools they choose to deploy. If innovation only works by shifting costs to consumers, then this isn’t innovation we should subsidize. Some businesses may think adding a disclaimer on the chatbot should limit their liability. Allowing businesses to rely on boilerplate disclaimers would undermine the very consumer reliance that apparent authority is designed to protect, particularly where chatbots are presented as official customer service channels and speak in the business’s voice.

Holding businesses liable for chatbot promises through apparent authority ensures that firms adopting AI customer service internalize the risks of automation rather than passing them onto consumers. Businesses speak through the tools they deploy. Rather than waiting for new, AI-specific statutes that may develop unevenly across states, courts should rely on established legal principles that already govern how businesses act through their agents. Businesses remain free to deploy chatbots, but they must do so responsibly. They must invest in oversight and meaningful safeguards. Innovation that depends on disclaiming accountability is not the type of innovation the law has any obligation to protect. If a chatbot speaks for the business, the business should stand behind what it says.

Sources:

[1] Post by u/PerfectHumor216, Reddit (r/LegalAdviceUK), An AI chat-assist created and offered a customer an 80% off offer. Customer has now placed an order of £8,000+. (Feb. 6, 2026), https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1qxc7x9/an_ai_chatassist_created_and_offered_a_customer/

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Lisa R. Lifshitz & Roland Hung,  BC Tribunal Confirms Companies Remain Liable for Information Provided by AI Chatbot, American Bar Association (Feb. 29, 2024), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2024-february/bc-tribunal-confirms-companies-remain-liable-information-provided-ai-chatbot/.

[7] Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

By: Mary Tassone

New York has recently signed the Medical Aid in Dying Act (MAiD). [2] MAiD allows mentally competent, terminally ill patients to request medical aid to end their lives under strict procedural safeguards. With the signing of this Act, New York becomes the thirteenth state to authorize MAiD. [3]

This development is a significant shift in state policy. In 2017, the Myers v. Schneiderman decision held in that medical aid in dying falls within the state’s prohibition on assisted suicide as it involves intentionally providing the means to commit suicide. [4] The New York Court of Appeals highlighted the state’s legitimate interest in preserving life, preventing suicide, protecting vulnerable individuals, and maintaining the integrity of the medical profession. [5]

The legislature has turned the state in a different direction. There has been a wide array of ethical and political debates surrounding medical aid in dying. Controversies also arise in the field of science. When science and medication can no longer cure or alleviate pain, should science and medication have a role in ending it? 

Not all diseases and illnesses are curable. Advancements in medical technology have extended life and improved the quality of life. However, many cancers remain incurable in advanced states. ALS, a neurodegenerative disease, remains incurable. Science helps diagnose, treat, and manage pain, but it cannot always cure the disease. This raises the idea as to whether science should help end suffering even if it ends life. Is science obligated to prolong life, even if it consists of unavoidable suffering?

The New York MAiD regulates medical intervention to end life. The law signed by Governor Hochul includes strong safeguards to prevent coercion and abuse. In order to be provided with medical aid in dying under the New York Act, a patient must have a diagnosis of 6 months or less to live, a patient must make both recorded oral and written requests for such mediation, and the patient must be deemed to have decision making capacity. [6] The patient’s attending physician must examine the patient in person and patient health records to determine diagnosis and prognosis. [7] The attending physician must also make a determination about the patient’s decision-making capacity and decide that the patient made an informed decision, voluntarily, on their own volition, and without coercion. [8] The attending physician must also refer the patient to a consulting physician and a mental health physician who must corroborate the attending physician’s thoughts. [9] The attending physician must explain the diagnosis, prognosis, risks of the medical aid in dying medication, feasible alternatives, and the ability to rescind the request. [10] They must also give the patient educational information regarding hospice and palliative care. [11] Additionally, if all other requirements are fulfilled, the prescription shall not be fulfilled after the prescription was written for 5 days, creating a mandatory five-day waiting period. [12]

With the rise of do-not-resuscitate orders, withdrawal of support, and palliative sedation, MAiD follows contemporary medicine practices that may not always preserve life at all costs. The New York Medical Aid in Dying Act reflects a shift in how society understands the role of science at the end of life. Science is able to extend life, but MAiD allows science to serve patients’ autonomy and dignity at the end of their life. MAID reflects an intersection between innovation and regulation.

Sources:

[1] Our History, End of Life Options New Mexico, (last accessed March 5, 2026)  https://endoflifeoptionsnm.org/about-us/our-history/.

[2]Wendy Hoey Sheinberg, Medical Aid in Dying is Now Legal in NY, Rivkin Radler LLP, February 18, 2026, https://www.rivkinradler.com/publications/medical-aid-in-dying-is-now-legal-in-ny/.

[3]Id.

[4]Myers v. Schneiderman, 85 N.E.3d 57, 62 (2017) (“Aid-in-dying falls squarely within the ordinary meaning of the ordinary meaning of the statutory prohibition on assisting suicide.”).

[5]Id. at 91.

[6]N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2899-e (McKinney 2026); N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2899-f (McKinney 2026).

[7] N.Y. Pub Health Law § 2899-f (McKinney 2026) (allowing patients to be seen by the physician via telehealth if the patient would suffer extraordinary hardship, like pain or suffering, if required to meet a physician in-person).

[8]Id.

[9]Id.

[10]Id.

[11]Id.

[12]N.Y. Pub Health Law § 2899-f (McKinney 2026).

By: Abigail Tanner

On January 16, 2026, Micron broke ground in Clay, NY in a much-anticipated step toward the development of a semiconductor factory, along with potential accompanying support facilities and population growth. [1] These upcoming changes could have a massive impact on Central New York through new jobs, a growing population, new residential areas, and new shopping centers. [2]Because this buildout will require new roads, sidewalks, and support infrastructure anyway, it creates an opportunity to integrate waste heat recovery from the start and turn it into a snowmelt system that is both environmentally clean and luxurious.

