A CEO is learning a hard lesson about the intersection of artificial intelligence and the law after a court filing revealed he allegedly used ChatGPT to explore an extremely questionable business strategy. The case highlights the growing and often uncomfortable reality that AI conversations are not private and can be used as evidence. The executive in question is the CEO of an indie game studio working on a new title. According to legal documents, the CEO was facing development challenges and turned to the AI for advice. The specific query he is accused of making is what makes the situation so remarkable. He reportedly asked the chatbot how he could secretly develop the game without officially telling anyone, including the players, and then release it as a surprise. The core of the alleged plan was to use a “fake release” strategy. This would involve the development team working under the guise of creating updates for an older game while actually building the new, unannounced project in the background. The goal, as suggested by the query, was to avoid the typical marketing cycle and public scrutiny, presenting the finished game as a sudden, unexpected gift to the community. The problem, however, is that this strategy was not presented as a hypothetical. The court documents claim the CEO was actively seeking practical steps to implement this deceptive plan. This immediately raises serious legal and ethical red flags. Such an approach could be seen as a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers and potentially even investors, creating a legal minefield around fraudulent representation and breach of fiduciary duty. The situation escalated when the CEO allegedly shared the AI-generated plan with other company leaders. This act of distribution is a key part of the legal complaint, as it moves the idea from a private, perhaps speculative, query into the realm of a proposed corporate action. The company’s former employees are now suing, and the ChatGPT logs have become a central piece of evidence against the CEO. This incident serves as a stark warning for professionals, especially in the tech and crypto spaces where rapid innovation can sometimes outpace ethical considerations. It underscores a critical point: your interactions with large language models are not a private sandbox. Companies often log these interactions for training and quality control, and they can be subpoenaed in legal disputes. Asking an AI for advice on a legally dubious scheme is tantamount to creating a detailed, time-stamped memo outlining your intentions. For the crypto community, which often champions transparency and decentralization, this case is particularly resonant. It is a reminder that even in a cutting-edge field, old-fashioned legal principles still apply. Using an AI to brainstorm ways to circumvent standard corporate governance or consumer expectations is a massive liability. The court of law does not view “the AI told me to” as a valid defense. The bottom line is clear for executives and developers everywhere: treat your conversations with AI assistants with the same discretion you would any other business communication. If you would not want a question or idea read aloud in a courtroom or presented to a regulatory body, you should absolutely not be typing it into a chatbot. The digital paper trail is real, and it is permanent.
