Deepfakes Are Already in Court. Louisiana Has Rules. The Feds Are Still in a Meeting.

Illustration created with AI. Not a real courtroom, not a real case, and no robot has been sworn in. Yet.

THE HUMAN VERSION

Before we start: this is commentary and opinion, not legal advice. Reading it doesn't make me your lawyer. Neither does commenting, sharing, sending a DM, or asking a chatbot to "read this lawyer's blog and tell me if I have a case." Especially that last one. Every case turns on its own facts. Attorney advertising. And since it's on topic: I used AI to help write this. I also read every word and checked every case. Hold that thought.

First, a disclosure: I'm pro-AI. This firm has used AI since late 2022 for research, drafting, and keeping our notes straight. It's not a secret. So this is not a "robots are bad" post. This is a "robots are not witnesses" post.

The problem, in one paragraph. For about 150 years, a photo was proof. Now anybody with a phone can make a video of you saying things you never said, in your voice, in less time than it takes to get a po-boy at lunch rush. Courts run on evidence. Evidence just got a lot easier to fake.

And it's already happening. Three cases worth knowing:

• California, 2025. In Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield, the plaintiffs submitted video "testimony" from a witness. The judge compared it to a real recording of the same woman and noticed the voice, the rhythm, the word choice, and the facial expressions were all off. It was AI. The judge didn't just toss the video. She tossed the entire case. (The plaintiffs represented themselves, so no lawyers were involved. Don't worry, we're up next.)

• Washington, 2024. In State v. Puloka, a murder case, the defense offered a bystander's phone video "enhanced" with AI to look sharper. The judge kept it out. AI enhancement doesn't reveal what's in the picture. It guesses what should be there and fills it in. That's not evidence. That's fan fiction with pixels.

• The Fifth Circuit, February 2026. That's the federal appeals court over Louisiana. In Fletcher v. Experian, a lawyer filed a brief that AI had drafted, complete with quotes that didn't exist and law that wasn't the law. When the court asked about it, the court found the answers evasive and misleading. Result: a $2,500 sanction and a published opinion. The fine stings. The opinion with your name on it stings forever.

Louisiana didn't wait. Write that down; it doesn't happen often. Act 250 of 2025 took effect August 1, 2025. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 371 now says a lawyer must use "reasonable diligence to verify the authenticity of evidence" before offering it to the court. If a lawyer knew, or should have known, that evidence was fake or manipulated and offers it anyway without saying so, that's a violation, with contempt and discipline on the table. And in civil cases, if you suspect the other side's exhibit was made or altered by AI, the law expects you to raise it before trial, at the pretrial conference or an admissibility hearing, instead of springing it on the jury.

The feds, meanwhile, are still in a meeting. Literally. A proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 would make machine-generated evidence meet the same reliability standard as expert testimony. It went out for public comment in August 2025. In May 2026, the federal rules committee decided not to move it forward yet and to hold a conference of experts first. That conference is October 15, in Boston. A separate deepfake rule is drafted and sitting on the shelf. By the committee's own timeline, the earliest anything goes back out for public comment is August 2027, and federal rules usually take a couple more years after that. So if a deepfake walks into federal court in New Orleans next month, the judge works with the rules we already have.

Part of the reason for the caution: in a Federal Judicial Center survey, only 15 of more than 930 federal trial judges who responded had ever dealt with a deepfake challenge. That's either very reassuring, or it means the good ones haven't been caught yet. I know which one I'd bet on.

My take, in three parts.

1. Louisiana got the important part right: the duty is on the lawyer. We're the ones who sign the pleadings. "My client sent it to me" was never a great excuse. In Louisiana, it's no longer a legal one.

2. The bigger danger isn't fake evidence getting in. It's real evidence getting kicked out. Law professors call it the "liar's dividend": once everybody knows fakes exist, anybody can call real evidence fake. Picture this. You've got clean dashcam video of their driver blowing the light at Claiborne and Canal. The insurance company watches it, shrugs, and says, "How do we know that's real?" That's the fight I expect to see a lot more of. Whoever yells "deepfake" should have to show something more than vibes. The federal draft deepfake rule does exactly that: the challenger has to bring real evidence of fabrication before the burden shifts. I like that part. I'd like it more if it existed.

