04 Your belief
Plain versionBack to the room
The exhibit is still arriving. It will wake when all of it is here.
1 of 7 The rope
“The velvet rope is the terms of service.”
2 of 7 The label
04
Your belief
The Demo Theater How AI Fakes It Till the Stock Options Vest
Please hold for the edited version.
The record begins:
Reported Google’s Gemini demo video, posted on its YouTube channel on December 6, 2023, says in its description: “For the purposes of this demo, latency has been reduced and Gemini outputs have been shortened for brevity.”
Settled “the timing or pace of Gemini’s responses”
Settled “did not review the claims on their merits”
The fine print
4.01 Reported The capabilities of multimodal AI | Gemini Demo (video page and description; first published as “Hands-on with Gemini”) Google (YouTube channel “Google”) · December 6, 2023 · as of October 16, 2026
BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division (NAD) opened an inquiry, as part of its “routine monitoring program,” into whether the Gemini video “accurately depicts the performance of Gemini in responding to user voice and video prompts, as well as the timing or pace of Gemini’s responses.”
4.02 Settled NAD Case #7295: Google Gemini Video. Following National Advertising Division Inquiry, Google Voluntarily Unlists Video Demonstrating Google Gemini Capabilities BBB National Programs, National Advertising Division (decision summary and press release) · September 12, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
NAD said the claims it looked at were “effectively permanently discontinued.” It “did not review the claims on their merits” and will treat them, “for compliance purposes, as though NAD recommended they be discontinued.” It made no ruling on whether the video was accurate.
4.03 Settled NAD Case #7295: Google Gemini Video. Following National Advertising Division Inquiry, Google Voluntarily Unlists Video Demonstrating Google Gemini Capabilities BBB National Programs, National Advertising Division (decision summary and press release) · September 12, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
Three questions. The record answers in its own words.
Paid?
Proposed $250 million, proposed
Proposed paid in stages; most after final approval
The fine print
To settle the Siri lawsuit over its ads for AI, Apple agreed to pay $250 million into a fund. It would first pay notice and administration costs, and any lawyers’ fees and expenses and named plaintiffs’ awards the court approves; what is left would go to class members who file valid claims. The deal is still proposed.
4.04 Proposed Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Case No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 77, pages 9 and 16 The plaintiffs’ lawyers; filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (CourtListener’s free RECAP copy of the docket document) · May 5, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Apple’s commitment is $250 million in all, to be paid in stages under the agreement: $5,444,056 within 30 days of preliminary approval, the lawyers’ fees within 30 days of the court awarding them, and the rest only after final approval.
4.05 Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release (Exhibit 1 to the Joint Declaration of Counsel), Case No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 78-1, sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 Apple Inc. and the plaintiffs, through class counsel; filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (CourtListener’s free RECAP copy of the docket document) · May 5, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
From the fund, the plaintiffs’ lawyers said they would ask the court for fees of no more than 28%, or $70 million, plus up to $600,000 in expenses and $130,000 in awards to the named plaintiffs; the court decides the amounts. The administrator estimated its costs at $5,444,056.
4.06 Proposed Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Case No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 77, page 17 The plaintiffs’ lawyers; filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (CourtListener’s free RECAP copy of the docket document) · May 5, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
What might a trial have won? The plaintiffs’ experts put the most at $2,264,064,781, a 5.5% price premium on 37,078,131 phones. The motion calls the $250 million fund “approximately 11% of estimated damages” and says Apple maintained damages “would be eliminated entirely once the features were delivered.”
$250,000,000 ÷ $2,264,064,781 × 100 = 11.04 percent4.07 Estimated Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Case No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 77, pages 28 and 32 The plaintiffs’ lawyers; filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (CourtListener’s free RECAP copy of the docket document) · May 5, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Told?
Reported June 2024: “over the course of the next year”
Reported October 2024: “In the months to come”
Reported “longer than we thought”
The fine print
Apple’s announcement of June 10, 2024 said Siri “will be able to” act on what is on screen and “take hundreds of new actions” across apps, and that Apple Intelligence would come “in beta” that fall, with “Some features” arriving “over the course of the next year.”