The selected region for the factory site is White Pine Commerce Park, which is owned by Onondaga County. [3] Micron plans to build a 1,400-acre site off Route 31 containing a 7.2 million square foot complex consisting of four semiconductor fabrication plants and associated support facilities. The associated support facilities include stormwater management areas, driveways, parking lots, a childcare facility, and many other potential businesses a thriving area requires. [4] The project is expected to bring in over 50,000 new residents to fill approximately 9,000 new jobs created by Micron directly and 42,000 new jobs created indirectly for retail, restaurants, and other amenities. [5]

This growth is anticipated to be so large that a plan for additional housing, infrastructure, transportation, healthcare facilities, and many other municipal necessities was created. The  plan recommended promoting a high-density residential population in the area over the next 10 to 15 years. [7] It also suggested strategic improvements to create vibrant, walkable town centers to promote social interaction. [8]

One advantage of high density, walkable areas when combined with facilities that create waste heat is the possibility of recycling it for other uses. Many mountain towns have increasingly turned to using waste heat to heat buildings, melt snow, and reduce energy costs. [9] For example, residents in Holland, Michigan have enjoyed snow free streets and sidewalks thanks to a cooperative public-private venture between the City of Holland and local businessman Edger Prince. [10]

In Holland, the municipally owned snowmelt system captures waste heat from power generation and circulates it through 190 miles of tubing beneath the pavement and sidewalks. [11] This closed system circulates a heated transfer fluid, commonly a water and antifreeze mixture, through tubing beneath the pavement at 95 degrees. This process melts snow at a rate of one inch per hour at 20 degrees with winds of 10 mph. [12]The Holland model demonstrates how municipal infrastructure and private development can align for mutually beneficial goals. 

Currently, Micron and Onondaga County are working together in a similar manner as Price and the municipality in Holland. County Executive Ryan McMahon is leading a $500 million project to build an industrial wastewater treatment plant for Micron. In theory, the county could follow the model presented in Holland by recovering low temperature heat from the wastewater stream at the plant, potentially upgraded with heat pumps, to create a snowmelt system. Such a snowmelt system would help the county achieve its aim of creating a high-density, vibrant walkable area around the new Micron development.

However, such a design poses engineering challenges. One key difference between Holland’s snowmelt system and a potential snowmelt system in Clay is that Holland’s system is powered by waste heat from electric power generation rather than an industrial wastewater treatment plant. In 2022, researchers in Poland completed a study showcasing how such a heat recovery system could work for an industrial wastewater treatment plant. Some industrial wastewater facilities do not rely on the biological processes which generate significant heat. That said, such challenges can be addressed through an intentionally designed plant and heat pumps as explained by the proposed system in the Heat Recovery article in Energies.

Special thanks to Madhusudan Kamat, Ph.D., Senior Environmental Engineer, EarthRes and Rosaleen Nogle, Principal Sanitary Engineer, Buffalo Sewer Authority for their insights.

[1]Start of a New Era? Micron Breaks ground for Massive CNY Project (Good Morning CNY for Jan. 19), Syracuse.com (Jan. 19, 2026, 7:07 AM), https://www.syracuse.com/news/2026/01/start-of-a-new-era-micron-breaks-ground-for-massive-cny-project-good-morning-cny-for-jan-19.html.

[2] Id.

[3]Id.

[4]Micron New York Semiconductor Manufacturing LLC, Dep’t. of Env’t Servs., https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/facilities-in-your-neighborhood/micron (last visited Jan. 22, 2026).

[5]Town of Clay Land Use Study, Shaping Community Identity Amidst Tremendous Economic Growth, LaBella, https://labellapc.com/projects/town-of-clay-land-use-study/ (last visited Jan. 22, 2026).

[6]Id.

[7]Id.

[8]Id.

[9]Colton Barry, How Mountain Towns Are Using Waste Heat to Stay Warm — And What It Means for the Future of Ski Resorts, Powder Innovation (Dec. 5, 2025), https://www.powderinnovation.com/post/how-mountain-towns-are-using-waste-heat-to-stay-warm-and-what-it-means-for-the-future-of-ski-resor

[10]Snowmelt System, Downtown Holland, https://downtownholland.com/snowmelt/ (last visited Jan. 22, 2026).

[11]Id.

[12]Id.

By: Rachel Rohrbaugh

An Update to TikTok’s Privacy Policy

On January 22, 2026, millions of TikTok users in the United States received a notice that TikTok’s privacy policy had changed. And, to keep scrolling, they would have to accept the new terms. Two changes to TikTok’s policy sparked the interest of the privacy community along with the general public—the language around collecting “citizenship or immigration status” and GPS location data. 

Although the citizenship and immigration data collection sparked widespread public concern, the language has been in TikTok’s terms since August 2024. The language was likely prompted by California’s AB-947 bill, which added citizenship and immigration status to the state’s definition of sensitive personal information. California legislation and the public’s reaction demonstrate just how private we are starting to consider this type of information. 

GPS data collection, the seemingly more innocuous of the two changes, is likely the greater privacy concern. Previously, TikTok was only collecting location data via your device’s IP address. This location data is generally only accurate to the city level. Now, TikTok has updated its terms to collect GPS location data to within several meters.

TikTok’s Data Sharing Policy

As TikTok was negotiating terms with the Trump Administration late in 2025, TikTok added language to its policies that covered its intent to comply with law enforcement and “regulatory authorities, where relevant.” Up until April 25, 2025, TikTok’s policy was to notify users before disclosing their data to law enforcement. Now, company policy is to only tell users about data requests for their information “where required by law.”

