This week’s kitchen sink for April 3, 2026 (with meme from Gates Dogfish) discusses more AI-related litigation, OKCupid’s blatant disregard for user privacy & more!

Why “the kitchen sink”? Find out here! 🙂

The Kitchen Sink is even better when you can include a brand-new eDiscovery meme courtesy of Gates Dogfish, the meme channel dedicated to eDiscovery people and created by Aaron Patton. For more great eDiscovery memes, follow Gates Dogfish on LinkedIn here! You got DAT right! 🤣

Here is the kitchen sink for April 3 of ten-ish stories that I didn’t get to this week, with a comment from me about each:

We’re up to 1,228 AI hallucination cases and counting. But only 472 of them involve lawyers. 😁

When the Platform Disappears: Spoliation Sanctions and the Google Analytics Sunset: Interesting case discussed by Kelly Twigger, where an IT employee decided to download data from Google’s Universal Analytics platform when Google announced they were sunsetting the platform and that the data would be unavailable after a period of time. The problem? The IT employee did so without direction from counsel and only preserved summary data. Sanctions followed (though they were pretty minor). Lesson: involve counsel in preservation and collection.

Study: Sycophantic AI can undermine human judgment: Subjects who interacted with AI tools were more likely to think they were right, less likely to resolve conflicts. Some people I know must be using AI a lot. 🤣

AI in Discovery: Some Tools Are Ready. Others Are Not.: The author (Jerry Lawson) here characterizes TAR as “the old, reliable workhorse” while GenAI “is the new, charismatic intern.” He also notes that: “Research shows that hallucinations are not simply bugs waiting to be fixed. They are an inherent consequence of how large language models generate text.” Wholeheartedly agree with that. He then proceeds to talk about several challenges with GenAI and says: “TAR has spent a decade earning judicial trust through transparency and measurable accuracy.” But TAR didn’t do that without humans providing proper procedures on how to use TAR and GenAI won’t earn that trust without humans doing the same – which they are.

From AI hype to AI reality: The steps businesses need to take to adopt AI responsibly: The author here discusses a 40-20-40 rule to responsibly implementing AI: 40% for foundations, governance, and education, 20% for implementation and 40% for optimization, resilience, and trust. Great way to look at it.

When Should a Motion for Sanctions be Filed?: There’s a right time and a wrong time for a motion for sanctions to be filed (as Illinois District Judge Iain D. Johnston discussed in this case). Here, Michael Berman discusses on the EDRM blog what happens when a party files that motion at the wrong time (spoiler alert: it gets denied).

$650B and Counting: How AI Infrastructure Spending Is Reshaping U.S. Tech Strategy: $650 billion dollars? That’s 6 1/2 times more than what Dr. Evil asked for! 😉 Seriously though, this is a good article on something people don’t discuss enough: how the massive surge in AI infrastructure spending marks a fundamental shift in enterprise technology strategy, comparable to the early days of cloud computing or the internet.

Important A.I. Work Product and Protective Order Decision: Application to Pro Se Litigant and Beyond?: Michael Berman discusses this case on the EDRM blog, which combines elements of this case (where a court held that a pro se plaintiff’s use of AI was work product) and this case (where the court approved a protective order barring upload of confidential material to LLMs). As Mike states: “One very important holding is that, when ‘electronic interaction passes through third-party systems,’ it does not forfeit a reasonable expectation of privacy.” That’s huge.

The AI Appropriator: A New Species of Credit Thief Is Reshaping the Corporate Workplace: Despite publishing this on April Fools Day, Rob Robinson is quite serious when he talks about the “AI Appropriator” – a new type of workplace actor who uses generative AI tools to take credit for work that is partly or largely built on others’ contributions. Apparently, ChatGPT’s Zero GPT Detector thinks there’s a 92% chance that I’m an AI appropriator.

FTC’s OkCupid Action Reframes AI Training Data as a Consumer Protection Issue: Also published on April Fools Day by Rob, we wish this story was a joke. But it’s not. A co-founder of OKCupid (which is owned by Match Group) reportedly transmitted images of 3 million users (along with associated demographic and location data) through a personal email account rather than through any corporate channel to the CEO of the AI visual recognition company Clarifai (a company that OKCupid’s co-founders invested in). Users received neither notice nor an opt-out mechanism. It gets worse. According to the FTC, Match Group withheld nearly every responsive internal communication by asserting overbroad claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. The Commission ultimately had to enforce its Civil Investigative Demand — the FTC’s equivalent of a subpoena — in federal court before OkCupid produced the requested records. Amazingly enough, no monetary penalty was issued by the FTC. 🤯 An OkCupid spokesperson said the company settled without admitting wrongdoing, noting that the alleged conduct “does not reflect how OkCupid operates today”. Um, I think that’s an admission. 😉

Anthropic confirms it leaked 512,000 lines of Claude Code source code — spilling some of its biggest secrets: Gee, I hope that doesn’t make them a “supply-chain” risk! 🤣

Hope you enjoyed the kitchen sink for April 3, 2026! Back next week with another edition!

So, what do you think? Which story is your favorite one? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the authors and speakers themselves, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.