4.08 Reported Introducing Apple Intelligence, the personal intelligence system that puts powerful generative models at the core of iPhone, iPad, and Mac (press release) Apple Newsroom · June 10, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
On October 28, 2024, announcing that Apple Intelligence was “available today,” Apple said that “In the months to come” Siri would be able “to draw on a user’s personal context” and would “gain onscreen awareness,” as well as take “hundreds of new actions” in apps.
4.10 Reported Apple Intelligence is available today on iPhone, iPad, and Mac (press release) Apple Newsroom · October 28, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
On March 7, 2025, Apple said in a statement to Axios: “It’s going to take us longer than we thought to deliver on these features and we anticipate rolling them out in the coming year.”
4.09 Reported Apple confirms delay for AI-enhanced Siri (by Ina Fried) Axios · March 7, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026
The Siri lawsuit alleged that Apple advertised its new iPhones as a breakthrough in AI and “showcased a fully operable Enhanced Siri features in its marketing campaign even though the feature did not yet exist,” in the words of the plaintiffs’ motion of May 5, 2026.
4.11 Alleged Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Case No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 77, page 9 The plaintiffs’ lawyers; filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (CourtListener’s free RECAP copy of the docket document) · May 5, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Shared?
Proposed $25 a phone, presumptive; cap $95
Forecast the court: “a low probability” of reaching the $95 cap
Proposed “non-reversionary”: none of it goes back to Apple
The fine print
Under the proposed terms, a valid claim would bring a presumptive $25 per eligible phone, paid from what is left after costs, fees and awards. If claims are many the sum falls; if they are few it rises, up to a cap of $95 a phone.
4.12 Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release (Exhibit 1 to the Joint Declaration of Counsel), Case No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 78-1, definition 18 and section III.B.4 Apple Inc. and the plaintiffs, through class counsel; filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (CourtListener’s free RECAP copy of the docket document) · May 5, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
In its order granting preliminary approval, the court says it “understands that there is a low probability that the parties will encroach upon the per-device cap” of $95, “given the robust anticipated Notice process,” as the parties explained at a hearing on July 8, 2026.
4.39 Forecast Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement [ECF No. 77], Case No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 94, paragraph 22 U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (CourtListener’s free RECAP copy of the docket document) · July 17, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
“Non-reversionary”: none of the fund goes back to the company. In the Siri deal, money left after the $95 cap would go to class members or, if impractical, to a recipient the court approves: “In no event shall any residual funds revert to Apple.” The one exception: if the deal never becomes final.
4.13 Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release (Exhibit 1 to the Joint Declaration of Counsel), Case No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 78-1, definition 27 and sections III.B.2.c and III.B.4.b Apple Inc. and the plaintiffs, through class counsel; filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (CourtListener’s free RECAP copy of the docket document) · May 5, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
How many? The plaintiffs’ motion puts the eligible phones at “approximately 37 million” and the class at “approximately 36 million consumers”: one figure counts phones, the other people. Both are estimates.
4.14 Estimated Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Case No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 77, page 9 (note 2) and page 32 The plaintiffs’ lawyers; filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (CourtListener’s free RECAP copy of the docket document) · May 5, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Who is in the class: purchasers residing in the U.S. who bought an iPhone 16, 16e, 16 Plus, 16 Pro, 16 Pro Max, 15 Pro or 15 Pro Max in the U.S., not for resale, between June 10, 2024 and March 29, 2025. The judge certified this class conditionally, for the settlement only.
4.15 Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement [ECF No. 77], Case No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 94, ¶4 U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (CourtListener’s free RECAP copy of the docket document) · July 17, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
3 of 7 The number
A company sold its AI-text detector as “now with 98% accuracy.” By the FTC’s account of the test data behind it, how often did it catch AI-written text that was not academic writing? Guess first.
