Comment Protect Racket (Score 3, Insightful) 42
TL:DR: The "De Santis" government is too lazy too do any real work, that is "legislation" so Florida is openly using lawfare by suing for money and control and waving a criminal probe to raise the temperature and skip the hard job of passing precise legislation.
From what the government filed and what it announced, I do not see a narrow, clean “we found one harmed person and we are fixing it” effort. I see a two pronged pressure play built to push OpenAI toward a settlement or a judge ordered set of rules.
Florida is taking a two-part approach to tackle this issue. First, they're filing a civil lawsuit. The state's Attorney General is specifically targeting OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman, along with other individuals. This isn't just about going after a company, it's about putting pressure on the people in charge. By naming them personally, Florida is turning up the heat and making it more likely that they'll settle.
The state isn't just saying that some people used a tool in a bad way. They're saying that OpenAI and its leaders promoted and ran the tool in ways that were deceptive or unfair, which goes against Florida's consumer protection laws. They're also adding a claim of "public nuisance," which means they think the tool is causing harm to the community as a whole. This approach shows that Florida is serious about holding OpenAI and its leaders accountable for their actions.
The state of Florida is seeking two main things from this civil case: financial penalties and control over how the product operates within the state. The financial penalties would serve as a form of punishment, while the control would come in the form of a court order that dictates how the product is managed, particularly when it comes to minors. There's a strong emphasis on protecting children under the age of 13, as well as enforcing strict rules around kids' data.
This approach is often referred to as the "think of the children" tactic, which can be a powerful emotional trigger. It's also a politically convenient move, as it shifts the focus away from the role of parents in supervising their kids and onto the company instead of the state. By doing so, it creates a narrative that puts the onus on the company and the government to ensure children's safety, rather than emphasizing the importance of parental responsibility. This strategy can be effective in swaying public opinion and garnering support for the state's cause.
The state of Florida is trying to show that something needs to be done right away by pointing to some big examples that grab people's attention. These examples include advice that supposedly leads to violence, self-harm and interactions with young users that sound like addiction. They're using the FSU shooting as a strong example to make their point.
The state of Florida has a second approach to deal with the situation, which is a criminal investigation related to the shooting incident. The government is looking into the possibility of assigning criminal responsibility, such as determining whether a particular tool contributed to the crime. Even if the investigation doesn't lead to any charges, it can still be useful in gathering information and gaining leverage.
The subpoenas issued during the investigation can compel OpenAI to provide internal documents, including policies, training materials, safety protocols and procedures for escalating issues. Any evidence that comes to light can then be used to support claims in the civil case, such as allegations that the company was aware of certain issues or that their public statements about safety didn't match their internal actions. In essence, the criminal investigation can help generate evidence that makes the civil case stronger.
This approach allows the government to build a stronger case and increase pressure on the company to take responsibility for their actions. By exploring the criminal aspects of the case, the government can gain a better understanding of what happened and how to prevent similar incidents in the future.
They do it this way instead of passing a law because it is the shortcut with more leverage. Legislation is slow, public, full of compromises and limits. A lawsuit plus an investigation is faster, more targeted and more threatening and it can end in a settlement that looks like regulation without having to write precise rules and defend them in open debate.
OpenAI’s public line is basically “we try to block violent prompts, we do safety work and we cooperate with law enforcement” while Florida’s government line is “not good enough and you oversold safety” and Florida can press that in court because the AG can bring a consumer protection enforcement case without needing one perfect victim to anchor the whole thing, even though the real fight is whether the claims survive dismissal and get proven, while the criminal side can investigate but proving criminal liability is set at a much higher bar.
To me this sounds like, “stand over merchant tactics”.
From what the government filed and what it announced, I do not see a narrow, clean “we found one harmed person and we are fixing it” effort. I see a two pronged pressure play built to push OpenAI toward a settlement or a judge ordered set of rules.
Florida is taking a two-part approach to tackle this issue. First, they're filing a civil lawsuit. The state's Attorney General is specifically targeting OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman, along with other individuals. This isn't just about going after a company, it's about putting pressure on the people in charge. By naming them personally, Florida is turning up the heat and making it more likely that they'll settle.
The state isn't just saying that some people used a tool in a bad way. They're saying that OpenAI and its leaders promoted and ran the tool in ways that were deceptive or unfair, which goes against Florida's consumer protection laws. They're also adding a claim of "public nuisance," which means they think the tool is causing harm to the community as a whole. This approach shows that Florida is serious about holding OpenAI and its leaders accountable for their actions.
The state of Florida is seeking two main things from this civil case: financial penalties and control over how the product operates within the state. The financial penalties would serve as a form of punishment, while the control would come in the form of a court order that dictates how the product is managed, particularly when it comes to minors. There's a strong emphasis on protecting children under the age of 13, as well as enforcing strict rules around kids' data.
This approach is often referred to as the "think of the children" tactic, which can be a powerful emotional trigger. It's also a politically convenient move, as it shifts the focus away from the role of parents in supervising their kids and onto the company instead of the state. By doing so, it creates a narrative that puts the onus on the company and the government to ensure children's safety, rather than emphasizing the importance of parental responsibility. This strategy can be effective in swaying public opinion and garnering support for the state's cause.
The state of Florida is trying to show that something needs to be done right away by pointing to some big examples that grab people's attention. These examples include advice that supposedly leads to violence, self-harm and interactions with young users that sound like addiction. They're using the FSU shooting as a strong example to make their point.
The state of Florida has a second approach to deal with the situation, which is a criminal investigation related to the shooting incident. The government is looking into the possibility of assigning criminal responsibility, such as determining whether a particular tool contributed to the crime. Even if the investigation doesn't lead to any charges, it can still be useful in gathering information and gaining leverage.
The subpoenas issued during the investigation can compel OpenAI to provide internal documents, including policies, training materials, safety protocols and procedures for escalating issues. Any evidence that comes to light can then be used to support claims in the civil case, such as allegations that the company was aware of certain issues or that their public statements about safety didn't match their internal actions. In essence, the criminal investigation can help generate evidence that makes the civil case stronger.
This approach allows the government to build a stronger case and increase pressure on the company to take responsibility for their actions. By exploring the criminal aspects of the case, the government can gain a better understanding of what happened and how to prevent similar incidents in the future.
They do it this way instead of passing a law because it is the shortcut with more leverage. Legislation is slow, public, full of compromises and limits. A lawsuit plus an investigation is faster, more targeted and more threatening and it can end in a settlement that looks like regulation without having to write precise rules and defend them in open debate.
OpenAI’s public line is basically “we try to block violent prompts, we do safety work and we cooperate with law enforcement” while Florida’s government line is “not good enough and you oversold safety” and Florida can press that in court because the AG can bring a consumer protection enforcement case without needing one perfect victim to anchor the whole thing, even though the real fight is whether the claims survive dismissal and get proven, while the criminal side can investigate but proving criminal liability is set at a much higher bar.
To me this sounds like, “stand over merchant tactics”.
