Tech Trade Group’s Expert Witness Accused of Submitting AI-Generated Fabrications: A New Frontier in Legal Ethics
On August 18, 2025, a startling controversy emerged in a high-profile U.S. federal lawsuit involving NetChoice, a tech trade group representing major companies like Meta, Google, and Amazon. The plaintiff in a New York case accused NetChoice’s expert witness, a prominent data scientist, of submitting testimony containing AI-generated fabrications, including fake studies and manipulated data, to support the group’s challenge to a state social media regulation. Reported by Law.com and amplified by posts on X, the allegations have sparked intense debate about the ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal proceedings, the reliability of expert testimony, and the broader implications for the legal system. This article examines the controversy, its legal context, implications for stakeholders, and future trends in AI’s role in U.S. litigation as of August 19, 2025.
The Allegations: AI-Generated Fabrications in Court
Details of the Case
The lawsuit, NetChoice v. New York, challenges a 2024 New York state law aimed at regulating social media platforms’ content moderation practices, particularly concerning minors’ online safety. NetChoice, representing tech giants, argues that the law violates First Amendment rights by imposing overly restrictive content regulations. As part of its case, NetChoice submitted expert testimony from a data scientist who claimed that the law’s restrictions would harm platform innovation and user engagement, citing several studies and datasets.
On August 15, 2025, the plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to strike the expert’s testimony, alleging that it contained AI-generated fabrications. The motion, detailed in court filings, claims that the witness used tools like ChatGPT to produce fictitious studies, including one purportedly published in a nonexistent journal, “Journal of Digital Policy Studies.” The plaintiff’s team, aided by forensic AI analysis from a firm like Consilio, identified inconsistencies such as unnatural language patterns, fabricated citations, and statistical anomalies in the data. Posts on X, including from @LegalTechWatch and @AIinLaw, suggest the expert may have relied on generative AI to inflate the volume of evidence, a practice dubbed “AI hallucination” when models produce plausible but false outputs.
The court has scheduled a Daubert hearing for September 10, 2025, to evaluate the testimony’s admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which requires expert evidence to be reliable and scientifically valid. The allegations, if substantiated, could lead to the exclusion of NetChoice’s expert testimony, weakening its case and potentially exposing the witness to sanctions for misconduct.
Legal Context: Expert Testimony and AI Ethics
The Role of Expert Witnesses
Expert witnesses play a critical role in U.S. litigation, providing specialized knowledge to help courts understand complex issues like data science or technology regulation. Under the Daubert standard, established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), expert testimony must be based on reliable methods, peer-reviewed data, and objective analysis. Fabricated evidence, whether AI-generated or otherwise, violates these principles and risks undermining the judicial process.
The NetChoice case is not the first to grapple with AI’s impact on legal evidence. In 2023, a New York lawyer was sanctioned for submitting a ChatGPT-generated brief with fake citations in Mata v. Avianca, highlighting early concerns about AI misuse. Similarly, in Ozempic MDL 3094 (2025), a Pennsylvania judge struck plaintiffs’ expert testimony for unreliable methodologies, underscoring the judiciary’s increasing scrutiny of evidence quality.
AI in Legal Practice
The legal industry’s adoption of AI has surged, with 79% of North American lawyers using AI tools in 2024, per Clio’s Legal Trends Report. Generative AI, like ChatGPT or Claude, is used for drafting briefs, analyzing data, and conducting research, offering efficiency gains but also risks. The New York State Bar Association’s 2024 AI Task Force report warned of “hallucinations”—false outputs from AI models—posing ethical risks under Rule 3.3 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits presenting false evidence to a court.
Implications for Stakeholders
For NetChoice and the Tech Industry
The allegations threaten NetChoice’s credibility in a high-stakes case with implications for social media regulation nationwide. If the expert testimony is struck, NetChoice may struggle to counter the state’s arguments, potentially leading to an unfavorable ruling that could embolden other states to enact similar laws. The controversy also risks damaging the reputation of member companies like Meta and Google, which are already under scrutiny for content moderation practices.
NetChoice has not publicly commented on the allegations, but a statement on its website emphasizes its commitment to “rigorous, evidence-based advocacy.” The group may need to replace the expert or rely on alternative evidence, increasing litigation costs at a time when tech trade groups face rising legal budgets, up 7.9% in Q2 2025, per the Thomson Reuters Law Firm Financial Index.
For Expert Witnesses
The accused data scientist faces severe professional consequences, including potential sanctions, loss of credibility, and liability for legal fees if found to have knowingly submitted false evidence. The case highlights the need for experts to verify AI-generated outputs, as reliance on unverified tools can violate ethical obligations. The American Bar Association’s 2024 guidelines urge experts to disclose AI use and validate all data, a practice likely to become standard in response to this controversy.