You guessed
Alleged 98% claimed; 53.2% in the FTC’s complaint
Alleged advertised: “now with 98% accuracy”
The fine print
Sold as 98% accurate. In the FTC’s complaint, the model behind the detector scored 74.5% at best on a mix of non-academic writing, and caught AI-written non-academic text “merely 53.2% of the time,” so the detector “would do barely better than a coin toss.” These are the FTC’s allegations.
4.16 Alleged Complaint, In the Matter of Workado, LLC, f/k/a Content at Scale AI, Docket No. C-4822, paragraphs 14 to 16 Federal Trade Commission (Internet Archive capture of the FTC’s PDF) · August 21, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026
Workado’s website advertised its AI Content Detector as “now with 98% accuracy,” and said it “can predict with 98.3% accuracy whether your content is human or AI-generated,” according to the FTC’s complaint, which quotes both from the site as of October 3, 2023, and says such claims ran until about June 2024.
4.17 Alleged Complaint, In the Matter of Workado, LLC, f/k/a Content at Scale AI, Docket No. C-4822, paragraph 9 Federal Trade Commission (Internet Archive capture of the FTC’s PDF) · August 21, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026
4 of 7 Their side
The company’s position, in the record’s own words. Where a court agreed with it, the label says so.
Reported “denies having engaged in any wrongdoing”
Reported September 2026: “an entirely new version of Siri”
The fine print
Apple’s side, in the settlement agreement: “Apple specifically denies having engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever.” It says it acted in good faith and “continues to believe the claims are without merit,” and the agreement is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing.
4.18 Reported Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release (Exhibit 1 to the Joint Declaration of Counsel), Case No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 78-1, section III.I.1 Apple Inc. and the plaintiffs, through class counsel; filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (CourtListener’s free RECAP copy of the docket document) · May 5, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Apple’s side today: on September 14, 2026, it released “Siri AI”, “an entirely new version of Siri” with “personal context understanding” and “onscreen awareness,” rolling out “in beta in English” with iOS 27 on Apple Intelligence phones, which include the iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 16 models; not at first in the EU.
4.19 Reported Siri AI, a profoundly more capable and personal assistant powered by the next generation of Apple Intelligence, is here (update) Apple Newsroom · September 14, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Reported Google: “image and text in this case”
The fine print
Google’s side: the same day, its developers’ blog explored “some of the prompting approaches we used” in the video: “We’re basically giving Gemini combinations of different modalities — image and text in this case — and having Gemini respond by predicting what might come next.”
4.20 Reported How it’s Made: Interacting with Gemini through multimodal prompting (by Alexander Chen, Creative Director) Google for Developers Blog · December 6, 2023 · as of October 16, 2026
Reported “relied on marketing materials” from a vendor
The fine print
Cox Media Group’s side, as MediaPost quoted a spokesperson in May 2026: it was “pleased to have this matter resolved,” and “Our local marketing team relied on marketing materials provided to us by a third-party vendor about their product. We withdrew the materials expeditiously and stopped further use of the product.”
4.21 Reported Cox Falsely Claimed To Target Ads Based On Conversations, FTC Charges (by Wendy Davis) MediaPost · May 21, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Reported “will comply with it”
The fine print
Air Canada’s side after the decision: it told Fox Business it was “in receipt of the ruling and will comply with it.”
4.22 Reported Air Canada to pay over $800 to customer for chatbot giving wrong information (by Aislinn Murphy) Fox Business · February 19, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
5 of 7 What fair looks like
What has been ruled, agreed and left open so far. Each line carries the exact word for where it stands.
Decided negligent misrepresentation, decided
Decided “still just a part of Air Canada’s website”
The fine print
On February 14, 2024, British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (Member Christopher C. Rivers) held Air Canada liable for negligent misrepresentation: it “did not take reasonable care to ensure its chatbot was accurate,” and the passenger’s reliance on the chatbot was reasonable (2024 BCCRT 149).
4.23 Decided Reasons for Decision, 2024 BCCRT 149 (Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia, small claims), paragraphs 26 to 32 Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia (decisions site) · February 14, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
Air Canada argued it could not be held liable for what its chatbot said. The tribunal called this “a remarkable submission”: the chatbot “is still just a part of Air Canada’s website,” and “It makes no difference whether the information comes from a static page or a chatbot.”