TikTok’s Data and the Fourth Amendment

So, what would happen if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requested a TikTok user’s geolocation and citizenship data? If TikTok complied without requiring a warrant, would that constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment?

Carpenter v. United States opened these questions up by holding that “a warrant is required in the rare case where the [user] has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party.” Law professor Matthew Tokson synthesized the test that came out of Carpenter as follows: whether a user has a legitimate privacy interest in their data depends on (1) the revealing nature of the data captured; (2) the amount of data captured; and (3) whether the user voluntarily disclosed their information to others.

Although no court has had the opportunity to apply Carpenter to TikTok’s data collection, Tokson’s test suggests strong grounds for constitutional protection. Courts already treat geolocation data as private—private enough to use Carpenter to carve out an exception to the third-party doctrine which says that individuals assume the risk of giving their information away to a third party. Citizenship and immigration data are growing more sensitive as government data collection efforts and ICE removal operations expand. TikTok would argue that users voluntarily disclosed their data, but that claim is undermined by some of TikTok’s own policies. For example, TikTok continues to collect location data even when a user turns off their Location Services.

What You Can Do After Clicking “Agree” 

As the data we hand to third parties grows more sensitive and precise, the concerns that drove Carpenter’s Fourth Amendment protection keep resurfacing. Until the courts settle the questions concerning TikTok’s data collection, users worried about their privacy should take concrete steps to protect themselves. Turn off Location Services to minimize the accuracy of GPS location tracking. Avoid posting content or participating in surveys that reveal citizenship or immigration status. And recognize that even when the information you give to TikTok feels private, the law hasn’t yet decided whether it agrees.

Sources:

 [1] Danny Bradbury, TikTok’s Privacy Update Mentions Immigration Status. Here’s Why., Malwarebytes (Jan. 30, 2026), https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2026/01/tiktoks-privacy-update-mentions-immigration-status-heres-why#:~:text=And%20TikTok%20is%20not%20asking,947%2C%20signed%20in%20October%202023. 

[2]Id.

[3]Id.

[4]Id.; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140 (Deering 2025) (amended according to California’s AB-947 bill).

[5]Q&A: Should You Worry About TikTok’s New Terms of Service?, UVAToday, https://news.virginia.edu/content/qa-should-you-worry-about-tiktoks-new-terms-service.

[6]Id.

[7]Id.

[8]TikTok Law Enforcement Guidelines, TikTok (Jan. 22, 2026), https://www.tiktok.com/legal/page/global/law-enforcement/en; Emily Baker-White, TikTok Won’t Say If It’s Giving ICE Your Data, Forbes (Oct. 21, 2025), https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2025/10/21/tiktok-wont-say-if-its-giving-ice-your-data/. 

[9]TikTok Law Enforcement Guidelines, supra note 8; Emily Baker-White, supra note 8.

[10]585 U.S. 296, 319 (2018).

[11]Matthew Tokson, The Carpenter Test as a Transformation of Fourth Amendment Law, 2 Univ. Ill. L. Rev. 507, 518 (2023).

[12]Muzaffar Chishti and Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, Seeking to Ramp Up Deportations, The Trump Administration Quietly Expands a Vast Web of Data, Migration Policy Institute (May 29, 2025), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/trump-ice-data-surveillance; ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Statistics, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, https://www.ice.gov/statistics (last visited Feb. 6, 2026).

[13]Location Information on TikTok, TikTok Support, https://www.tiktok.com/support/faq_detail?id=7543897457726593542&category=web_account (last visited Feb. 6, 2026).

By: Sarah Peck

As the 2026 election cycle approaches, lawmakers and regulators are moving quickly to address a growing threat: the use of artificial intelligence to create deceptive political content. In recent months, federal agencies and state governments have taken steps to regulate so-called “deepfakes”—AI-generated audio, images, and videos that can convincingly mimic real people.[1] These efforts reflect mounting concern that synthetic media could be used to mislead voters, spread disinformation, or undermine confidence in democratic processes.

The urgency is not theoretical. In 2024, voters in New Hampshire received robocalls featuring an AI-generated voice resembling President Joe Biden, urging them not to vote in the state’s primary.[2] The incident prompted investigations and enforcement actions, including criminal charges against a political consultant accused of orchestrating the scheme.[3] These developments signal that AI-generated political deception is no longer a hypothetical risk, but a present and evolving challenge. 

Federal regulators have already begun to act. In February 2024, the Federal Communications Commission issued a declaratory ruling stating that AI-generated voices used in robocalls qualify as “artificial” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), allowing such calls to be restricted or penalized under existing law.[4] The agency later proposed a multi-million dollar fine against those responsible for the New Hampshire robocalls, further demonstrating its willingness to enforce these rules.[5]
At the state level, legislative activity has accelerated. States such as California and Texas have enacted or expanded laws targeting deceptive synthetic media in political communications, including requirements for disclosure and restrictions on materially misleading content near elections.[6] In 2025 and 2026, additional states have introduced similar measures, creating a rapidly evolving patchwork of regulations aimed at curbing AI-generated election interference.[7]

The technology driving these developments has advanced rapidly. Voice cloning tools can now generate realistic speech from only a short audio sample, lowering the barrier to creating convincing impersonations.[8] As these tools become more accessible, the potential for misuse increases, allowing individuals with limited technical expertise to create synthetic media capable of reaching large audiences.

Despite the momentum toward regulation, significant constitutional challenges remain. Political speech lies at the core of First Amendment protection, and courts have consistently applied strict scrutiny to laws that restrict it.[9] Efforts to regulate AI-generated political content must therefore be carefully tailored to avoid infringing on protected expression, including satire, parody, and legitimate political messaging.

