Example of an Improper Use of GenAI

Yesterday, I  posted an Example of a Proper Use of GenAI.  Today’s post is the flip side—an improper use of Generative Artificial Intelligence. In this case, the meaning of the term “groomer” was at issue.

GenAI is not a dictionary:

Indeed, the State of Illinois criminalizes the act of “grooming” as a Class 4 felony. 720 ILCS 5/11-25. Chaudhry and Alvi attach a generative artificial intelligence question and answer response as Exhibit 1 to their motion for summary judgment, in apparent support of an innocent construction of the word “groomer.” This argument is preposterous. No reasonable person could claim that in using the word “groom,” the article was actually just innocently claiming that Thorsen was a “man on his wedding day.” Chaudhry & Alvi Motion for Summary Judgment ex. 1 at p. 1. Nor that he was a “servant/official in a royal household.” Id. Nor that they were talking about “animal care.” Id. at p. 2. The obvious and only connotation is “[t]o establish trust with someone, often a child or vulnerable person, in order to exploit or abuse them… Example: The authorities investigated him for grooming teenagers online.” Id. The Court doesn’t believe that this is a proper use of generative artificial intelligence to define a term as envisioned by Judge Newsome. See Snell v. United Specialty, Inc., 102 F.4th 1208, 1221 (11th Cir. 2024).

Chaudhry v. Thorsen, 2026 WL 766048, n. 26 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2026)(emphasis added). Given the “grotesque length” of the opinion, id. at *21, this blog merely skims the surface.

Thorsen involved a social studies teacher who “was assigned to teach the impact of major world religions.” Ms. Aliya Chaudry was a student who questioned her religion. Teacher and student had numerous interactions. Ms. Chaudry eventually converted her religion. Her parents disapproved. They lodged a complaint.  Petitions and litigation followed.

The long and the short of it follows. Entering Jacobs High School, Aliya—the daughter of Chaudhry and Alvi—identified as Muslim but was actively questioning her faith. In two classes with Thorsen, she established a strong rapport with him. She trusted him enough to approach him and ask personal questions related to her faith, having conversations before and after school. She did this not because he was Christian—she didn’t even know he was Christian—but because he was a history teacher, and apparently a good one. In their conversations, Thorsen asked at least one offhanded question on two separate occasions related to an apparent controversy related to Islam. As Aliya gradually chose to convert from Islam to Christianity, Thorsen grew concerned for her well-being given the ongoing family dynamics that she professed to him. He connected her to resources in the community, some of which included his own personal connections: a neighbor, a pastor, and former students. He also, at her request, gave her a Bible from one of these connections.

After learning of Aliya’s conversion, Chaudhry and Alvi were deeply hurt, and took several actions in response. First, they complained to the school, resulting in Thorsen’s separation from the school district. Second, they filed this lawsuit. And finally, they spoke to the media.

“Grooming” became an issue in the tort claims: “[I]f Chaudhry and Alvi published a statement that Thorsen ‘groomed’ Aliya, this would constitute defamation per se. Every reasonable person knows what ‘grooming’ means in the context of a teacher-child relationship. And calling Thorsen one at least imputes a lack of integrity onto him in performing his duties as a teacher. For their part, Chaudhry and Alvi claim that although they know the context in which ‘grooming’ can be seen, it wasn’t meant that way.” They used GenAI, unsuccessfully, to support their position.

It was alleged that the student was coerced.  The court wrote:

But reflecting on her experience in high school, Aliya herself denies having been brainwashed and believes Thorsen was an “amazing” teacher.…  Aliya reported being familiar with the term “grooming” as being generally used in the context of sexual abuse and denied Thorsen grooming or indoctrinating her…. Yosuf Chaudhry acknowledged that the word “grooming” is used to describe pedophiles but denied intending for it to be used that way in the article….. Likewise, Amena Alvi acknowledged that people use the term “grooming” with a sexual connotation, but denied that being her intent…. Aliya was not asked by her parents whether she researched religion on her own before they gave the interview.

On the merits, the court wrote: “But there is material dispute of fact as to whether they did in fact publish that Thorsen was a ‘groomer’ or otherwise ‘groomed’ Aliya, foreclosing the possibility of summary judgment on the issue. Certainly the article calls Thorsen a groomer. However, it is not set in quotation marks, and it is not clear whether this defamatory word came from Chaudhry and Alvi, or if it was the writer’s own interpretation.”

This six-year long case resulted in a complex and lengthy opinion on the merits.  “On the topic of judicial resources, the parties did the Court no favors in their briefing of these issues. Combined, parties expended nearly 850 pages on factual statements, responses, and exhibits…. And in reality, this 850-page tally is understated by nature of the depositions being provided in Min-U-Script quad format, with four pages of text produced on one page. Despite this, both parties still thought it necessary to devote another seven pages to facts in each of their fifteen-page memoranda. Then did it again in the responses.”

The court wrote: “Shockingly, Chaudhry and Alvi’s counsel never bothered to interview Aliya before filing the litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). A reasonable, competent counsel would have done so, then thought twice—if not more—about filing this action.”

However, the student’s counsel was commended: “The Court profusely thanks attorneys Daniel Weiss and Brandon Polcik for accepting the Court’s assignment to represent Aliya in this litigation. The Court assigned Mr. Weiss and Mr. Polcik….  Again, the Court thanks assigned counsel for representing Aliya during this difficult litigation….  The Court’s concern for Aliya’s wellbeing was a basis to assign these excellent attorneys.”