--- title: "Iowa: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/iowa" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-IA" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Iowa: AI rules for lawyers > Iowa: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/iowa Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## What this means for lawyers There is no statewide Iowa rule that lawyers must disclose or certify generative AI in a filing. A panel can still order a case-specific explanation, and the Court of Appeals has struck a reply brief, penalised counsel, and dismissed an appeal over fabricated authorities. Verify every source before you file. The Court of Appeals has said attorneys and self-represented litigants must independently verify the authenticity and veracity of all sources and assertions when they rely on AI tools for trial or appellate filings. In federal court in Iowa, the joint local rules do not mention AI. The Southern District's website says AI use is not prohibited and disclosure is not required, but each party must verify quotations, citations, and analysis or risk Rule 11 sanctions. Competence sits in comment [8] to rule 32:1.1 (benefits and risks of relevant technology). No Iowa ethics opinion on generative AI was found. The 2026 chatbot Act regulates operators of public conversational AI services, not a lawyer's ordinary use of a research tool. As at 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Varies by court Court disclosure: depends. No statewide rule or formal ethics opinion found requires disclosure or certification. A court may order a statement in a particular case, and the Southern District of Iowa says it may do so if AI becomes a problem in that case. Client disclosure/consent: no rule found. No Iowa ethics opinion interprets the communication or confidentiality rules for generative AI. - [State of Iowa ex rel. J.G. v. Anderson, No. 25-1022](https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/26379/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion) - [Sherwin v. State, No. 25-0992](https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/26743/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion) - [Artificial Intelligence (AI)](https://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/artificial-intelligence-ai) - [Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, chapter 32](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ACO/CR/LINC/10-30-2026.chapter.32.pdf) - [Ethics Advice & Opinions](https://www.iowabar.org/?pg=EthicsOpinions) **Tell the client:** No Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Iowa in the last 12 months - 1 July 2027 · Dated: [Senate File 2417 (2026 Iowa Acts chapter 1068): conversational AI services, Iowa Code chapter 554J](#ai-rule-jr-us-ia-sf2417-554j) - 1 January 2027 · Dated: [Iowa Court Rules chapter 27: Judicial Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools](#ai-rule-jr-us-ia-ch27-judicial-ai-tools) - 1 January 2027 · Dated: [Order adopting chapter 27 of the Iowa Court Rules, Judicial Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools](#ai-rule-jr-us-ia-order-adopting-ch27) - 9 October 2026 · Dated: [State v. Amyda, No. 24-1563 (filed 9 October 2026): deepfake speculation does not bar a video](#ai-rule-jr-us-ia-amyda-authentication-2026) - 19 August 2026 · Dated: [Wilkinson v. Schmelzer, No. 25-0799 (filed 19 August 2026): mere AI use is not sanctionable](#ai-rule-jr-us-ia-coa-wilkinson-2026) - 22 July 2026 · Dated: [Sherwin v. State, No. 25-0992 (filed 22 July 2026): no duty to certify AI use](#ai-rule-jr-us-ia-coa-sherwin-2026) - 10 June 2026 · Dated: [State ex rel. J.G. v. Anderson, No. 25-1022 (filed 10 June 2026): appeal dismissed after non-compliance with an AI-use order](#ai-rule-jr-us-ia-coa-anderson-2026) - 29 April 2026 · Dated: [Nisland Asset Investment, LLC v. Gericke, No. 25-0659 (filed 29 April 2026)](#ai-rule-jr-us-ia-coa-nisland-2026) - 1 April 2026 · Dated: [In the Interest of W.G., No. 25-1916 (filed 1 April 2026): fabricated citations struck, merits reached](#ai-rule-jr-us-ia-coa-wg-2026) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Iowa Court Rules chapter 27: Judicial Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Iowa Supreme Court - Date on page: 21 July 2026 - Effective date: 1 January 2027 - Status: 1 January 2027; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.iowacourts.gov/collections/1007/files/2231/embedDocument/ Applies to Iowa judicial officers and to adjudicative assistants (staff attorneys, law clerks, law students and others who assist a judge), not to lawyers appearing in the case. A judicial officer must keep independent decision-making responsibility, must not defer to AI work product, and must independently verify the accuracy of all factual or legal sources in AI-prepared work product used in adjudicative duties. An AI tool may be used with judicial case information only if the governance committee has approved it for confidentiality, security and reliability. An adjudicative assistant must get the judicial officer's approval before using an AI tool, and must disclose that use to the judicial officer and say whether the sources have been independently verified. The chapter does not require disclosure to the parties. Key points: - Rule 27.104(1): a judicial officer must not delegate responsibility or defer to AI work product. - Rule 27.104(2): independently verify all factual or legal sources in AI-prepared work product. - Rule 27.106(1): no use of an AI tool with judicial case information unless the committee has approved