In a case that could be described as pitting “real lawyers against a robot lawyer,” an Illinois federal court has dismissed a suit lodged by law firm MillerKing against self-help legal service DoNotPay. The firm initiated the class action on behalf of “all law firms in the United States,” citing false association and false advertising under the Lanham Act and Illinois state law.
The lawsuit centered around DoNotPay’s service, which allows users to dispute cases against corporations and governmental bureaucracy at the press of a button, despite the company not possessing a license to practice law. MillerKing, however, failed to establish standing in the court, as it did not demonstrate that it had suffered any concrete injury due to DoNotPay’s conduct.
U.S. District Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel noted that MillerKing did not allege any lost revenue or added expenditures due to DNP’s actions. There were also no allegations that any client or prospective client had withdrawn or considered withdrawing business because of DNP.
Furthermore, the court found that MillerKing could not support its claim that DoNotPay negatively impacted their reputation or damaged its goodwill. Similarly, the court dismissed MillerKing’s attempt to portray DoNotPay as a direct competitor, determining that the two entities offer very different “products”.
While there are other ongoing cases alleging unauthorized practice of law by DoNotPay, such as Faridian v. DoNotPay and Lee v. DoNotPay, this decision is a significant one. Joshua Browder, founder and CEO of DoNotPay, lauded the dismissal, calling it an important precedent for the future of AI Litigation in a LinkedIn post.
The legal controversy surrounding DoNotPay has also been covered in a series of related podcast episodes by LawNext, which included interviews with individuals such as Maya Markovich of the Justice Technology Association and Tom Gordon of Responsive Law.