This creates a difficult legal question: should regulation focus on the use of AI itself, or on the deceptive effects of its outputs? Broad restrictions on AI-generated political content risk sweeping in lawful speech, while narrower rules targeting deception may be difficult to enforce in fast-moving digital environments. The speed and scale of AI-generated content make it particularly challenging to detect and address harmful uses before they reach voters.

The current wave of enforcement and legislation suggests that regulators are attempting to strike a middle ground—targeting clearly deceptive uses of AI-generated content while preserving room for lawful expression. However, as deepfake technology continues to evolve, these efforts may struggle to keep pace. The speed at which synthetic media can be created and disseminated presents a fundamental challenge to traditional legal approaches, which often rely on after-the-fact enforcement.

Ultimately, the question is not whether AI-generated deepfakes will play a role in future elections—they almost certainly will. The more pressing issue is whether existing legal frameworks can effectively address the risks they pose. As courts begin to confront these questions, their decisions will shape not only the regulation of AI, but also the future of political communication in an era where seeing—and hearing—is no longer believing.

Sources

1. Reuters, U.S. states ramp up regulation of AI deepfakes ahead of 2026 elections (Feb. 14, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/us-states-ramp-up-ai-deepfake-regulation-ahead-2026-elections-2025-02-14/ [hereinafter Deepfakes].

2. Reuters, Fake ‘Biden’ robocall tells New Hampshire Democrats to stay home (Jan. 22, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fake-biden-robo-call-tells-new-hampshire-voters-stay-home-2024-01-22/.

3. Press Release, N.H. Dep’t of Justice, Steven Kramer Charged with Voter Suppression Over AI-Generated President Biden Robocalls (May 23, 2024), https://www.doj.nh.gov/news-and-media/steven-kramer-charged-voter-suppression-over-ai-generated-president-biden-robocalls.

4. In re Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies on Protecting Consumers from Unwanted Robocalls and Robotexts, Declaratory Ruling, FCC 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-17A1.pdf.

5. In the Matter of Steve Kramer, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 24-59 (adopted May 23, 2024; released May 24, 2024), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-59A1.pdf.

6. Cal. Elec. Code § 20010 (West 2024); Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 255.004 (West 2023).

7. Deepfakes¸ supra note 1.

8. FTC Office of Technology, Preventing the Harms of AI-Enabled Voice Cloning (Nov. 16, 2023), https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/2023/11/preventing-harms-ai-enabled-voice-cloning.

9. Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786 (2011).

By: Jill Nelson

The picture at issue, “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”.  [1]

The Supreme Court’s recent refusal to hear Thaler v. Perlmutter makes clear that AI-generated works cannot receive copyright protection because authorship requires a human mind. [2]Although AI can be sophisticated, it does not meet the necessary criteria. 

Thaler’s legal journey began in 2018, when he first sought to copyright A Recent Entrance to Paradise. [3]Thaler faced rejection from the Copyright Office, a loss in federal court, and another loss at the U.S. Court of Appeals. [4] Now, on March 2nd, 2026, the Supreme Court declined Stephen Thaler’s petition seeking copyright for an image generated entirely by his AI system, “Creativity Machine”, allowing the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that AI generated works without human authorship are not copyrightable to stand. [5] Courthouse News similarly emphasizes that D.C. Circuit’s opinion frames human authorship as a “necessary condition” under the Copyright Act of 1976. [6] Judge Patricia Millett explained that copyright is a form of property that can be inherited or transferred, and that the duration of copyright is parallel to a human lifespan. [7] These are actions that require a human to be the owner. 

The Supreme Court’s silence effectively affirms the Copyright Office’s position that human authorship is a fundamental requirement. [8] This outcome marks another defeat for Thaler, who has repeatedly attempted to secure property rights for outputs of his AI systems, which includes Thaler’s earlier efforts to patent inventions with AI listed as inventors. [9] National Today noted that the denial “solidifies the current legal stance that AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, which could have significant implications for the growing creative industry around AI powered art and content generation”. [10]

There can be some perspective on this issue, placing it in a broader policy context. [11] The Copyright Office has recently issued guidance that clarifies that AI-generated artwork based solely on prompts is not protectable by copyright. [12] Even when AI can assist in the inventive process, human authorship is the “bedrock requirement of copyright”.  [13] The UK has also reached the same conclusion that is similar to the case brought by Thaler. [14] But, the UK recognizes “computer generated” works as copyrightable and assigns the authorship to the “person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken”. [15]

If AI-generated works could be copyrighted or even patented, the volume of filings would flood the system, as we see an attempt here. AI systems can generate hundreds and thousands of images, texts, or other variations of works in a span of a few seconds. Granting protections for AI generated works would fill the legal system, dilute the value of human creativity, and eventually lead to monopolies over AI algorithmic recombination of the already-existing works. [16]

 The question then becomes, what is left for humanity? If AI becomes the legal creator, humans run the risk of becoming operators, or even worse, irrelevant. AI systems do not create the same way humans do. [17] AI systems generate outputs based on the different information fed into them. [18]AI then remixes, recombines, and reassembles that information, not originating it.[19] To grant authorship or inventorship would be granting credit for the human creativity that it depends on. We feed AI systems with our own prompts, statements, and ideas, and keeping authorship with a human requirement is a safeguard for the future of creativity itself. 

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Thaler’s case is more of a reaffirmation that intellectual property law protects human creativity, not AI-generated outputs. [20] Allowing AI to be an author or inventor would undermine originality, ruin ownership, and overwhelm the legal system. Intellectual property law is structured to incentivize human imagination, and preserving this structure ensures that human judgment and especially expression remain meaningful. [21]

[1] Francesca Witzburg, No Copyright Without a Human: What Thaler v. Perlmutter Means for AI Art, ESCA (Apr. 4, 2025) https://www.esca.legal/post/ai-copyright-law. 