3. AI is a great tool for lawyers and a terrible witness. Use it to research, organize, and draft. Check its work like a first-year associate's on their first day. And never, ever let it touch the evidence.

If you've been hurt, here's what this means for you.

• Keep the originals. The original photo or video file, on the original phone. Don't screenshot it, crop it, filter it, or "clean it up." Back it up exactly as it is. The data hidden inside that file (when and where it was taken) can matter as much as the picture.

• Don't "fix" your evidence with AI. Not even to make it clearer. A blurry real photo beats a sharp fake one every single time.

• Be careful what you tell a chatbot about your case. In February 2026, a federal judge in New York ruled in United States v. Heppner that documents a criminal defendant made with a public AI tool were not protected by attorney-client privilege. Other courts have seen it differently, and the law is still sorting itself out. Don't be the test case. A chatbot is not your lawyer. Tell your lawyer.

• Save the boring stuff. Texts, timestamps, receipts, names of who was there. Real evidence is detailed and boring. That's what makes it believable.

• Don't wait. Louisiana deadlines are short, and evidence disappears faster than you think.

My take, in one line: AI belongs in the law office. It doesn't belong in the witness box.

They say no. WE say OUI (684). Even when "they" is a deepfake.

Hurt in New Orleans or anywhere in Louisiana? Call (504) 684-4444. The consultation is free, you talk to the attorney, and there's no fee unless we win. Se habla español. We use AI every day. We just don't let it testify.

Cases and rules mentioned: Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cnty., Sept. 9, 2025); State v. Puloka (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cnty., 2024); Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 25-20086 (5th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026); United States v. Heppner, No. 25-cr-503 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026); La. Acts 2025, No. 250 (La. C.C.P. arts. 371, 1551); proposed Fed. R. Evid. 707; Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules meeting notice, Federal Register (Oct. 15, 2026, Boston).

THE LAWYER VERSION

Attorney advertising. This post is legal information, commentary, and opinion, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case, statute, and rule descriptions are simplified summaries drawn from published court decisions, the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, Federal Register notices, federal rules-committee materials, and public reporting as of October 8, 2026, and reflect the law on that date; the law can change. Every case turns on its own facts. "No fee unless we win" refers only to attorney's fees; clients may be responsible for case costs. This post was drafted with the help of AI tools and reviewed by a licensed attorney. The illustration was created with AI; it is a dramatization, does not depict actual events, a real proceeding, or actual clients, and everyone in it other than Oliver Hadley and his dog Bess is fictional. Responsible attorney: Oliver B. Hadley, Oliver Hadley Law, LLC, 700 Camp St., New Orleans, LA 70130.

Robotaxis Are Coming to New Orleans. Who Pays When One Hits You?

THE HUMAN VERSION

Before we start: this is commentary and opinion, not legal advice. Reading it doesn't make me your lawyer. Neither does commenting, sharing, sending a DM, or yelling at your phone. Every case turns on its own facts. Attorney advertising.

You've probably seen them by now. White Jaguars covered in cameras, a sensor spinning on the roof, stopping at every light like they're auditioning for a driver's ed video. That's Waymo, the self-driving car company owned by Google's parent, Alphabet. It has been learning New Orleans streets since early 2025 and has about a dozen cars testing here, each with a human safety driver still behind the wheel.

That human is the part that's about to change. City officials say driverless testing could start later this year, with licensed robotaxi rides possibly in 2027. The City Council expects to start drafting the rules this fall.

So let's talk about it. I have thoughts. I always have thoughts.

First, a disclosure: I'm not anti-robot. This firm has used AI since 2022. There's a robot version of me on this website. He wears a cape. He has never been in a car accident, mostly because he's a drawing. You can meet him on our How We Use AI page.

Second, let's be honest about the competition. Waymo says its cars get into far fewer crashes than human drivers. Have you met our human drivers? This is a city where a turn signal is a rumor, a four-way stop is a negotiation, and a U-turn through the neutral ground counts as a lane change. Waymo has even offered to map our potholes for the city. Finally, a driver who sees every single one. The bar is on the ground. Some days it's in a pothole.