4.24 Decided Reasons for Decision, 2024 BCCRT 149 (Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia, small claims), paragraph 27 Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia (decisions site) · February 14, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
Air Canada’s website chatbot told a passenger that a ticket could be submitted for a reduced bereavement rate after travel, “within 90 days of the date your ticket was issued.” The airline’s own “Bereavement travel” page, linked in that answer, said the policy did not apply after travel.
4.25 Decided Reasons for Decision, 2024 BCCRT 149 (Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia, small claims), paragraphs 15 to 17 Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia (decisions site) · February 14, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
The tribunal ordered Air Canada to pay C$812.02 (Canadian dollars) within 14 days: C$650.88 in damages, which it found the passenger had overpaid against the bereavement fare, plus C$36.14 in interest and C$125 in tribunal fees. The passenger had claimed C$880.
C$650.88 + C$36.14 + C$125 = C$812.024.26 Decided Reasons for Decision, 2024 BCCRT 149 (Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia, small claims), paragraphs 3, 40 and 44 Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia (decisions site) · February 14, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
“Negligent misrepresentation,” in the tribunal’s words, “can arise when a seller does not exercise reasonable care to ensure its representations are accurate and not misleading.” The buyer must show a duty of care, an untrue or misleading statement made negligently, reasonable reliance on it, and a loss.
4.27 Decided Reasons for Decision, 2024 BCCRT 149 (Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia, small claims), paragraphs 24 and 25 Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia (decisions site) · February 14, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
Reported “no AI exemption from the laws on the books”
Decided $193,000, notice, and proof before claims
Withdrawn order set aside, 2-0
Reported “hold accountable actors that use AI to violate the law”
The fine print
On September 25, 2024, the FTC announced Operation AI Comply: five law enforcement actions against operations “that use AI hype or sell AI technology that can be used in deceptive and unfair ways.” Its chair at the time, Lina M. Khan, said “there is no AI exemption from the laws on the books.”
4.28 Reported FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes (press release) Federal Trade Commission (Internet Archive capture of the FTC’s page) · September 25, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
The FTC’s final order against DoNotPay (Docket C-4812), issued January 14, 2025, requires it to pay $193,000 and to email people who subscribed from 2021 to 2023. It may not claim its service “operates like a human lawyer” without competent and reliable evidence. DoNotPay neither admits nor denies the charges.
4.30 Decided Decision and Order, In the Matter of DoNotPay, Inc., Docket No. C-4812 Federal Trade Commission (Internet Archive capture of the FTC’s PDF) · January 14, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026
On December 22, 2025, the FTC set aside, by a 2-0 vote, its 2024 order banning Rytr, an AI writing service, from offering review-writing tools. It said the facts alleged “fail to support allegations” that Rytr broke the law and that the order “unduly burdens” AI innovation. Rytr consented to vacating the order.
4.38 Withdrawn FTC Reopens and Sets Aside Rytr Final Order in Response to the Trump Administration’s AI Action Plan (press release) Federal Trade Commission (Internet Archive capture of the FTC’s page) · December 22, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026
Setting the Rytr order aside, the FTC said it “will continue to hold accountable actors that use AI to violate the law or deceive consumers about the capabilities of their generative AI. However, that is not the case here with Rytr.”
4.41 Reported FTC Reopens and Sets Aside Rytr Final Order in Response to the Trump Administration’s AI Action Plan (press release) Federal Trade Commission (Internet Archive capture of the FTC’s page) · December 22, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026
Rytr’s was one of the five cases. The FTC’s vote to bring it, announced on September 25, 2024, was 3-2, with Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson voting no; both issued statements.
4.40 Reported FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes (press release) Federal Trade Commission (Internet Archive capture of the FTC’s page) · September 25, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
Decided proof before any accuracy claim
The fine print
The FTC’s final order against Workado (Docket C-4822), issued August 21, 2025, bars any claim about its AI detectors’ effectiveness unless backed by competent and reliable evidence, and requires it to email its customers about the order. Workado neither admits nor denies the allegations.
