of contract, defamation, copyright, child support, restraining orders, and trusts—as well as standardized legal documents—all for a monthly fee. However, DNP is not licensed to practice law and does not employ licensed attorneys. Rather, it uses artificial intelligence to provide its services.In contrast, MillerKing is a traditional law firm. In the lawsuit against DNP, it sought to bring a class action on behalf of “[a]ll law firms in the United States in existence during the Class Period,” with claims for:False Association under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A), alleging that DNP made representations creating a false impression that it was affiliated with licensed attorneys and approved by the state bar;False Advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), alleging that DNP falsely represented that its services were offered by a lawyer, which influenced the purchasing decisions of DNP’s customers;Violations of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq., alleging that DNP’s misleading statements misrepresented the affiliation, sponsorship, and quality of its services; andUnauthorized Practice of Law under the Illinois Attorney Act, 705 ILCS 205/1, and the Corporation Practice of Law Prohibition Act, 205 ILCS 220/1 and 705 ILCS 220/2.The case raises interesting questions about the nature of False Association and False Advertising claims under the Lanham Act. It also raised broader questions about how AI-driven services like DNP fit into the legal landscape, particularly when they operate in a manner similar to traditional legal services. Yet, the decision came down to a simple issue: Article III standing.As the opinion explained, Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits federal courts to resolving “cases” and “controversies,” meaning “actual and concrete disputes [that] … have direct consequences on the parties involved.” According to the court, the key is that the plaintiff must have a “personal stake” in the outcome of th

Moreover, in the Law 360 article, LHO’s attorney stated that “[e]ven if each of the constituent words, Hotel and Chicago, is generic, the phrase Hotel Chicago is not generic because Hotel Chicago is not the common name for hotel services.” In addition, Defendants have brought counterclaims against LHO for unfair competition under Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices (815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 510/1 et seq.) and Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices (815 Ill. Comp. Stat.