[2]  Andrew Karpan, Justices Again Reject Bid for AI Copyright, LAW360 (Mar. 2, 2026), www.law360.com/articles/2446703/justices-reject-appeal-over-copyright-for-ai-created-art?read_full=1. 

[3] Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case on Copyrighting AI-Generated Art, NATIONAL TODAY (2026) 

https://nationaltoday.com/us/dc/washington/news/2026/03/02/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-case-on-copyrighting-ai-generated-art/.

[4] Id.

[5]Id.; Thaler v Perlmutter, 87 F.4th 679 (D.C. Cir. 2023), cert. denied (U.S. Mar. 2, 2026). 

[6] Steve Garrison, Supreme Court denies appeal in AI-generated art case, COURTHOUSE NEWS SERV. (Mar. 2, 2026) https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme-court-denies-appeal-in-ai-generated-art-case/.

[7] Id.

[8] Karpan, supra note 1. 

[9] Emma Roth, AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after the Supreme Court declines to review the rule, The Verge (Mar. 2, 2026) https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright. 

[10] NATIONAL TODAY, supra note 2.

[11] See Roth, supra note 7. 

[12]  Id.

[13]  Id.

[14]  Id.

[15] Sarah Lim, Copyright Law in the Age of AI: Navigating Authorship, Infringement, and Creative Rights, NYSBA (June 20, 2025) https://nysba.org/copyright-law-in-the-age-of-ai-navigating-authorship-infringement-and-creative-rights/?srsltid=AfmBOoqzEPU6AB-0KSiiJPBif6T8fbeEsbNWS1xkPsIMXoYj4vFix5Ra.

[16] See Michael Carrier, Derek Slater, Worried About AI Monopoly? Embrace Copyright’s Limits, (Oct. 27, 2025) https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/worried-about-ai-monopoly–embrace-copyright-s-limits. 

[17] Lim, supra note 15.

[18] Roth, supra note 7.

[19] Id.

[20] Karpan, supra note 1.

[21] See Lim, supra note 15; see Witzburg, supra note 2.

Figure 1: Example Snapshot of Phenotype Profile [1]

In May 2022, a jury found an Indiana man guilty of violent crimes against three victims in Ohio, all of which occurred over twenty years ago in 2000. [2] In 2005, DNA profiles obtained at each crime scene revealed that the crimes were linked to one common suspect. [3] However, the identity of the suspect was unknown at the time. [4] In 2018, an investigator submitted the DNA to create a phenotype report, creating a digital, composite image of the potential physical appearance of a suspect. [6] Subsequently, this image was admitted as part of the evidence for the case. This case is one of many examples of the rising use of a new DNA analysis technology: DNA phenotyping.

Conventional DNA Analysis vs. DNA Phenotyping

Conventional DNA analysis is a separate and distinct forensic investigation method from DNA phenotyping. The common method of DNA analysis seen in criminal investigations is short tandem repeat (“STR”) analysis. [7]This method examines multiple, core locations on certain chromosomes where certain sequences of nucleotides repeat. [8]The number of repeats varies from person to person, and the number of repeats across each location creates a DNA profile that can be used to identify an individual to a “nearly irrefutable” degree as it is extremely unlikely that two individuals will share the same DNA profile. [9]These STR regions of DNA are non-coding and do not reveal physical characteristics or traits. [10] In other words, an STR profile can be used to compare profiles from different scenes to see if there is a common suspect or to compare a scene profile with a known sample’s profile; however, it cannot be used to reveal any further information about the DNA donor. 

In contrast, DNA phenotyping is a relatively novel analytical method that examines different regions of DNA, referred to as single nucleotide polymorphisms (“SNPs”), that are known to cause or are associated with physical traits of individuals.[11] Phenotyping analysis utilizes statistical models that predict the likelihood of a DNA donor possessing a certain trait such as eye or hair color. [12]

Notably, DNA phenotyping is merely a predictive model and does not have the degree of specificity that an STR profile has, and is not intended to be used to identify a person based on a phenotype profile. [13] Phenotyping has been successful in identifying persons of interest in homicide investigations as well as in predicting the appearance of human remains in advanced stages of decomposition.[14] In addition, phenotyping has the potential utility of serving as a “biological witness,” providing descriptions of a DNA donor that may corroborate, or be more reliable than human eyewitness testimony. [15]

The Future of DNA Phenotyping: Ethical Considerations and Jurisdictional Differences

DNA phenotyping has demonstrated its utility as an investigative aid in forensic operations. However, due to its nature of identifying the physical appearances of DNA donors, the use of DNA phenotyping raises admissibility and ethical concerns. For instance, the reliability of such a technique may present a Fourth Amendment challenge if the profile was involved as a basis for a search or seizure. [16] Researchers and experts of DNA phenotyping have also identified the ethical considerations associated with DNA phenotyping, such as the potential invasions of privacy arising from the generation of profiles and potential discrimination or bias in the use of phenotype profiles.[17] Some experts recommend training to ensure correctly generated profiles, and proper interpretation by both DNA analysts and investigating authorities. [18]

State legislatures are split regarding the regulation of DNA phenotyping in light of the ethical and admissibility considerations surrounding the method. Some states, such as Indiana, outright prohibit the use of DNA stored in the state database for obtaining phenotypical information. [19] Similarly, the New York Senate proposed an amendment of the New York Executive Law to address DNA phenotyping. The proposed amendment prohibits law enforcement agencies from contracting with any entity for DNA phenotyping services, and evidence flowing from DNA phenotyping can neither serve as a basis of arrest nor be used at any stage of an investigation. [20]In general, however, there is a lack of national consensus on the regulation of DNA phenotyping, and some states are silent regarding the regulation of DNA phenotyping. The future of DNA phenotyping in criminal investigations remains unclear and needs attention from legislators regarding the limits of its use and admissibility in criminal litigation. 

