给律师生成虚假犯罪记录，AI侵犯名誉案一审开庭丨南财合规周报

Group 1: AI Defamation Case - A recent AI defamation case was heard in Beijing Haidian District Court, where a lawyer claimed that AI generated false negative information about him, including serious criminal allegations [3][4] - The defendant, Baidu, argued that AI hallucinations are unavoidable and that they provide neutral technology services without any subjective fault [4] - The lawyer sought damages of 1 million yuan for professional reputation loss and 50,000 yuan for emotional distress, highlighting that other AI platforms did not generate similar false content [4] Group 2: AI Hallucination Legal Precedents - The first domestic AI hallucination case established that generative AI is considered a "service" rather than a "product," applying a fault liability principle [5] - The court emphasized that companies must fulfill three core obligations to avoid liability: clear notification of potential inaccuracies, ensuring functional reliability, and compliance with regulatory filings [5] - The increasing number of disputes related to AI hallucinations indicates a significant industry challenge, necessitating thorough tracing of data sources and training methods to prevent errors [5] Group 3: Market Regulation and Competition - Kimi, an AI product, called on Baidu to remove misleading paid advertisements that confused users by impersonating its official website [6][7] - The market regulatory authority has identified several cases of unfair competition involving AI, particularly focusing on impersonation and false advertising practices [8] - Despite the crackdown on such practices, there has been little accountability for the platforms disseminating misleading information [8] Group 4: WeChat Restrictions on Competitors - WeChat has implemented restrictions on sharing links and codes for various AI products, including Tencent's Yuanbao and Alibaba's Qianwen, citing disruptions to platform order and user experience [9][11] - This move follows a historical precedent where WeChat previously blocked links to Taobao during a major shopping event, indicating a pattern of controlling competitive dynamics [11] Group 5: Regulatory Developments in AI - The European Union has mandated Google to ensure fair access to its ecosystem for third-party AI service providers, aiming to maintain a competitive environment [11] - The EU's regulatory actions will clarify how Google should provide equal access to data and functionalities for AI services, promoting a level playing field [11] Group 6: Penalties for Non-Compliance - Kuaishou was fined 119 million yuan for failing to manage inappropriate content on its platform, reflecting stricter enforcement of cybersecurity laws [12] - The recent increase in penalty limits under the revised cybersecurity law signals a tougher regulatory landscape for large platforms, emphasizing the need for compliance [12]