The Rite Aid case shows why a biometric match needs verification, limits, and evidence before anyone acts on it. The lesson reaches any system where an AI or biometric output can trigger action against a real person.

The SafeRent case shows why vendor scores need validation for the exact population and decision where they are used. The lesson reaches any consequential eligibility decision.

The FTC alleged that DoNotPay marketed its service as the world's first robot lawyer without evidence adequate to support human lawyer level claims. The final order required monetary relief, consumer notice, and restrictions on specified future claims.

The FTC alleged IntelliVision made unsubstantiated claims about facial recognition accuracy, bias, training-data scale, and anti-spoofing performance. The matter resolved through a final order with no admission and no monetary relief. The governance lesson: a fairness claim needs group-level evidence before it reaches a customer.

The FTC alleged unsupported claims about an AI powered weapons detection screening product used in schools and other high volume venues. The case resolved through a stipulated order. Evolv did not admit wrongdoing, and the governance lesson is clear: safety claims need evidence before customers rely on them.

A generative AI tool produced fictitious legal citations. An attorney submitted them to a federal judge. When questioned, he asked the AI to verify them. It said they were real. They were not. This is what governance failure looks like in a professional context.