Summary:
Le Département de la Justice des États-Unis et la SEC ont accusé Albert Saniger, fondateur d’une startup e-commerce, d’avoir fourni de fausses déclarations sur les capacités de l’intelligence artificielle de son entreprise, ce qui a permis de lever 42 millions de dollars. Ces actions soulignent les risques légaux liés à des affirmations exagérées sur l’IA, connues sous le nom de ‘washing AI’, qui peuvent entraîner des poursuites criminelles et civiles. Les entreprises doivent s’assurer de l’exactitude de leurs déclarations publiques concernant l’IA.
Original Link:
Original Article:
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a criminal indictment and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a civil complaint against the founder and former CEO of an e-commerce technology startup. DOJ and SEC alleged on April 9, 2025 that Albert Saniger, the founder and former CEO of Nate, Inc., made materially false and misleading statements about the startup’s artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities, which allowed Nate, Inc. to raise approximately $42 million from investors. The parallel DOJ and SEC actions show how exaggerated claims about AI capabilities – a practice that is commonly referred to as “AI washing” – can lead to an array of charges and potential penalties for offenders. Potential investors are also encouraged to be vigilant about representations by startup companies and promoters regarding AI. Even in the current legal and regulatory environment marked by deregulation, federal prosecutors and regulators remain focused on addressing crimes and violations involving AI. The SEC and DOJ actions pose the following insights for companies using AI: The SEC and DOJ actions demonstrate that misrepresentations or suspected misrepresentations to investors and customers regarding AI may trigger enforcement actions and criminal investigations with a range of potential consequences, such as imprisonment, forfeiture, restitution, and civil penalties. In some circumstances, state and foreign regulators may also have jurisdiction to take criminal and/or civil action to deter AI washing. Companies that tout their technological capabilities are encouraged to ensure they have controls in place to vet the accuracy of their public statements and marketing. In particular, this case shows the importance of being transparent about the use of AI compared to human labor and other, more limited technologies. The promise of AI technology carries implications about cost-efficiency and scalability that may be deemed material to investors and investment decisions – even if less advanced methods can perform the services as marketed.