Obtaining a Social Security Number as a Non-Immigrant

 To obtain a Social Security Number (SSN), noncitizens must be authorized to work by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); however, a noncitizen not authorized to work does not need an SSN. An SSN is used to report wages and determine a person’s eligibility for social security benefits to collect or receive other government services. An SSN is unnecessary to get a driver’s license, register for school, get private health insurance, or apply for school lunch programs or subsidized housing. Most companies like banks or credit card companies do not require a person to provide a SSN because their identity can be proven differently.

        A non-immigrant may apply for an SSN on their immigrant application if they are lawfully present in the U.S. and plan to apply for work authorization from DHS and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). They may also apply for an SSN by visiting a Social Security Office in person if their visa status allows them to work. 

           To apply for a SSN a person must prove their identity, work-authorized immigration status, age, and have a completed application. They can prove their identity and work-authorized immigration status by showing their current U.S. immigration documents, unexpired foreign passport,s or other acceptable documents. An individual’s foreign birth certificate can be used to prove their age or they may bring other documents such as an unexpired passport or any DHS-issued documents. Lastly, a completed Social Security Card application, Form SS-5, is required. 

If a non-immigrant is not authorized to work by DHS, they may still apply for an SSN. However, it must be for a valid non-work reason. This could include a state or federal law requiring a non-immigrant to have an SSN to receive benefits they were already entitled to. In most cases, the service or license being sought after can be attained without an SSN. Lastly, it is important to note an SSN given for a non-work purpose may not be used to work in the U.S.

           The best time to apply for an SSN is 10 days after arriving in the U.S. This makes verifying DHS documents online easier and speeds up the processing time. There is no cost for applying for an SSN.

Amber Sullivan, Law Clerk, BridgehouseLaw Charlotte

image: dreamstime

ChatGPT

As I mentioned in my previous article, the different cases and repercussions of ChatGPT have been updated. There are both positive and negative updates for OpenAI in the different cases they are involved with this year.

On the positive side, (https://www.wmar2news.com/judge-sides-partially-with-openai-over-chatgpt-copyright-claims) U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, a California federal judge, dismissed the majority of copyright claims that a group of authors had. The plaintiffs, which included authors like comedienne Sarah Silverman and novelist Paul Tremblay, are said to have not included enough evidence to prove that ChatGPT had been trained with their writings to formulate its responses. According to different reports, this has been deemed as very similar to decisions by other federal judges. Despite this, Judge Martínez-Olguín allowed the authors to amend their complaint by March 13 establishing that ChatGPT violated their copyright by copying their books without permission. We are still waiting for many other cases in this saga, so it is important to stay alert to them.

Despite this, OpenAI was dealt a blow in their trademark case with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) by not allowing them to use the term “GPT” as a trademark (https://www.analyticsinsight.net/openai-loses-the-battle-for-gpt-trademark/). For a trademark to be registered, it needs to be unique enough that, in the mind of the consumers, there is a link between the product and its provider. The USPTO ruled against their application, emitting their Final Office Action on February 9. In it, they establish that the trademark “ChatGPT” is not distinctive enough to be a trademark because the main components of the mark, that is “Chat” and “GPT” are both descriptive of what the service given is. For context, “GPT” is an acronym that refers to “generative pre-trained transformer”. With the Final Office Action, OpenAI as an entity, has its options limited for protecting its branding on the ever-so-popular program, although the overall effects of this on its business model are still to be determined.

As I mentioned before, Artificial Intelligence is one of the most contentious points for the legal world and OpenAI’s efforts will, without a doubt, carve out the path by which we will move in the future.

José Portabella, Abogado, BridgehouseLaw Charlotte

image: adobe

AI Lawsuit against Air Canada

 Air Canada paid $812.02 in damages and court fees to a passenger after losing in small claims court. The passenger bought a plane ticket after confirming with Air Canada’s Chatbot that the airline offers reduced bereavement fares when traveling due to imminent death or a death within a person’s immediate family. When the passenger pursued a full refund, he was denied and only offered a $200 flight voucher because of a discrepancy between the airline’s Chatbot answer and the actual policy. Air Canada explained that Chatbot’s answer included a link to the airline’s bereavement fares policy which states that the policy does not apply retroactively.

Air Canada attempted to explain that the chatbot was a separate legal entity that should be held responsible for its actions. However, the Tribunal did not find this argument persuasive and stated the passenger’s claim constituted negligent misrepresentation by Air Canada. The Tribunal explains that Air Canada did not demonstrate why it should not be held liable for information provided by their agents, representatives, or chatbots. The Tribunal further stated the chatbot was part of Air Canada’s website and it is obvious the airline is responsible for all information available via their website. Air Canada should have taken “reasonable care” to ensure the chatbot was accurate with the information it was releasing.

Overall, Air Canada failed to demonstrate why the webpage for their bereavement travel was more trustworthy than the chatbot's answer, why the customers should double-check information, and why the airline should not be held liable for the information AI released. This ruling could set the precedent for an airline’s liability regarding the performance of its AI systems.

This case has drawn substantial attention to whether consumer rights will be protected against AI’s vulnerability to hallucinations. Since AI perceives patterns or objects that are nonexistent or imperceptible to human observers, it will sometimes generate answers and outputs that are nonsensical or altogether inaccurate.

This controversy further pointed out airlines’ vulnerability to liability when AI misinforms customers due to handling significant transactions despite not being financial institutions. The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which monitors AI and its impact on consumer rights regarding technology, found that chatbots are good at answering simple questions; however, as the situation or question becomes more complex the effectiveness of AI begins to wane. Financial institutions risk violating legal obligations, eroding customer trust, and causing consumer harm when deploying chatbot technology. Airlines must continue to comply with federal consumer financial laws due to security risks and privacy concerns.

Amber Sullivan, Law Clerk, BridgehouseLaw LLP, Charlotte

image: dreamstime