The FTC’s DoNotPay ‘Robot Lawyer’ Order

AI legal products cannot claim to replace a lawyer without reliable evidence.

What happened—and what the record establishes

DoNotPay marketed subscription features as a ‘robot lawyer’ and an adequate substitute for human legal expertise. The FTC alleged that the company had not tested the service against the performance of a human lawyer and had not retained lawyers to evaluate the law-related features.

In 2025, the FTC finalized an order requiring $193,000 in monetary relief, notice to certain past subscribers, and restrictions on unsupported professional-substitution claims.

The order does not establish that every AI legal-information tool is unlawful. It distinguishes general tools from advertising that objectively claims professional equivalence. Legal products should describe limitations, jurisdictions, update practices, and the role of licensed counsel accurately.

Questions the law must answer

• What exactly does the advertisement promise?
• Was the product evaluated by qualified professionals?
• Does the system account for jurisdiction, deadlines, and changing law?

Practical takeaways

• Disclaimers may not cure a contradictory headline claim.
• AI-generated legal text can be incomplete or wrong.
• For consequential matters, consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.