The highly ridiculed confrontation between former Knesset member Oren Hazan and Elon Musk's Grok bot on X quickly turned into a viral joke across social networks on Tuesday.
Oren Hazan, furious over the bot presenting a quote that attributed a judgmental remark to him, threatened to sue the bot – sparking a wave of cynical reactions alongside genuine questions: Is it even possible to sue artificial intelligence? And if so, who exactly? The bot itself, the company operating it, those who trained it, or perhaps the editors of the data it relies on?
First, one basic point needs clarification: Bots are not legal entities. They function as software tools, much like a calculator or web browser, so direct lawsuits against them are impossible. Just as you cannot sue a computer's operating system or a car's steering wheel – but rather the manufacturer or driver – the same applies to artificial intelligence.
The key question revolves around who bears legal liabilities. Development companies that build the core engines, such as OpenAI, Anthropic, or xAI (Elon Musk's firm, which created Grok), supply the architecture and capabilities for generating texts, images, and more.
At times, external entities supply training data to these AI firms. Thus, if the data proves problematic or biased, responsibility could extend to them as well. Operating and distribution companies – those providing bots for public use, like the social network X for Grok – handle user interfaces, usage policies, and integration into existing platforms.
רק להזכיר שתבעתי דיבה וניצחתי. פרט קטן ושולי שכזה..
— אורן חזן (@oren_haz) August 19, 2025
So, what does current Israeli law stipulate?
Existing law addresses artificial intelligence primarily through indirect liability. In other words, lawsuits target not the bot, but the company behind it. If a bot disseminates false information damaging someone's reputation, liability falls on those running it.
Yet courts have not drawn firm boundaries: Should bots be viewed as "journalists" or "public broadcasters"? Or merely technological tools, shifting some responsibility to users?
Lawsuits over erroneous information represent another way to redress greivances. Artificial intelligence delivering inaccurate details to consumers could leave the company running those bots vulnerable to claims. That's why most AI firms preemptively shield themselves via terms of service that restrict users' suing options. But what of moral accountability? Even with legal blame on companies, a broader public query persists: Is it equitable to "rectify" bots via lawsuit threats? In Oren Hazan's instance, the aim might have been securing a public fix for an error or a precise statement rendition, yet the current discourse frames any "bot" lawsuit threat as instant farce.
Globally and in Israel, direct legislation on artificial intelligence – especially conversational bots – remains absent. The European Union has started forging regulatory structures via the AI Act, mandating transparency and accountability across development and deployment tiers. In Israel, the matter lingers in early stages.
With technology growing central to public dialogue – particularly as bots get quoted and platformed akin to journalists – courts and lawmakers must rule: Is this a responsibility-free tool, or a fresh public arena participant imposing defined legal duties on backing firms?
Ultimately, Oren Hazan versus Grok's tale transcends online humor. It mirrors a new era's unease: Technology that converses, interprets, and molds public discourse sans personal accountability.
Who truly shoulders responsibility – and how to guarantee injustice remedies without curbing development and expression freedoms – will preoccupy lawyers, regulators, and tech firms for years ahead.