it. - Rule 27.107: the state court administrator must publicly post the list of approved tools. - The chapter sets no disclosure or certification duty for lawyers or litigants. #### Order adopting chapter 27 of the Iowa Court Rules, Judicial Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools - Type: Court rule or order · Administrative order - Issuer: Iowa Supreme Court - Date on page: 21 July 2026 - Effective date: 1 January 2027 - Status: 1 January 2027; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.iowacourts.gov/collections/1007/files/2228/embedDocument/ The Iowa Supreme Court adopted chapter 27 after a judicial branch AI working group, established by the state court administrator on 28 August 2025, recommended rules in April 2026. The order says the new rules are effective 1 January 2027 and directs the state court administrator to appoint the judicial branch artificial intelligence innovation and governance committee and to take the steps needed to implement the chapter. The order governs judicial branch use. It does not impose a filing or disclosure duty on practising lawyers. Key points: - Filed 21 July 2026 and signed by the Chief Justice. - Chapter 27 is effective 1 January 2027. - The working group included members of the bar; the duties in the adopted rules run to judicial officers and judicial branch staff. - The state court administrator must appoint the committee described in chapter 27. #### State v. Amyda, No. 24-1563 (filed 9 October 2026): deepfake speculation does not bar a video - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Iowa Supreme Court - Date on page: 9 October 2026 - Effective date: 9 October 2026 - Status: 9 October 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/25769/embed/SupremeCourtOpinion On further review, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed admission of a video that the defendant claimed was a deepfake. Circumstantial evidence, including recognition of the room, clothing and other details, was enough under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.901, and mere speculation that the video was fabricated by artificial intelligence did not bar admission. Under rule 5.1003 the challenger had to raise a genuine question about the authenticity of the original and did not do so. The opinion describes a federal evidence-rules proposal that would require a party who challenges an item as generative-AI fabrication to present supporting evidence, and it does not adopt that proposal as an Iowa rule. Key points: - A deepfake objection needs evidence, not speculation. - Iowa Rules of Evidence 5.901 and 5.1003 were applied as they stand. No new AI evidence rule was adopted. - The generative-AI burden discussed in the opinion is a federal proposal cited from a United States Courts agenda book. #### Wilkinson v. Schmelzer, No. 25-0799 (filed 19 August 2026): mere AI use is not sanctionable - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Iowa Court of Appeals - Date on page: 19 August 2026 - Effective date: 19 August 2026 - Status: 19 August 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/26716/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion A party asked for sanctions against a self-represented appellant for purported generative AI use. The court agreed that mere use of AI drafting assistance is not sanctionable conduct, repeated the Luke verification duty, and declined AI sanctions, finding no hallucinated case and being unable to say whether a reference to a nonexistent appellate rule was a typo or unchecked AI. Separately, it said Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413 cannot support an appellate sanction or fee award because the appellate rules do not incorporate it. The appeal was affirmed and appellate attorney fees were awarded on other grounds. Key points: - Using AI to draft is not, by itself, sanctionable. - The court still requires verification of sources and of compliance with the appellate rules. - This opinion says rule 1.413 is not an appellate sanctions vehicle. In re R.A. had cited rule 1.413. This opinion does not say it overrules R.A. #### Sherwin v. State, No. 25-0992 (filed 22 July 2026): no duty to certify AI use - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Iowa Court of Appeals - Date on page: 22 July 2026 - Effective date: 22 July 2026 - Status: 22 July 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/26743/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion Self-represented plaintiffs asked the district court to make the State and a county certify whether they had used, or planned to use, generative AI, and to strike the filings when they did not. The district court denied that request, saying the plaintiffs cited no authority requiring certification and that there is nothing inherently wrong with a party using AI to assist research and drafting. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It repeated the Luke verification duty and held that an incomplete but real citation was not a hallucinated authority and did not require disclosure. Key points: - No rule cited in the case requires a party to certify AI use. - The district court's statement that AI-assisted research and drafting is not inherently wrong was left standing. - The verification duty still applies when a party does rely on AI tools. #### State ex rel. J.G. v. Anderson, No. 25-1022 (filed 10 June 2026): appeal dismissed after non-compliance with an AI-use order - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Iowa Court of Appeals - Date on page: 10 June 2026 - Effective date: 10 June 2026 - Status: 10 June 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/26379/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion A self-represented appellant's briefs purported to quote at least eight decisions in words that do not appear in them, and cited two Iowa cases that do not exist. The court ordered the appellant either to file the ten decisions with the relied-on passages highlighted, or to state whether the briefs were prepared using generative AI tools. A response was filed, but it was neither of those things, and the court found the order had not been complied with. The court dismissed the appeal. It distinguished W.G. and R.A., where it had struck offending portions of briefs (in R.A., the whole reply brief), because those parties complied with the court's order and expressed remorse, and some proper argument could be sifted out. Key points: - The order to state whether generative AI was used was made in this case. It is not a general rule. - Dismissal followed non-compliance and the scale of the fabricated citations. - The appellant was self-represented. The opinion does not impose lawyer discipline. #### Nisland Asset Investment, LLC v. Gericke, No. 25-0659 (filed 29 April 2026) - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Iowa Court of Appeals - Date on page: 29 April 2026 - Effective date: 29 April 2026 - Status: 29 April 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/25983/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion A self-represented appellant cited two cases that do not exist and a third case that does not support the proposition. The court said it appeared likely that an artificial intelligence tool had been misused, repeated the Luke verification duty, and held that nothing remained of the argument once those citations were put aside. It affirmed summary judgment. It said a bad citation does not always waive an issue, but here the court would have had to build the argument itself. Key points: - Self-represented parties are held to the same briefing standard as lawyers. - The opinion cites W.G., Goma v. Hundley, R.A. and Turner v. Garrels as part of the same line. Goma was not read for this record. - No separate monetary penalty is stated in the opinion. #### In the Interest of W.G., No. 25-1916 (filed 1 April 2026): fabricated citations struck, merits reached - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Iowa Court of Appeals - Date on page: 1 April 2026 - Effective date: 1 April 2026 - Status: 1 April 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/26250/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion A self-represented potential intervenor's petition on appeal cited a nonexistent Iowa decision and propositions that were not in the cited authorities. After a court order, the litigant apologised, said generative AI had been used, and accepted the duty to verify citations. The court struck the problematic portions, considered the arguments that remained, and affirmed the denial of intervention. It said it would have been justified in striking the whole petition, and it treated independent verification as the minimum expected even of a self-represented litigant. Key points: - The court applied the Luke verification duty to a self-represented litigant. - The sanction was to strike the tainted portions, not to dismiss. - The litigant had complied with the court's order and accepted responsibility. #### In the Interest of R.A., No. 24-1629 (filed 1 October 2025): sanction for unverified AI authorities - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Iowa Court of Appeals - Date on page: 1 October 2025 - Effective date: 1 October 2025 - Status: 1 October 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/24814/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion Counsel's reply brief in a private termination appeal cited cases and statutory text that do not exist and misdescribed other authorities. Counsel told the court that, after Westlaw login problems, counsel had relied on secondary AI-driven research tools and had not verified the citations. The court struck the reply brief, imposed a $150 penalty payable within 60 days (or, at counsel's election, two hours of legal-ethics training particular to AI within 60 days, certified under oath), and directed the clerk to send the opinion and counsel's explanation to the Attorney Discipline Board. The court did not hold the conduct against the client's merits. Key points: - The court quoted Luke for the duty to verify AI-assisted sources. - The penalty is $150, or two hours of AI-specific legal ethics training, at counsel's election. - The referral to the Attorney Discipline Board is a report. The court said it expressed no view on how the Board should proceed. - The court said its discretion came from inherent power and court rules, including Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413. - A later Court of Appeals opinion, Wilkinson, said rule 1.413 is not a basis for an appellate sanction. Wilkinson did not say it overruled this case. #### Luke v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 24-1421 (filed 6 August 2025) - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Iowa Court of Appeals - Date on page: 6 August 2025 - Effective date: 6 August 2025 - Status: 6 August 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/24395/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion A self-represented appellant's brief cited nonexistent Iowa cases. The court said it shared the concern that an artificial intelligence tool may have been misused, and it stated that self-represented litigants