Challenges of AI Generated Co
Introduction
The sudden increase in AI technology over the past few years has made a big difference
in many industries by offering new, advanced means of handling data, automating tasks, and
creating information. With these technological advancements, there are also challenging legal
and ethical issues, mainly because AI is involved more and more in sensitive areas like
intellectual property and law courts. In May 2025, Anthropic, a leading AI company, was
involved in controversy for allegedly using copyrighted work without permission and submitting
AI-created false evidence to the court in a major copyright lawsuit. Here we see the rising
conflict between what generative AI can do and the strict requirements for accuracy,
accountability, and following ethical rules in the law.
The Event or Problem
In the month of May 2025, people became aware of a major controversy related to
Anthropic, the maker of Claude, a generative AI chatbot. A lawsuit filed by three music
publishers brought this issue to the forefront. Universal Music Group, Concord, and ABKCO are
among the companies. Publishers claimed that Anthropic took their copyrighted lyrics without
permission and trained Claude, breaking their intellectual property rights. The case became more
serious after it was revealed that the report submitted by Anthropic’s lawyers included a fake
citation from an academic paper. It turned out that Claude itself was the one who had created the
misleading citations while preparing for the trial. This discovery caused many legal experts to
criticize the way AI is used in courts and led to more inspection of such practices (Brittain,
2025). The inclusion of a fake reference meant the expert report lost credibility and made the
, courtroom setting a riskier place for generative AI. The main conflict is that generative AI
produces content that still needs to satisfy the expected standards of proof and accuracy in
lawsuits. This situation shows there is a need to discuss how AI tools can be misused, who takes
responsibility when they are not correct, and what systems ensure that AI applications are safe
and ethical.
Analysis of the Issue
At the heart of this incident are copyright infringement and the way fabricated
information is treated in a court. The question of whether Anthropic used copyrighted lyrics from
Claude without getting permission is facing legal accusations under U.S. copyright law. Yet, this
ethical issue touches more ground and can cause more harm to both the legal and technology
sectors. When AI is used for citations and analysis on its own, the chance exists for false,
misleading, or incorrect information to appear in official court files. Here, Claude invented a
fake reference and gave it details that led experts to believe it was a real article. This reference
was added to the court filings where the issue was being fought. Despite humans not meaning to,
the act of spreading inaccuracies like these is considered a form of hallucination in AI research
(Dahl et al., 2024). The issue is present when legal experts depend on these technologies but do
not make sure the information is correct. It makes one wonder about how seriously lawyers and
experts follow certain ethical and honest practices in their work for the courts. Besides, it does
not pay enough attention to how AI technologies are being used more, with less consideration for
their limitations and proper checks. The case shows the risk of trusting technology that deals
with sensitive and accurate information (Allen et al., 2024).
Introduction
The sudden increase in AI technology over the past few years has made a big difference
in many industries by offering new, advanced means of handling data, automating tasks, and
creating information. With these technological advancements, there are also challenging legal
and ethical issues, mainly because AI is involved more and more in sensitive areas like
intellectual property and law courts. In May 2025, Anthropic, a leading AI company, was
involved in controversy for allegedly using copyrighted work without permission and submitting
AI-created false evidence to the court in a major copyright lawsuit. Here we see the rising
conflict between what generative AI can do and the strict requirements for accuracy,
accountability, and following ethical rules in the law.
The Event or Problem
In the month of May 2025, people became aware of a major controversy related to
Anthropic, the maker of Claude, a generative AI chatbot. A lawsuit filed by three music
publishers brought this issue to the forefront. Universal Music Group, Concord, and ABKCO are
among the companies. Publishers claimed that Anthropic took their copyrighted lyrics without
permission and trained Claude, breaking their intellectual property rights. The case became more
serious after it was revealed that the report submitted by Anthropic’s lawyers included a fake
citation from an academic paper. It turned out that Claude itself was the one who had created the
misleading citations while preparing for the trial. This discovery caused many legal experts to
criticize the way AI is used in courts and led to more inspection of such practices (Brittain,
2025). The inclusion of a fake reference meant the expert report lost credibility and made the
, courtroom setting a riskier place for generative AI. The main conflict is that generative AI
produces content that still needs to satisfy the expected standards of proof and accuracy in
lawsuits. This situation shows there is a need to discuss how AI tools can be misused, who takes
responsibility when they are not correct, and what systems ensure that AI applications are safe
and ethical.
Analysis of the Issue
At the heart of this incident are copyright infringement and the way fabricated
information is treated in a court. The question of whether Anthropic used copyrighted lyrics from
Claude without getting permission is facing legal accusations under U.S. copyright law. Yet, this
ethical issue touches more ground and can cause more harm to both the legal and technology
sectors. When AI is used for citations and analysis on its own, the chance exists for false,
misleading, or incorrect information to appear in official court files. Here, Claude invented a
fake reference and gave it details that led experts to believe it was a real article. This reference
was added to the court filings where the issue was being fought. Despite humans not meaning to,
the act of spreading inaccuracies like these is considered a form of hallucination in AI research
(Dahl et al., 2024). The issue is present when legal experts depend on these technologies but do
not make sure the information is correct. It makes one wonder about how seriously lawyers and
experts follow certain ethical and honest practices in their work for the courts. Besides, it does
not pay enough attention to how AI technologies are being used more, with less consideration for
their limitations and proper checks. The case shows the risk of trusting technology that deals
with sensitive and accurate information (Allen et al., 2024).
