Federal Judge Dismisses Case Over Plaintiff’s ChatGPT Use in Deposition
A federal judge dismissed Jones v. Delta Air Lines after the plaintiff used ChatGPT at deposition.
Why it matters: The ruling sends a clear signal about courts’ reluctance to accept AI assistance during sworn testimony. It sets an early precedent on the evidentiary role of AI, signaling potential limits for legal practitioners and litigants considering AI tools in depositions or other discovery.
- Plaintiff Littiece Jones admitted using ChatGPT during her January 2026 deposition.
- The court barred Jones from using ChatGPT and ruled she could not claim attorney-client privilege as she was unrepresented.
- Case dismissed with prejudice under Civil Rules 37(b)(2) and 41(b) due to repeated discovery violations.
- The court found Jones's conduct willful and prejudicial to Delta Air Lines.
A federal judge in Michigan dismissed Jones v. Delta Air Lines with prejudice after the plaintiff attempted to use ChatGPT to answer questions during her deposition, marking a rare judicial rebuke of artificial intelligence tools in legal proceedings.
- During a deposition in January 2026, plaintiff Littiece Jones admitted she had ChatGPT open on her device. When pressed on whether she was entering case information, Jones declined to answer, invoking attorney-client privilege—although she was not represented by counsel. (EDRM)
- The court issued a clear directive: “This Court instructed Jones that she could not 'use ChatGPT or any other AI platform, any other person, any other anything to assist [her] in answering questions that are posed to [her] during [her] deposition.'” (2026 WL 1091186)
- Despite multiple accommodations and two extensions of the discovery period—officially ending January 2026—Jones failed to comply with discovery orders over the course of a year. Her conduct was deemed willful, and Delta Air Lines was found to be prejudiced by her lack of cooperation. (eDiscovery Today)
- Ultimately, the court dismissed the case with prejudice under Civil Rules 37(b)(2) and 41(b), delivering a rare rebuke of generative AI in the discovery process.
This decision underscores judicial skepticism about the reliability and appropriateness of AI-generated content in sworn legal testimony, raising a red flag for parties considering similar tools in future litigation.
By the numbers:
- 2 — Number of times discovery period was extended before ending January 2026.
- 1 year — Duration of Jones’s ongoing failure to engage in discovery.
- Jan 8-9, 2026 — Dates of Jones’s deposition when ChatGPT was used.