and attorneys alike have a duty to independently verify the authenticity and veracity of all sources and assertions when relying on artificial intelligence tools to prepare trial or appellate court filings. The opinion then decided the appeal on the merits. It does not impose a separate monetary penalty. Key points: - The verification duty is stated for both attorneys and self-represented litigants. - It covers trial and appellate filings. - Later Court of Appeals opinions quote this passage as the Iowa statement of the duty. #### Artificial Intelligence (AI) webpage - Type: Court policy - Issuer: United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/artificial-intelligence-ai The Southern District of Iowa tells parties that AI can fabricate cases and holdings, and that each party is personally responsible for verifying the accuracy, relevance and appropriateness of filings, including AI-generated content. Failure to review and verify may bring sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, including a monetary penalty or, if appropriate, dismissal. The page says litigants are not prohibited from using AI, that the court does not currently require disclosure of AI use, and that the court could require disclosure by order if AI becomes a problem in a specific case. The page does not give a date. Key points: - AI use is not prohibited. - Disclosure is not currently required. - Quotations, citations, paraphrases and legal analysis from AI must be verified before filing. - A case-specific order could still require disclosure. - No matching AI page was found on the Northern District of Iowa site. #### Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 32:1.1 comment [8] on relevant technology - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Iowa Supreme Court - Date on page: December 2020 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: December 2020; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ACO/CR/LINC/10-30-2026.chapter.32.pdf Applies to Iowa lawyers. Comment [8] to rule 32:1.1 says that to maintain competence a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education, and comply with continuing legal education requirements. The comment does not mention artificial intelligence. The current legislature PDF contains no AI-specific rule of professional conduct. Key points: - The technology sentence is in comment [8], under the heading Maintaining Competence. - The printed history under the comment is: Court Order 20 April 2005, effective 1 July 2005; 15 October 2015; 28 August 2020, effective 1 January 2021. - No separate AI ethics rule appears in this chapter 32 compilation. ### State bar and regulators #### Vetting AI for Attorneys - Type: Law society or bar guidance · Bar guidance - Issuer: Iowa State Bar Association - Date on page: Updated June 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Updated June 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.iowabar.org/?pg=WP_vettingAI This is an educational paper on the Iowa State Bar Association's law practice management pages. It sets out a framework for choosing an AI tool: the task, ethics, the vendor's data handling, accuracy, and operational fit, and it summarises ABA Formal Opinion 512. It is not an Iowa ethics opinion, and the Association's ethics page says its opinions are advisory and not binding. Statements in the paper about judges asking for disclosure describe a general trend and are not an Iowa court rule. Key points: - Updated June 2026. - A vetting framework, not a list of approved products and not a binding opinion. - It tells lawyers to verify citations, quotations and statutes, and not to treat AI output as authority. ### Legislation #### Senate File 2417 (2026 Iowa Acts chapter 1068): conversational AI services, Iowa Code chapter 554J - Type: Legislation - Issuer: Iowa General Assembly - Date on page: 2 May 2026 - Effective date: 1 July 2027 - Status: 1 July 2027; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/iactc/91.2/CH1068.pdf Chapter 554J regulates an operator who develops a conversational AI service and makes it available to the public. Duties include disclosures to minor users, a disclaimer to any user who could reasonably believe they are talking to a human, a suicide and self-harm protocol, and a ban on programming the service to imply it provides licensed psychology or behavioural-health care. The attorney general enforces it by injunction and a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation, up to $500,000 per operator, or actual damages if greater, and there is no private right of action. Software used by a business solely for internal purposes is excluded, and the Act does not regulate a lawyer's use of AI to research or draft. Key points: - Approved 2 May 2026. - Bill history: effective 1 July 2026; applicability 1 July 2027. Section 7 says the Act applies 1 July 2027. - Internal business software is outside the definition of a conversational AI service. - A model developer is not liable only because a third party used the model to create a conversational AI service. - House Files 2082 and 2204, other 2026 AI bills, were introduced and had no further action on their history pages. In force from 1 July 2026 but applies from 1 July 2027 (Section 7 of the Act: "This Act applies July 1, 2027."). The effective date shown is the date the Act applies. Sources: 2026 Iowa Acts chapter 1068 (https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/iactc/91.2/CH1068.pdf) and the bill history for Senate File 2417 (https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/billTracking/billHistory?billName=SF2417&ga=91). ### Government