 [1]Illustration of a Phenotype Snapshot compared to actual arrestee, in Rachel Duke, Forensic DNA Phenotyping: A Validated Prediction Tool, A2LA, (Aug. 26, 2025), https://a2la.org/forensic-dna-phenotyping/ 

[2]Jake Pietrasz and Delaney Ruth, Man sentenced to life in prison in decades-old Toledo murder, rape, 13 Action News, (Aug. 8, 2022, 1:04 PM), https://www.13abc.com/2022/08/08/man-sentenced-life-prison-decades-old-toledo-murder-rape/.

[3]State v. Marshall, No. L-22-1207, 2023 Ohio Ct. App. WL 6390231, at *4 (Ohio Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2023).

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7]What Is STR Analysis?, NIJ (Mar. 2, 2011), https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-str-analysis.

[8]Id.

[9]Id.

[10] Understanding STR Analysis for Human Identification, ANDE, https://www.ande.com/str-analysis-explained (last visited Mar. 11, 2026) 

[11]Peter M. Schneider, Barbara Prainsack & Manfred Kayser, The Use of Forensic DNA Phenotyping in Predicting Appearance and Biogeographic Ancestry, Nat’l Libr. Med. (Dec. 23, 2019), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6976916/.

[12]Id.

[13]Id.

[14] Duke, supra note 1.

[15]Id.

[16]1 Scientific Evidence §18.06 (2026).

[17]Schneider et al., supra note 11

 [18]Id.

 [19] Ind. Code Ann. §10-13-6-16.

 [20] N.Y. Senate S5153, 2025-2026 Legis. Sess. (N.Y. 2025).

By: Christian W. Bleakley

The rise of fantasy sports platforms like PrizePicks has transformed sports gambling into an almost effortless experience. With sleek apps, instant payouts, and constant promotions, these platforms attract millions of users across the United States. Yet beneath the appearance of a fun and skill-based game lies a central legal question: Are daily fantasy sports (“DFS”) genuine games of skill or merely disguised forms of illegal gambling?

That debate sharpened in June 2025, when California residents Justin Franks and Jack Bacigalupi sued SidePrize LLC, the operator of PrizePicks. [1] They alleged that its “Pick ’Em” contests, marketed as lawful fantasy sports, were actually illegal gambling operations. [2] The complaint emphasized design features—short contests, real-time tracking, and targeted advertising—that encourage repeated play and financial loss. [3] What appears to be innovation, plaintiffs argue, is actually digital manipulation.

In July 2025, Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a legal opinion declaring both “Pick ’Em” and traditional DFS contests constitute illegal sports wagering under California Penal Code § 337a. [4] He rejected industry arguments that DFS is legal because it involves skill, stating that California law defines a wager as any agreement based on an uncertain future event, even when skill is involved.[5] Bonta’s opinion, requested by state lawmakers, has already prompted talk of future legislation to clarify the status of DFS in California. [6] This legal opinion signifies that fantasy sports platforms may no longer be able to hide behind the mere argument of “skill” to avoid California gambling laws. 

The scale of PrizePicks’ marketing underscores the stakes. The lawsuit alleges the company spends over $100 million annually on advertising, particularly targeting California, the nation’s largest DFS market. [7] By leveraging algorithms to micro-target users on social media, PrizePicks delivers personalized ads that encourage frequent play. [8] This creates a gambling environment that is seamless yet highly individualized, raising serious concerns about consumer vulnerability in a digital marketplace.

Unlike traditional fantasy leagues, which span seasons and foster social interaction, PrizePicks’ contests often last just hours, offering instant results and cashouts. [9] With push notifications and gamified interfaces, the apps operate more like slot machines than weekend fantasy football. [10] Critics argue these tools accelerate cycles of risk and loss, intensifying exposure to financial harm.

California’s stance may influence other states. Even after voters rejected sports betting propositions in 2022, DFS operators continued to function largely unchecked in the state. [11]Now, the combination of the Franks lawsuit and the Attorney General’s opinion suggests regulators are no longer willing to let technology outpace the law. If other states adopt similar interpretations, companies like PrizePicks may be forced to obtain gambling licenses or withdraw from major markets.

The future of DFS apps ultimately depends on how courts and regulators strike a balance between innovation and consumer protection. Algorithms, micro-targeting, and gamification have redefined how people engage with fantasy sports, but they also magnify risks. Without consistent oversight, the promise of “easy money” may continue to harm consumers through manipulative marketing tactics.

[1] Elaine Briseño, Calif. Residents Sue Over ‘Pick ‘Em’ Fantasy Sports Contest, Law360 (June 13, 2025), https://www.law360.com/articles/2352918.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Cal. Pen. Code § 337a; Carlos E. Castañeda, Daily Fantasy Sports Betting is Illegal in California, Attorney General Rob Bonta Says, CBS San Fran. (July 4, 2025), https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-daily-fantasy-sports-betting-illegal-attorney-general-bonta/. 

[5] Castañeda, supra note 4.

[6] Id.