4.29 Decided Decision and Order, In the Matter of Workado, LLC, f/k/a Content at Scale AI, Docket No. C-4822 Federal Trade Commission (Internet Archive capture of the FTC’s PDF) · August 21, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026
Decided $930,000 in settlements, for CMG’s customers
Decided misrepresentation on four subjects barred, for 20 years
The fine print
On August 27, 2026, the FTC announced that, after two public comments, it had voted 2-0 to make final its orders settling charges against Cox Media Group, MindSift and 1010 Digital Works: $930,000 in all, $880,000 from CMG and $25,000 from each of the others, to be used for redress to CMG customers.
4.31 Decided FTC Finalizes Orders with Cox Media Group, Two Other Firms Settling Charges They Deceived Customers About “Active Listening” AI-Powered Marketing Service (press release) Federal Trade Commission (Internet Archive capture of the FTC’s page) · August 27, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
The final order against CMG (Docket C-4838), issued August 26, 2026, bars misrepresenting its ad services, the collection and use of voice data, consumers’ consent, and its geographic targeting. It lasts 20 years from issuance, longer if a violation is charged in court. CMG neither admits nor denies the allegations.
4.32 Decided Decision and Order, In the Matter of CMG Media Corporation, Docket No. C-4838 Federal Trade Commission (Internet Archive capture of the FTC’s PDF) · August 26, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Cox Media Group and two smaller firms told small businesses their “Active Listening” service could target ads using conversations overheard by smart devices, the FTC alleged. The FTC says the service did not “listen in on consumers’ conversations or use voice data at all”: it resold email lists from data brokers.
4.33 Alleged FTC to Require Cox Media Group, Two Other Firms to Pay Nearly $1 Million to Settle Charges They Deceived Customers About “Active Listening” AI-Powered Marketing Service (press release) Federal Trade Commission (Internet Archive capture of the FTC’s page) · May 21, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Proposed preliminary approval, July 17, 2026
Pending final approval hearing: February 24, 2027
The fine print
On July 17, 2026, after a hearing on July 8, Judge Noël Wise granted the Siri settlement preliminary approval. Her order says this “is not a finding or admission of liability” by Apple, and that no claims may be paid “without Final Approval of the Court.”
4.34 Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement [ECF No. 77], Case No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 94 U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (CourtListener’s free RECAP copy of the docket document) · July 17, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
On August 13, 2026, granting the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion, Judge Noël Wise moved the hearing on final approval of the Siri settlement earlier, to February 24, 2027. At that hearing the court will consider whether to give the settlement final approval.
4.35 Pending Order Granting Unopposed Administrative Motion to Reset Final Approval Hearing Date, Case No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 97 U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (CourtListener’s free RECAP copy of the docket document) · August 13, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
“Preliminary approval” is a first look, not the last word. The Siri order “preliminarily approves” the settlement as “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” “within the range of possible final approval” and worth putting to the class, “Subject to further consideration by the Court at the time of the Final Approval Hearing.”
4.36 Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement [ECF No. 77], Case No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 94, ¶3 U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (CourtListener’s free RECAP copy of the docket document) · July 17, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026
Settled unlisted, voluntarily
The fine print
On September 12, 2024, NAD announced that Google had “voluntarily agreed to unlist the standalone video” so that it would no longer appear in search results, and not to post it to other channels. The video stays viewable alongside the blog post that explains how it was made.
4.37 Settled NAD Case #7295: Google Gemini Video. Following National Advertising Division Inquiry, Google Voluntarily Unlists Video Demonstrating Google Gemini Capabilities BBB National Programs, National Advertising Division (decision summary and press release) · September 12, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026
6 of 7 The stamp
Yours to give. There is no right answer, and the museum keeps no count.
In the room, this is where you stamp your ticket with one of five stamps. The plain version asks nothing of you.
Kept on this device only. Nothing is sent.
7 of 7 Three doors
Three ways on. All three lead to the series’ own site.
From the book · The Demo TheaterComing soon. The oldest feature in artificial intelligence.