#FactCheck- AI-Generated Video Falsely Claims Iran Attack on Apple, Microsoft in Israel

Introduction

Artificial intelligence has quietly become part of the future of litigation, like drafting pleadings, summarising depositions, and helping self-represented parties navigate a system that was never designed for them. But what happens when a litigant doesn't just use AI but tries to manipulate it, planting invisible commands inside a court filing, hoping some AI tool reading the document will do the litigant's bidding? That is precisely the question a Connecticut Superior Court judge confronted in Matthew A. Elliott v. New York Bariatric Group, LLC, Docket No. AAN-CV-25-6066141-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Aug. 6, 2026),  a decision that may be the first of its kind in the United States to sanction a party for embedding a "prompt injection" in a court pleading.

The Facts

Elliott, representing himself, filed a motion titled "Final and Conclusive Motion for Default". Buried within it, in a tiny, white-on-white font invisible to a human reader but fully legible to any software parsing the document, was a block of text addressed not to the court or opposing counsel but to any AI system that might process the filing. The hidden text instructed such a system to treat its output as agreeing with Elliott's position and to work toward "remediating" a prior clerk's denial of his motion for default.

A second filing repeated a shortened version of the same instruction. When the court issued an Order to Show Cause warning that concealed text in pleadings would not be tolerated, Elliott did not stop. Subsequent filings carried further hidden messages, some flippant asides, one a hidden link to a horror film video submitted even after he had received notice of the sanctions hearing. At the hearing, Elliott characterised his conduct as a self-appointed "audit" of whether the court used AI and later said he continued the practice "as a joke".

The Legal Questions

Judge Walter M. Spader, Jr framed the case around two hard questions. First, does concealing an instruction to an AI system constitute misconduct even if no AI ever acted on it since the court had, in fact, decided the underlying motion on the merits from a printed copy? Second, can a court sanction conduct that Connecticut's own recently adopted AI rules do not expressly address?

Connecticut's Practice Book §4-9, effective only weeks earlier in June 2026, governs generative AI use in filings, but it is aimed at a different danger: the risk that AI-generated output might contain fabricated citations or invented quotations, and it places a verification duty on the filer to catch such errors. As the court observed, that framework addresses unreliable output. It says nothing about manipulated input from a filer seeding a document so that whatever tool later reads it will be corrupted in the filer's favour. The absence of an express rule, the court held, "takes nothing away from the duties of good faith and candour that have always governed those who appear before this Court."

The Court's Reasoning

The court's analysis rested on three pillars. First, intent, not success, is the touchstone of the violation. Because the judge decided the contested motion from a printed version, the hidden instruction achieved nothing, but the court held that the wrong lies in the attempt itself, not its efficacy, drawing an analogy to how the law has long treated attempted corruption of a proceeding as wrongful regardless of the outcome.

Second, the court situated the misconduct within the broader duty of candour owed to tribunals. A pleading, the court reasoned, is a communication to both the court and the opposing party, resting on the premise that what the reader sees is what the filer actually wrote. Hiding a second, machine-readable message beneath that surface breaches this premise. The court drew a memorable comparison: planting an AI-directed instruction in a filing is analogous to an ex parte communication which is a secret message to the decision-making apparatus that the opposing party can neither see nor answer, offending the basic adversarial principle that arguments meant to influence a decision must be made openly, on the record.

Third, the court emphasised that self-represented litigants, while entitled to procedural latitude, remain bound by the same underlying obligations of good faith as represented parties. That solicitude "stops at the misuse of the process itself".

Notably, the court situated Elliott's conduct within a growing pattern well beyond the courtroom, citing reports of job applicants hiding white-text instructions in résumés to manipulate AI screening tools and a professor who caught AI-assisted cheating by embedding a hidden trap word in an exam. Prompt injection, the court noted, has become a documented, catalogued vulnerability recognised across the cybersecurity field, and its migration into litigation was, in the court's words, "unsurprising" given how commonplace the tactic has become elsewhere.