[7] Briseño, supra note 1.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

By: Chelsea Lee-Sam

Search for “hypnosis for anxiety,” and thousands of videos appear, each promising deep calm and emotional transformation in under 30 minutes. [2] Soothing voices promise to cure depression, eliminate phobias, and heal trauma–often uploaded by creators with zero mental health credentials. [3] As Americans increasingly turn to digital platforms for mental health support, a troubling regulatory gap has emerged: unlicensed practitioners are providing psychological interventions to vulnerable audiences with virtually no oversight. [4]

Hypnotherapy occupies a legal gray area. “Hypnotherapist” holds federal recognition as an occupational category in the United States. [5] In most U.S. states as of 2026, hypnosis may be practiced without a license so long as it remains within non-therapeutic boundaries.[6] Only Connecticut and Washington require mandatory registration, nevertheless even these states demand no formal education. [7] Unlicensed practitioners are advised not to use terms like “therapy,” “treatment,” “healing,” or “clinical” in their advertising. [8] However, YouTube has no mechanism to enforce these restrictions. [9] This creates a perfect storm of potential harm. YouTube hypnotherapy operates on a one-size-fits-all model with no screening for contraindications where hypnosis can trigger adverse reactions, including epilepsy and asthma. [10]

Documented Harms and Safety Concerns

The risks are not merely theoretical. In 2012, George Kenney, former principal of North Port High School in Sarasota, Florida, pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor charges for practicing therapeutic hypnosis without a license. [11] Kenney revealed that he had hypnotized as many as seventy students, faculty, and staff over five years, all without a state license, despite receiving at least three warnings from supervisors to stop the sessions.[12] Three students whom Kenney had hypnotized died within days of hypnosis: two by suicide and one in a car crash. [13] The school board ultimately accepted a settlement of $200,000 to each of the three families for wrongful death lawsuits due to the parents’ concerns about establishing a causal link between the hypnosis and the deaths. [14]

Beyond individual cases of harm, broader legal action recognizes YouTube’s role in mental health crises. In October 2024, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin sued YouTube and its parent company Alphabet, alleging the platform was “made deliberately addictive” and fueling a mental health crisis among youth. [15] The lawsuit, which remains pending, was filed under Arkansas’s deceptive trade practices and public nuisance laws and claims that “YouTube amplifies harmful material, doses users with dopamine hits, and drives youth engagement and advertising revenue,” resulting in the state spending millions on expanded mental health services for young people.[16] This lawsuit addresses YouTube’s algorithmic design rather than specific hypnosis content. However, it underscores growing recognition that platforms bear responsibility for mental health harms, a principle that should extend to unregulated therapeutic content like hypnotherapy videos.

The absence of physical presence makes it more challenging for practitioners to accurately evaluate clients’ conditions and provide appropriate therapeutic interventions.[17] Professional literature cautions against using hypnosis with clients suffering from severe psychiatric disorders or those under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and advises that care must be taken with clients who have asthma, epilepsy, or narcolepsy, as hypnosis may in rare cases exacerbate these conditions. [18]Many YouTube hypnosis videos, however, fail to include these critical warnings.[19] Most troublingly, these videos may encourage self-medication as a substitute for professional mental health treatment, delaying or preventing individuals from seeking appropriate care for serious conditions. [20]

Platform Liability and the Section 230 Shield

YouTube, protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, currently provides “too much power over consumers.” [21] Although Section 230 is here to stay, states beginning to regulate social media platforms for mental health harms, may begin shift laws and accountability. [22] In 2025, Minnesota enacted legislation requiring social media platforms to display mental health warning labels, with the law taking effect in July 2026. [23] California has passed similar measures addressing mental health impacts of social media use. [24] While these laws focus on social media’s addictive features rather than specific therapeutic content, they signal growing recognition that platforms bear some responsibility for mental health impacts.

The question becomes: should platforms like YouTube have a duty to screen or label mental health content, particularly therapeutic interventions like hypnosis? Current law treats a hypnotherapy video the same as any other user-generated content, despite its unique risks. [25] As courts and legislatures grapple with AI chatbot liability for mental health harms, YouTube hypnotherapy presents a parallel concern largely unaddressed by platform policies and legal frameworks. [26]

The Path Forward

YouTube hypnotherapy reveals how technology has outpaced our legal frameworks for protecting mental health consumers. [27] States could modernize scope-of-practice laws to explicitly address digital distribution of therapeutic content. Connecticut’s registration requirement and Regulatory Agency provides one model that could be adapted to require disclosure of qualifications for online content creators. [28]

Platforms could implement content warnings for videos claiming therapeutic effects, similar to emerging mental health warning label requirements. While YouTube’s existing Medical Misinformation Policy addresses inherently dangerous treatments, it could require disclaimers on mental health content created by unlicensed individuals, alerting viewers that the creator is not a licensed mental health professional. [29] Professional organizations could develop certification programs for digital mental health content creators, giving consumers a way to identify credible sources. California’s Business and Professions Code, which exempts persons using hypnotic techniques from psychology licensing requirements only when limited to vocational or avocational self-improvement, suggests another approach: distinguishing between entertainment and therapeutic claims. [30]

The goal should not be to eliminate access to complementary wellness resources but to ensure that vulnerable individuals seeking mental health support can distinguish between legitimate therapeutic tools and potentially harmful content created by unqualified practitioners. As mental health care increasingly moves online, our legal system must evolve to protect consumers in this digital landscape. The wild west of YouTube hypnotherapy demands thoughtful regulation that balances innovation, access, and consumer protection before more people are harmed by unlicensed practice hiding behind a screen.

[1] Getting Help: The Remarkable Benefits of Online Hypnotherapy, Hypnotherapy Directory (Aug. 21, 2023), https://www.hypnotherapy-directory.org.uk/articles/getting-help-the-remarkable-benefits-of-online-hypnotherapy.