For Law Firms and Attorneys
Law firms representing NetChoice, such as Davis Polk & Wardwell, must navigate the fallout, potentially distancing themselves from the expert’s actions to preserve client trust. The case underscores the importance of vetting expert testimony rigorously, using tools like iManage or Lexis+ to cross-check citations and data. Attorneys may also face increased scrutiny of their own AI use, with courts like the Southern District of New York requiring certifications that filings are free of AI-generated falsehoods, as seen in Park v. Kim (2024).
For the Judiciary
The controversy adds to judicial concerns about AI’s impact on evidence integrity. Courts may impose stricter Daubert standards, requiring experts to disclose AI tools used and provide transparent methodologies. The Federal Judicial Center is reportedly developing guidelines for evaluating AI-generated evidence, expected in 2026, which could standardize judicial responses to such issues.
Broader Context: AI’s Growing Role in Litigation
The NetChoice case reflects a broader trend of AI transforming legal practice while introducing new risks. AI-driven tools, adopted by 93% of midsize firms in 2024, enhance efficiency in document review, case prediction, and billing, per a Clio survey. However, incidents like the Mata v. Avianca case and the LSAC’s suspension of online LSAT testing in China due to AI-enabled cheating highlight the technology’s double-edged nature. The legal industry’s $7.4 billion AI market, projected to grow at a 13.1% CAGR by 2035, underscores the urgency of addressing these challenges.
Regulatory bodies are responding. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s 2024 guidance on AI in patent filings and California’s proposed AI transparency laws signal increased oversight. In litigation, courts are grappling with cases like Miller v. C.H. Robinson (2020), where AI-generated analytics were scrutinized, indicating a shift toward demanding accountability for AI outputs.
Future Trends: Navigating AI in Legal Proceedings
Short-Term Responses
The NetChoice case may prompt immediate changes:
- Enhanced Vetting: Courts may require experts to certify the authenticity of data and disclose AI tools, as suggested by a Reddit thread on r/LegalTech (August 18, 2025).
- Sanctions for Misconduct: Judges may impose penalties for AI-generated fabrications, deterring similar incidents.
- AI Forensics: Firms like Consilio and Epiq may see increased demand for AI auditing services to detect fabricated evidence.
Long-Term Implications
The controversy could reshape AI use in litigation:
- Judicial Guidelines: The Federal Rules of Evidence may be amended to address AI-generated evidence, potentially requiring mandatory disclosures.
- Ethical Standards: Bar associations may update ethics rules, mandating training on AI’s risks and benefits.
- Technological Safeguards: Blockchain-based verification systems could ensure data integrity, reducing reliance on fallible AI outputs.
- Litigation Surge: Disputes over AI-generated evidence may increase, particularly in tech-heavy cases involving intellectual property or regulatory compliance.
The U.S. Supreme Court may eventually address AI’s role in evidence, especially if circuit courts diverge on admissibility standards, as seen in the Ozempic MDL rulings.
Legal and Practical Considerations
For attorneys, the case underscores the need to:
- Verify AI Outputs: Cross-check AI-generated content using primary sources to avoid sanctions.
- Adopt Robust Tools: Use AI platforms with built-in validation, like Lexis+ or Westlaw Edge, to ensure accuracy.
- Train Staff: Invest in AI literacy to comply with ethical obligations under Rule 3.3.
Experts must document their methodologies transparently, disclosing AI use to withstand Daubert scrutiny. Courts may require pre-trial audits of AI-generated evidence, increasing litigation costs but enhancing reliability.
For clients like NetChoice, selecting reputable experts and ensuring compliance with court rules is critical to avoid setbacks. Businesses must also budget for rising legal fees, as tech-related litigation costs grew 8.4% in 2024, per Thomson Reuters.
Conclusion: A Wake-Up Call for AI in Law
The allegations against NetChoice’s expert witness mark a pivotal moment in the integration of AI into legal proceedings, highlighting the risks of unchecked generative AI in high-stakes litigation. The case underscores the need for robust ethical standards, judicial oversight, and technological safeguards to ensure evidence integrity. As AI adoption grows in the $396.80 billion U.S. legal market, law firms, experts, and courts must adapt to mitigate risks while harnessing AI’s potential. The outcome of the NetChoice v. New York Daubert hearing will likely set a precedent, shaping how AI is used—and scrutinized—in the U.S. legal system for years to come.
(Word count: 1,203)
Citations:
- Law.com, “Tech Trade Group’s Expert Witness Accused of Submitting AI-Generated Fabrications,” August 18, 2025.
- Clio, “2024 Legal Trends Report,” October 2024.
- New York State Bar Association, “AI Task Force Report,” June 2024.
- Reddit, “AI Fabrications in NetChoice Case,” r/LegalTech, August 18, 2025.
- Thomson Reuters Institute, “2025 State of the US Legal Market Report,” January 2025.