Protect The 1st Foundation
  • About
    • Leadership
  • Issues
  • Scorecards
  • News
  • Take Action
    • Educational Choice for Children Act
    • PRESS Act
    • Save Oak Flat Act
  • DONATE
  • About
    • Leadership
  • Issues
  • Scorecards
  • News
  • Take Action
    • Educational Choice for Children Act
    • PRESS Act
    • Save Oak Flat Act
  • DONATE
Picture

Your Conversations with AI Can Be Used Against You in Court

9/1/2026

 
Picture
Americans increasingly use artificial intelligence chatbots as advisers, sounding boards, and even confidants. We ask about medical symptoms, relationships, workplace disputes, political ideas, and legal problems. Many of us reveal thoughts we would hesitate to share with another person.

These conversations seem private, but they can become quite public.

The Washington Post found a dozen civil and criminal cases over the past two years in which chatbot conversations surfaced in legal proceedings. As AI systems become more deeply integrated into daily life, such disclosures are likely to become routine.

Civil discovery can allow lawyers to search broadly through an opposing party’s devices and digital records. In one Michigan dispute, a former employee’s questions to ChatGPT about whether Yahoo could recover a deleted email became evidence in litigation brought by his former employer.

In another case, a 15-year-old boy sued several social media companies, alleging that their platforms contributed to years of addiction and mental-health problems. Defense attorneys obtained his ChatGPT conversations, including deeply personal exchanges about his father, and placed them in the public court record.

Mike Morgan, an attorney whose firm represented the teenager, observed that a teen “may type things into a chatbot that he may not say to a therapist, a parent, or a friend.” Yet that teenager may have no idea his words could later appear in an expert report or public court filing.

Relevant evidence is not immune from discovery merely because it was shared with a chatbot. Courts may permit the use of such conversations as evidence of fraud, the destruction of evidence, and damaging admissions.

Those who don’t understand this risk having their deepest secrets exposed in court.

Chatbot records may contain a uniquely revealing mixture of private facts, half-formed ideas, emotional venting, political and religious questions, and hypothetical scenarios. Michael Price, litigation director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ Fourth Amendment Center, aptly calls these conversations “a window into the soul to reveal the privacies of life.”

Nevertheless, chatbot conversations, like diaries or internet searches, have no immunity from legal proceedings, whatever the implications for privacy and First Amendment expression. Asking a chatbot a legal, psychological, or theological question does not create an attorney-client, therapist-patient, or clergy privilege.

Anything you tell an AI chatbot might someday be demanded by an employer, business adversary, divorce lawyer, or ideological opponent.

As more people understand this, they might censor their inquiries. Their freedom to investigate and privately test ideas might be chilled. At the very least, we hope courts will require opposing counsel’s requests for chatbot histories to be specific, relevant, and proportional to the needs of a case. Judges should seal intensely personal information – especially records involving minors.
​

But as long as a court relies on due process – and in criminal cases, a warrant – your chatbot inquiries can be made public in court.

    STAY UP TO DATE

Subscribe to Newsletter
DONATE & HELP US DEFEND YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Comments are closed.

    Archives

    October 2026
    September 2026
    August 2026
    July 2026
    June 2026
    May 2026
    April 2026
    March 2026
    February 2026
    January 2026
    December 2025
    November 2025
    October 2025
    September 2025
    August 2025
    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021

    Categories

    All
    2022 Year In Review
    2023 Year In Review
    2024 Year In Review
    2025 Year In Review
    Academic Freedom
    Amicus Briefs
    Analysis
    Artificial Intelligence
    Book Banning
    Campus Speech
    Censorship
    Congress
    Court Hearings
    Donor Privacy
    Due Process
    Executive Power
    First Amendment
    First Amendment Online
    Freedom Of Expression
    Freedom Of Press
    Freedom Of Religion
    Freedom Of Speech
    Government Ownership
    Government Transparency
    In The Media
    Journalism
    Law Enforcement
    Legal
    Legislation
    Legislative Agenda
    Letters To Congress
    Motions
    News
    Online Speech
    Opinion
    Parental Rights
    PRESS Act
    PT1 Amicus Briefs
    Save Oak Flat
    School Choice
    SCOTUS
    Section 230
    Speaking Of The First Amendment
    Supreme Court

    RSS Feed

we  the  people.

LET  YOUR  VOICE  BE  HEARD:


ABOUT

Who We Are

​Leadership

ISSUES

1st Amendment

TAKE ACTION

Donate

​Contact Us
® Copyright 2026 Protect The 1st Foundation