Comparison to Mata v. Avianca

The decision draws a deliberate contrast with the now-famous Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2023), where attorneys were sanctioned for submitting briefs citing wholly fictitious cases generated by ChatGPT. Both cases involve AI misuse sanctioned under a court's inherent authority, but the underlying wrongs are different in kind. Mata's concerned negligent reliance on defective AI output;  the lawyers there did not intend to deceive the court, and their candour and contrition were treated as mitigating factors even as sanctions were imposed. Elliott's conduct, by contrast, was deliberate input manipulation aimed at corrupting how any AI reader would process his own filing, and it persisted even after a direct judicial warning. As the court put it, "What may have earned a 'no harm, no foul' sanction when it was first done calls for a firmer response when it is done repeatedly after warning."

The court also cited a Brazilian labour court decision, Elisandro Martins de Barros v. Renato Ribeiro de Lima (2026), where two licensed attorneys used a similar hidden-text technique in a jurisdiction where the tribunal actually deployed AI to process filings  and where the tribunal's system caught and blocked the injection, followed by a referral to attorney-discipline authorities.

The Sanction and Its Significance

Rather than dismissing the case or imposing monetary penalties, the court chose a narrowly tailored remedy: rescinding Elliott's e-filing privileges and requiring all future filings to be made in person on paper, a sanction addressing the specific abuse (concealed digital text) without barring courthouse access altogether. Importantly, the court reaffirmed that generative AI remains welcome as a litigation aid, provided any output is independently verified, consistent with Practice Book §4-9(b).

Conclusion

Elliott is a small case with an outsized signal: courts are beginning to recognise that AI-era misconduct is not limited to fabricated citations but extends to covert attempts to manipulate the tools, including tools opposing counsel, clerks, or even the court itself might someday rely on. For practitioners, the lesson is to treat every incoming AI-processed document, from opposing productions to client materials, with the same scrutiny once reserved for verifying citations. For courts, it is a reminder that inherent authority over the integrity of proceedings can reach conduct that emerging procedural rules have not yet caught up to naming.

‍

References

• https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Elliott-v-New-York-Bariatric-Group-Memorandum-of-Decision-8-6-26.pdf 

‍

Introduction

The government has announced that the new criminal laws will come into force on 1st July 2024. The Union Government notified that three recently enacted criminal laws, viz. Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 will be effective from 1st July 2024.  The Indian Penal Code 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and Indian Evidence Act 1872 have been replaced by these new criminal laws.

On 23 February 2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs Announced the Effective Date of new criminal laws as follows:

1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Effective from 1-7-2024, except Section 106(2).
2. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Effective from 1-7-2024.
3. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 The provisions will come into force on 1-7-2024 except the provisions of the entry relating to section 106(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in the First Schedule.

Section 106(2) Will Not Be Enforced

Truckers protested against this provision, which provides 10 years imprisonment and fines for those who cause death by rash and negligent driving of a vehicle not amounting to culpable homicide, and escape without reporting it to a police officer. As of now, the government has promised truckers and transporters that subsection 2 of Section 106 of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) will not come into force. This subsection deals with fatal hit-and-run cases and prescribes higher penalties for not informing authorities immediately after an accident. 

Section 106(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read as follows;

106. Causing death by negligence.—

(2) Whoever causes death of any person by rash and negligent driving of vehicle not amounting to culpable homicide, and escapes without reporting it to a police officer or a Magistrate soon after the incident, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description of aterm which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023

The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 will replace the Indian Evidence Act 1872. The Act has undergone significant modification to maintain its fundamental principles for fair legal proceedings and adapt to technological advancements and changes in societal norms. This Act recognises electronic records as primary evidence under Section 57. It also allows the electronic presentation of oral evidence, enabling remote testimony and ensuring that electronic records will have the same legal effect as paper records.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaces the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, introducing certain modifications. This Act, under section 176, requires forensic investigation for crimes punished with seven years' imprisonment or more.  Section 530 of BNSS, 2023 is a newly inserted provision which envisages the use of electronic communication audio-video electronic means for trials, inquiries, proceedings, service and issuance of summons. Electronic mode is permitted for all trials, inquiries, and proceedings under section 173 of this Act. The concept of Zero FIR is also introduced under section 173(1) and mandates police stations to register the FIR, irrespective of jurisdiction.

