Investigation Workbench
No New Laws Required
8 / 10 (High)
Statutory Basis: Enforces standard commercial deception and antitrust doctrines enacted 1914–present. The FTC Act requires neither specialized algorithmic legislation nor proof of technical novelty.
Prosecutorial Viability Matrix
FTC Act § 5
STATUTORY CAUSATION & OFFICER LIABILITY MAPPING
Applicable Penalties
Civil penalties, individual officer bans, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains
Legal Rationale
Direct executive involvement in publishing demonstrably false benchmark performance to enterprise buyers constitutes deceptive commercial practice under established FTC precedent.
Prosecutor's Playbook & Evidentiary Roadmap
- Subpoena internal benchmark telemetry vs. external marketing representations to demonstrate material deception.
- Depose C-level leadership on sign-off communications regarding synthetic or cherry-picked test evaluations.
- Pursue algorithmic disgorgement: order destruction of illegally trained model weights and misappropriated assets.
- Seek permanent managerial debarment under established corporate officer liability precedents.
Executive Summary: Enforcement Memorandum
Under prevailing enforcement standards articulated by the Federal Trade Commission, artificial intelligence developers enjoy no statutory immunity or regulatory holiday. Where executive officers authorize false capability claims or suppress known structural defects to induce enterprise procurement, Section 5 of the FTC Act operates directly without supplemental legislative enactment. Direct executive involvement satisfies individual culpability tests, subjecting officers to civil debarment and mandatory asset disgorgement.