On February 10, 2026, Judge Jed Rakoff of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling that sets an unprecedented legal benchmark. For the first time in the United States, a federal court has held that conversations with a publicly available AI tool are not covered by any form of professional privilege — not attorney-client privilege, not the work-product doctrine.
The Heppner case, briefly
Bradley Heppner, former CEO of the now-bankrupt finance firm GWG Holdings, faces fraud charges in the Southern District of New York. While preparing his defense, he turned to Claude — Anthropic’s AI, in its consumer version — after consulting with his attorneys. His logic: if attorney communications are privileged, the work he did with Claude on top of those conversations should be too.
The argument didn’t hold. On February 17, 2026, Rakoff filed his written opinion. The verdict: 31 Claude-generated documents went to the prosecution.
Three reasons for the ruling
Judge Rakoff grounded the decision on three points:
1. Claude is not an attorney. Attorney-client privilege requires a relationship of trust between humans, subject to professional rules and legal obligations. An AI system has none of these statuses.
2. The conversations weren’t confidential. Anthropic’s privacy policy permits the company to collect user inputs, use them to train Claude, and share them with third parties — including “governmental regulatory authorities.”
3. Heppner didn’t use Claude at the direction of his counsel. The work-product doctrine, which protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, applies only to work done under attorney supervision. Heppner acted on his own.
Why this ruling matters
This is the first time a US federal court has addressed the question this directly. Within a week, more than a dozen major US law firms — Paul Weiss, Orrick, Proskauer, Debevoise among them — issued client advisories. The message: stop using ChatGPT, Claude or any consumer-grade AI tool for sensitive matters.
What these apps actually store
Beyond the specific case, the ruling raises a broader question: what do these apps actually collect?
Tools like Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini or Grok — and AI companion apps such as Replika or Character.AI — typically collect three categories of data:
- Conversations, word for word
- Usage patterns (login times, session lengths, frequency)
- Emotional signals inferred from content and writing style
Combined, these form what legal scholars now call mental data. According to analysts, it’s likely the most sensitive category of personal information that exists — often sharper than what a primary care doctor has on file.
No medical-secrecy equivalent
A doctor, a therapist, an attorney — they’re bound by a professionally regulated privilege. An AI app, even one used as a daily emotional confidant, has no such standing. When a court orders disclosure, the operator complies.
This creates an unprecedented legal asymmetry. Someone who talks to a licensed therapist about their anxieties is protected by medical confidentiality; someone confiding the same anxieties to an AI has no comparable shield.
Three habits worth building
1. Avoid sensitive matters with consumer AI. For real legal, medical, or personal problems — divorce, employment disputes, family confidences — a human professional bound by privilege remains the right channel.
2. Distinguish consumer from enterprise. Enterprise versions of Claude and ChatGPT (specific contracts, confidentiality guarantees, dedicated hosting) offer protections consumer versions don’t. For sensitive professional use, that’s the route.
3. Treat what you type as potentially public. Quick test: would you be comfortable if someone read this exchange five years from now? If not, it’s probably not the right channel.
The Rakoff ruling doesn’t undermine everyday AI use — drafting, research, brainstorming, entertainment. It draws a useful line: these tools are remarkable for many things, but they aren’t — and likely never will be — confidants in any legal sense.