The question I actually care about: when the robot hits you, who pays?

Good news. Louisiana answered most of this in 2019, years before the first Waymo showed up. Act 232 of 2019 (La. R.S. 32:400.1 and following) lets driverless vehicles used in commerce operate here, on conditions:

• The robot is the driver. The self-driving system, and the company that certifies it to the state, count as the licensed operator. The company answers for its robot.

• The robot carries real insurance. Each vehicle needs at least $2,000,000 in liability coverage. The guy who rear-ended you on Claiborne only has to carry $15,000. The robot has to carry more than a hundred times that. Sit with that for a second.

• No hit-and-run robots. After a crash, the car has to stay at the scene, and the company has to contact police and hand over the required information. That's already better manners than some folks on I-10.

• Nobody gets a free pass. The law says it doesn't erase anyone's liability under existing law: owner, operator, manufacturer, parts supplier, retailer. And if there's a fight over which state's law applies to an injury claim, Louisiana law settles it. Sorry, California.

Now the catch. There's always a catch.

If you ride in a Waymo, you agreed to its terms, and those terms include mandatory arbitration and a class action waiver. If you're hurt as a passenger, your claim will likely go to a private arbitrator instead of a jury. The terms even say they apply to a guest on a ride somebody else booked. Whether that holds up against someone who never clicked anything is a fight I'd be happy to have.

If you were the pedestrian, the cyclist, or the person in the other car, you never clicked "I agree" on anything. The courthouse door is open.

Same lesson as the Uber case I wrote about last month: the fine print in the app gets decided long before the crash.

What I'd tell the City Council. Unsolicited, as is my brand.

One wrinkle first: the 2019 state law makes the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development the only agency with jurisdiction over these vehicles. So whatever the city writes may have to share the road with Baton Rouge. Expect lawyers. (Hi.)

Within whatever room the city has:

1. Make the crash data stick around. These cars record video and sensor data constantly. They are the most detailed eyewitness this city has ever had. The rules should require that footage to be preserved after a crash and made available to police and to the people who got hurt. The star witness should not get to lose its memory.

2. Put a real human on the hook, locally. You can't exchange insurance with a roof sensor. After a crash, a person should answer the phone, in this time zone.

3. Protect the people outside the car. Riders have an app. A pedestrian on Frenchmen at 1 a.m. has a go-cup and faith. The rules should treat people outside the car as the priority, not the afterthought.

If a robotaxi hits you, here's what to do. Same as any crash, plus a couple of robot-specific moves:

• Get checked by a doctor, even if you feel fine.

• Call the police and make your own report. The car is supposed to report too. Don't let the robot be the only one telling the story.

• Photograph the vehicle (license plate and any ID on the car), the scene, and the time.

• If you were a passenger, screenshot the ride in the app before anything changes.

• Don't give a recorded statement to the company or its insurer before you talk to a lawyer.

• Watch the clock. Louisiana gives you two years for most injury claims (La. C.C. art. 3493.1). The clock doesn't care who was driving, or that nobody was.

My take. Let them come. Seriously. If a computer can get down Tchoupitoulas during Mardi Gras without hitting anybody, I want to shake its hand. Its robot hand. I've got one of those too.

But "nobody was driving" can never turn into "nobody is responsible." Louisiana got that right in 2019. Now the city's rules and the app's fine print can't be allowed to quietly take it back.

They say no. WE say OUI (684). Even when "they" is a robot.

If you've been hurt by any vehicle in Louisiana, with a driver or without one, call (504) 684-4444. The consultation is free, you talk to the attorney, and there's no fee unless we win. Se habla español.

THE LAWYER VERSION

Attorney advertising. This post is legal information, commentary, and opinion, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Facts about Waymo's New Orleans testing come from public news reports and New Orleans City Council materials as of the date of publication; timelines and rules may change. Statutory references reflect Louisiana law on that date. "No fee unless we win" refers to attorney's fees; clients may remain responsible for case costs and expenses. Illustration created with AI; it does not depict actual events.