[2]The Pros and Cons of Using YouTube Hypnotherapy for Anxiety Relief, Silicon Valley Hypnosis Center (Aug. 11, 2025), https://siliconvalleyhypnosiscenter.com/pros-and-cons-of-using-youtube-hypnotherapy-for-anxiety-relief/ [hereinafter YouTube Hypnotherapy].

[3]The Hidden Risks of YouTube Hypnosis Videos, Quina Baterna (Aug. 17, 2020), https://www.quinabaterna.com/the-hidden-risks-of-youtube-hypnosis-videos/ (noting YouTube hypnosis categories include “Emotional Regulation – Relieve Depression & Anxiety…” and treating phobias); YouTube Hypnotherapy, supra note 1 (“Unlike certified hypnotherapists, YouTubers don’t need credentials to publish content. That means you might encounter outdated techniques, inaccurate claims, or content that’s more ‘influencer’ than therapeutic.”).

[4] Mind Matters 2025: What Ipsos Research Reveals About Changing Attitudes to Mental Health in North America, Ipsos Isay, https://www.ipsosisay.com/en-us/article/mental-health-trends-2025-north-america (noting that in 2025, 32% of Americans reported using apps, online therapy, or digital platforms to manage their wellbeing, a jump of nearly 10 percentage points since 2023); Mental Health Statistics in the US 2025 | Key Facts , THE WORLD DATA (Sept. 18, 2025), https://theworlddata.com/mental-health-statistics-in-the-us/ (reporting over 20 million Americans now regularly use remote mental health services).

[5] IAIH Hypnosis Law Reference and Compliance Guide — 2026 Edition, Int’l Ass’n of Interpersonal Hypnotherapists, at 8 (Jan. 2026), https://instituteofhypnotherapy.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/IAIH_Hypnosis_Law_Reference_2026.pdf (citing U.S. Department of Labor, Standard Occupational Classification Code 29- 1199.01).

[6] Id. at 8.

 [7] Id. at 10,11.

[8] Id. at 8.

[9] Medical Misinformation Policy, YouTube Help, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/13813322 (last visited Jan. 24, 2026).

[10] Do YouTube Hypnosis Videos Work? A Hypnotherapist Explains, 1stDrive, https://www.1stdrive.com/do-youtube-hypnosis-videos-work/ (last visited Jan. 24, 2026).

[11] Lawsuits Settled for $600,000 for Families of Three Teens Who Died After Being Hypnotized by School Principal, D’Amore Law Group https://damorelaw.com/lawsuits-settled-600000-families-teens-died-hypnotized-school-principal/  (last visited Jan. 24, 2026).

[12] Florida Schools Settle With Parents of Teens Who Died After Hypnosis, Nbc News (Oct. 7, 2015, 7:54 PM), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-schools-settle-parents-three-teens-who-died-after-hypnosis-n440556. 

[13] Lawsuits Settled for $600,000, supra note 10.

[14]Hypnotic Suggestion: North Port High School and the Complicity of Indifference, Pullman & Comley LLC (Oct. 29, 2015), https://www.pullcom.com/education-law-notes/hypnotic-suggestion-north-port-high-school-and-the-complicity-of-indifference.

[15] State of Arkansas v. Google LLC and Alphabet Inc., No. 60CV-24-6237 (Ark. Cir. Ct. filed Oct. 1, 2024).

[16]Arkansas Sued YouTube for Fueling a Mental Health Crisis, Fast Company (Oct. 1, 2024), https://www.fastcompany.com/91200705/state-suing-youtube-fueling-mental-health-crisis.

 [17]The Legality of Online Hypnotherapy: What You Need to Know, The Hypnotechs Blog (June 19, 2023), https://blog.hypnotechs.com/posts/online-legality.

[18]Contraindications to Hypnosis? Adam Eason (Nov. 28, 2007), https://www.adam-eason.com/contraindications-to-hypnosis/ (citing S. Palmer & W. Dryden, Fast Counselling for Stress Problems (1995)).

[19]Do YouTube Hypnosis Videos Work?, supra note 9. (“You shouldn’t use hypnosis if you have a history of mental illness. If you have epilepsy or asthma then hypnosis can trigger an attack. Many hypnosis tracks I have used don’t even mention these things.”).

[20]YouTube Hypnotherapy, supra note 1.

[21] Section 230: An Overview, CONGRESS.GOV (2021), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46751; The Future of Section 230: What Does It Mean for Consumers?, The Nat’l Ass’n of Att’ys Gen. (July 21, 2023), https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/the-future-of-section-230-what-does-it-mean-for-consumers/.

[22]Id.

[23]H.F. 1289, § 1, 94th Leg. (Minn. 2025); Mental Health Warnings on Social Media? Minnesota Will Require Them Next Year, NPR  (July 28, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/07/28/nx-s1-5481822/social-media-mental-health-warning.

[24] IAIH Hypnosis Law Reference and Compliance Guide, supra note 4, at 13.

[25]Section 230, supra note 21; The Future of Section 230, supra note 21.

[26]Novel Lawsuits Allege AI Chatbots Encouraged Minors’ Suicides, Mental Health Trauma, The Nat’l L. Rev.  (Oct. 7, 2025), https://natlawreview.com/article/novel-lawsuits-allege-ai-chatbots-encouraged-minors-suicides-mental-health-trauma.

[27]Social Media and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review of Platform and Policy Recommendations, JMIR Pubs. (June, 20 2025), https://www.jmir.org/2025/1/e72061. 

[28] Hypnosis Requirements by State, Cascade Hypnosis Training, https://cascadehypnosistraining.com/hypnosis-requirements-by-state (last visited Jan. 24, 2026).

[29]See Medical Misinformation Policy, supra note 8.

[30]See Hypnosis Requirements by State, supra note 20 (describing California Business and Professions Code § 2908).