Skip to content

Enforcement register / entity

DoNotPay, Inc.

5 official actions on the record, from Federal Trade Commission, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. This page lists what regulators and courts have done, in date order, with the outcome of each; it is not a description or assessment of the service. DoNotPay, Inc. may reply or add a later disposition.

compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub

  1. · Federal Trade Commission · Regulator enforcement
    final decision and order

    Final order issued; $193,000 monetary relief, customer notice, substantiation and advertising restrictions; DoNotPay neither admits nor denies allegations except jurisdictional facts.

    The Federal Trade Commission issues its final Decision and Order against DoNotPay on January 14, 2025. The order bars unsupported claims that covered services operate like a human lawyer, requires $193,000 for consumer redress and customer notice, and states DoNotPay neither admits nor denies the complaint’s allegations except jurisdictional facts.

  2. · Federal Trade Commission · Regulator enforcement
    proposed consent order notice

    Proposed order placed on public record for comment; proposed $193,000 payment, customer notices and substantiation requirements.

    The Federal Trade Commission publishes a proposed consent order for DoNotPay on September 30, 2024. The notice says the complaint alleges deceptive claims about an “AI lawyer” and law-related features. The proposed order would require $193,000, customer notices and substantiation before claims that a service can substitute for professional services.

  3. · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · Unauthorized-practice litigation
    stipulated dismissal order

    Plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice; order states dismissal does not affect claims of other putative class members.

    The Northern District of California enters an order on July 30, 2024 dismissing Jonathan Faridian’s claims against DoNotPay with prejudice, without affecting putative class members. The removed complaint alleged unlawful practice of law and California consumer claims based on DoNotPay’s legal-service subscriptions and AI-powered chatbot.

  4. · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · Unauthorized-practice litigation
    joint settlement status report

    Parties report a settlement in principle and request time to finalize settlement papers.

    In Faridian v. DoNotPay, the parties file a joint status report in the Northern District of California on June 5, 2024. They tell the court they have reached a settlement in principle. The removed complaint alleged DoNotPay sold legal services to Californians without a law license through an AI-powered robot-lawyer service.

  5. · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois · Unauthorized-practice litigation
    standing dismissal order

    Motion to dismiss granted for lack of Article III standing; November 28 amendment clarifies any dismissal is without prejudice.

    The Southern District of Illinois grants DoNotPay’s motion to dismiss MillerKing’s complaint on November 17, 2023. The court describes DoNotPay as an online subscription service touting a robot lawyer, but finds the law firm plaintiff did not plead a concrete injury for Article III standing. A later amendment clarifies dismissal without prejudice.

Vendor, product, court and regulator names and logos are the property of their respective owners and are used solely to identify the product, body or document referred to; SafeLegalAI claims no rights in them. SafeLegalAI is not affiliated with, endorsed by, sponsored by or approved by any listed vendor, except where a record is labelled an affiliated product. Facts are recorded from vendors' published pages on the date shown; "not disclosed" means not found on the pages read, not that the vendor lacks it. No ranking, rating, review, recommendation or warranty is implied. Mark owners who prefer a text-only reference, and vendors seeking a correction, may write to the report page. Trade mark and quotation policy.