and other bodies #### Announcement of a Consumer Fraud Act lawsuit against OpenAI over ChatGPT - Type: Statement or media release · Press release - Issuer: Iowa Attorney General - Date on page: 14 October 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: 2026-10-14; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.iowaattorneygeneral.gov/newsroom/attorney-general-brenna-bird-announces-lawsuit-against-openai-for-deceiving-iowa-parents-and-iowans/ On 14 October 2026 the Iowa Attorney General announced a lawsuit against OpenAI under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act. The release says the suit alleges that ChatGPT was presented as safe while harming children and other users, including by dangerous medical advice and encouragement of self-harm. It is a consumer-enforcement action against the operator of a public chatbot. It does not set a duty for lawyers who use AI in legal work, and it is not court or bar guidance. Key points: - Dated 14 October 2026. - The stated legal basis in the release is the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act. - The release does not mention lawyers, law firms, or court filings. ## Sources 19 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked. - Iowa Supreme Court: [Iowa Court Rules chapter 27: Judicial Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools](https://www.iowacourts.gov/collections/1007/files/2231/embedDocument/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Iowa Supreme Court: [Order adopting chapter 27 of the Iowa Court Rules, Judicial Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools](https://www.iowacourts.gov/collections/1007/files/2228/embedDocument/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Iowa Supreme Court: [State v. Amyda, No. 24-1563 (filed 9 October 2026): deepfake speculation does not bar a video](https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/25769/embed/SupremeCourtOpinion) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Iowa Court of Appeals: [Wilkinson v. Schmelzer, No. 25-0799 (filed 19 August 2026): mere AI use is not sanctionable](https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/26716/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Iowa Court of Appeals: [Sherwin v. State, No. 25-0992 (filed 22 July 2026): no duty to certify AI use](https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/26743/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Iowa Court of Appeals: [State ex rel. J.G. v. Anderson, No. 25-1022 (filed 10 June 2026): appeal dismissed after non-compliance with an AI-use order](https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/26379/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Iowa Court of Appeals: [Nisland Asset Investment, LLC v. Gericke, No. 25-0659 (filed 29 April 2026)](https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/25983/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Iowa Court of Appeals: [In the Interest of W.G., No. 25-1916 (filed 1 April 2026): fabricated citations struck, merits reached](https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/26250/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Iowa Court of Appeals: [In the Interest of R.A., No. 24-1629 (filed 1 October 2025): sanction for unverified AI authorities](https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/24814/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Iowa Court of Appeals: [Luke v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 24-1421 (filed 6 August 2025)](https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/24395/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion) · last checked 31 October 2026 - United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa: [Artificial Intelligence (AI) webpage](https://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/artificial-intelligence-ai) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Iowa Supreme Court: [Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 32:1.1 comment 8 on relevant technology](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ACO/CR/LINC/10-30-2026.chapter.32.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Iowa State Bar Association: [Vetting AI for Attorneys](https://www.iowabar.org/?pg=WP_vettingAI) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Iowa General Assembly: [Senate File 2417 (2026 Iowa Acts chapter 1068): conversational AI services, Iowa Code chapter 554J](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/iactc/91.2/CH1068.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Iowa Attorney General: [Announcement of a Consumer Fraud Act lawsuit against OpenAI over ChatGPT](https://www.iowaattorneygeneral.gov/newsroom/attorney-general-brenna-bird-announces-lawsuit-against-openai-for-deceiving-iowa-parents-and-iowans/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Iowa Court of Appeals](https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/24374/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Northern and Southern Districts of Iowa](https://www.iand.uscourts.gov/sites/iand/files/Local%20Rules%20-%20Final%20Website%20Version.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa](https://www.iand.uscourts.gov/local-rules-federal-rules-administrative-orders) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Iowa Legislature](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/billTracking/billHistory?billName=SF2417&ga=91) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 15 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*