ChatGPT: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 07:36, 18 September 2026

ChatGPT is a conversational AI service developed and operated by OpenAI. Its processing of personal data became the subject of a temporary restriction and investigation by Italy's data-protection authority in March 2023.^[1]

Data-protection intervention in Italy

On March 31, 2023, the Garante announced an immediate temporary limitation on OpenAI's processing of Italian users' data. The authority identified concerns about notice, the legal basis for training-data processing, inaccurate personal information and age verification. These were the authority's stated grounds for intervention, not a description of an AI system independently making policy.^[1]

On April 28, 2023, the authority reported that OpenAI had restored access in Italy after introducing changes. These included information notices, ways to object to training uses of personal data, and age-related registration measures. The Garante said its investigation would continue and identified further requested work. Reopening access did not amount to a comprehensive finding of compliance.^[2]

General-purpose AI governance

The May 2024 International scientific report on the safety of advanced AI: interim report identified applications such as ChatGPT as a route through which general-purpose AI became familiar to the public. It described unusually strong public and policymaker interest and considered the opportunities and risks of systems capable of many tasks.^[3]

That report supplies a documented policy connection, but not proof that ChatGPT alone caused any particular law to be adopted. This profile covers the system and selected regulatory history; OpenAI covers the organization's own policy proposals and institutional role.^[3]

September 17, 2026: litigant responsibility

The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered a 300-page ChatGPT-generated argument in Hancox v Sutherland. It emphasized litigants’ own responsibility for checking accuracy and complying with procedural requirements; AI assistance is not generally prohibited.^[4] See September 17 digest coverage.

References

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 Garante, Artificial intelligence: stop to ChatGPT by the Italian SA, March 31, 2023. Accessed September 12, 2026.
↑ Garante, OpenAI reinstates service in Italy, April 28, 2023. Accessed September 12, 2026.
↑ ^3.0 ^3.1 International scientific report on the safety of advanced AI: interim report, May 2024, executive summary and introduction. Accessed September 12, 2026.
↑ Hancox v Sutherland and Others [2026] EAT 139, September 17, 2026, cover, summary and paragraphs 1–3, 31–37, 39–40.
↑ U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Memorandum Decision and Order Imposing Sanctions, ECF 385, September 9, 2026.

[system-italy-1] 1.0 ^1.1 Garante, Artificial intelligence: stop to ChatGPT by the Italian SA, March 31, 2023. Accessed September 12, 2026.

[system-reopen-2] Garante, OpenAI reinstates service in Italy, April 28, 2023. Accessed September 12, 2026.

[system-report-3] 3.0 ^3.1 International scientific report on the safety of advanced AI: interim report, May 2024, executive summary and introduction. Accessed September 12, 2026.

[hancox-judgment-4] Hancox v Sutherland and Others [2026] EAT 139, September 17, 2026, cover, summary and paragraphs 1–3, 31–37, 39–40.

[sanctions-5] U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Memorandum Decision and Order Imposing Sanctions, ECF 385, September 9, 2026.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 That report supplies a documented policy connection, but not proof that ChatGPT alone caused any particular law to be adopted. This profile covers the system and selected regulatory history; [[OpenAI]] covers the organization's own policy proposals and institutional role.<ref name="system-report" />
+== September 17, 2026: litigant responsibility ==
+The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered a 300-page ChatGPT-generated argument in [[Hancox v Sutherland]]. It emphasized litigants’ own responsibility for checking accuracy and complying with procedural requirements; AI assistance is not generally prohibited.<ref name="hancox-judgment">[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6aabab820420ac660805f955/Mr_T_Hancox_v_Kenneth_Sutherland_and_Others__2026__EAT_139.pdf Hancox v Sutherland and Others &#91;2026&#93; EAT 139, September 17, 2026, cover, summary and paragraphs 1–3, 31–37, 39–40.]</ref> See [[AI Law Wiki News for September 17, 2026#UK tribunal requires litigants to check AI-generated submissions|September 17 digest coverage]].
 == Related articles ==
+* [[OpenAI 2026 Model Hacking Incidents]] — Incident chronology, overlapping reports and September 16, 2026 disclosures.
+* [[X Corp and X.AI LLC v Apple Inc et al|X Corp. and X.AI LLC v. Apple Inc. et al. — AI antitrust litigation]]
+* [[Beus Gilbert PLLC v Brigham Young University]] — sanctions for unverified AI-assisted briefing, September 9, 2026.<ref name="sanctions">[https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/2:2012cv00970/86552/385 U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Memorandum Decision and Order Imposing Sanctions, ECF 385, September 9, 2026].</ref>
 * [[State v Sandoval|State v. Sandoval / In re Stephen D. Aarons — AI-assisted briefing sanctions]]
 * [[Chicken Soup for the Soul LLC v Meta Platforms Inc#September 10, 2026 discovery ruling|September 10, 2026 nonparty-discovery ruling in the Meta copyright cases]]