If a firm's AI customer-service chatbot gives false information, traps customers in doom loops, or fails to actually help, that firm may be violating the law. A new brief from the Center for Law & the Economy's @stephtngu and @BorrowerJustice's Adam Teitelbaum explains the various laws that apply when businesses outsource customer service to AI chatbots. This is the first in a series explaining how existing laws apply to AI: law-and-economy.law.columbia… And a deeper dive published @HarvardJOLT: jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/…

Outsourcing AI regulation to a voluntary "pledge" conceived by Mark Zuckerberg and endorsed by tech CEOs over a private White House lunch is a recipe for disaster. "Self-regulation" by tech giants is a proven failure. The last time Meta promised to police itself, turned out it was hiding evidence that its platforms actively harm kids. Repeating this mistake with AI leaves the public dangerously exposed. AI companies are already bound by existing laws, but the White House has generally stopped enforcing laws against the wealthy and powerful. State AGs should step up, halt lawbreaking, and promote real deterrence, including through holding individual executives accountable. Congress also needs to legislate. We have a long history of regulating risky, transformative industries like banking, pharmaceuticals, and nuclear power. These tools include mandatory testing, truly independent supervision, and break-ups that end conflicts of interest. Ultimately, reckoning with AI will also require reckoning with our broader crisis of governance. All three branches have become severely deformed. Against this backdrop it might be tempting to outsource regulation to these private actors, but it would be a serious mistake. Our public institutions must decide the trajectory of these powerful technologies, not the firms whose breakneck pace and financial conflicts brought us here. My piece in @nytopinion: nytimes.com/2026/09/30/opini… xitter.cf/semaforben/status/2105…