Conclusion

India's new criminal laws are set to take effect on 1st July 2024. These laws modernise the country's legal framework, replacing outdated statutes and incorporating technological advancements. The concerns from stakeholders led to the withholding of enforcement of Section 106(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The new criminal laws aim to address contemporary society's complexities while upholding justice and fairness.

References

• https://www.indiatoday.in/india/video/new-criminal-laws-to-come-into-effect-from-july-1-2506664-2024-02-24
• https://www.lawrbit.com/article/ipc-crpc-evidence-act-replaced-by-new-criminal-laws/

‍

Introduction

Data protection has been a critical aspect of advocacy and governance all across the world. Data fuels our cyber-ecosystem and strengthens the era of emerging technologies. All industries and sectors are now dependent upon the data of the user. The governments across the world have been deliberating internally to address the issue and legality of Data protection and privacy. The Indian government has witnessed various draft bills and policies focusing on Data protection over the years, and the contemporary bill is the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023, which was tabled at the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) on 03 August for discussions and parliamentary assent.

What is DPDP, 2023?

The goal of the complete and comprehensive Digital Personal Data Protection Bill of 2023 is to establish a framework for the protection of personal data in India. The measure acknowledges the significance of protecting personal data and seeks to strike a balance between the necessity to process personal data for legitimate purposes and the right of individuals to do so. The bill establishes a number of crucial expressions and ideas associated with the protection of personal data, including “data fiduciary,” “data principal,” and “sensitive personal data.” It also emphasises the duties of data fiduciaries, including the need to establish suitable security measures to preserve personal data and the need to secure data principals’ consent before processing their personal information. The measure also creates the Data Protection Board of India, which would implement its requirements and guarantee data fiduciaries’ compliance. The board will have the authority to look into grievances, give directives, and impose sanctions for non-compliance.

Key Features of the Bill

The bill tabled at the parliament has the following key features:

• The 2023 bill imposes reasonable obligations on data fiduciaries and data processors to safeguard digital personal data.
• Under the 2023 bill, a new Data Protection Board is established, which will ensure compliance, remedies and penalties.
• Under the new bill, the Board has been entrusted with the power equivalent to a civil court, such as the power to take cognisance in response to personal data breaches, investigate complaints, imposing penalties. Additionally, the Board can issue directions to ensure compliance with the act.
• The 2023 bill also secures more rights of Individuals and establishes a balance between user protection and growing innovations.
• The bill creates a transparent and accountable data governance framework by giving more rights to individuals.
• There is an Incorporation of Business-friendly provisions by removing criminal penalties for non-compliance and facilitating international data transfers.
• The new 2023 bill balances out fundamental privacy rights and puts reasonable limitations on those rights.
• The new data protection board will carefully examine the instance of non-compliance by imposing penalties on non-compiler.
• The bill does not provide any express clarity in regards to compensation to be granted to the Data Principal in case of a Data Breach.
• Under 2023 Deemed consent is there in its new form as ‘Legitimate Users’ pertaining to the conditions in regard to Sovernity and Intergrity of India.
• There is an introduction of the negative list, which restricts cross-data transfer.

Additionally, the measure makes special provisions for the processing of children’s personal data and acknowledges the significance of protecting children’s privacy. Additionally, it highlights the rights of the data subjects, including their right to access their personal information, their right to have wrong information corrected, and their right to be forgotten.

Drive4CyberPeace

A campaign was undertaken by CyberPeace to gain a critical understanding of what people understand about Data privacy and protection in India. The 4-month long campaign led to a pan-India interaction with netizens from different areas and backgrounds. The thoughts and opinions of the netizens were understood and collated in the form of a whitepaper which was, in turn, presented to Parliamentarians and government officials. The whitepaper laid the foundation of the recommendations submitted to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology as part of the stakeholder consultation.

Conclusion

Overall, the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill of 2023 is an important step towards safeguarding Indian citizens’ privacy and personal data. It creates a regulatory agency to guarantee compliance and enforcement and offers a thorough framework for data protection. The law includes special measures for the protection of sensitive personal data and the personal data of children and acknowledges the significance of striking a balance between the right to privacy and the necessity of data processing.