Are We Dating the Same Guy Lawsuit: What It Means

It's a shock. Nobody saw it. A Chicago man tried to sue 24 women and Meta when someone called him a bad date on Facebook group 'Are We Dating the Same Guy'; his lawyers brought AI-generated briefs with fake citations. Now they're facing sanctions that could hit their wallets hard.

The Case That Blew Up

The Group Behind the Case

"Are We Dating the Same Guy" is a Chicago-based Facebook group. The idea is simple: women help each other navigate dating safely. A woman named Abbigail Rajala posted there after a brief relationship with Nikko D'Ambrosio went sideways. She blocked his number. He used an alternate number to send a menacing text. She posted a screenshot.

That post got popular. More than two dozen women shared photos of D'Ambrosio and criticized him. But here is the key detail the lawsuit tried to bury: Rajala never urged anyone to contact his family or employer. She never revealed his phone number or any identifying information. She just shared what happened.

What the Man Actually Did

D'Ambrosio sued many. But it's all there. He sued Rajala, her parents, women who commented, the group operators, and Meta itself, and his goal, as the court noted, was to sue "anyone remotely associated with those posts for all possible, imaginable claims." He claimed emotional distress, loss of professional opportunities, and damage to his reputation.

Here is the catch: he never alleged any concrete harm. No evidence that the post led to real-world contact. He also never argued that anything the women said was false. The case was dismissed with prejudice by a district court. That means no do-overs. He appealed anyway.

AI Goes to Court and Loses

The Law Firm's Big Pitch

D'Ambrosio hired MarcTrent.AI, a law firm that claims to use artificial intelligence to "uncover legal opportunities traditional firms miss." In a 2025 blog post, founder Marc Trent confirmed the firm "utilized our tech team to draft" the initial complaint. He boasted that "even Meta can't beat us" and claimed a win would make Facebook safer for everyone.

Real talk: the firm marketed itself on AI-powered legal prowess. Predictive modeling. Precision arguments. A 35 percent success rate boost. Bold claims, every one of them.

"Even Meta can't beat us," Marc Trent wrote in a blog post about the case.

What the Judges Found

The three-judge panel wasn't impressed. But Senior Circuit Judge David Hamilton wrote that the appeal was "frivolous" and littered with "mistakes and fictitious quotations" that "bear the hallmarks of the misuse of generative artificial intelligence.

But Section 230, the law that shields platforms from liability for user posts, never even came into play because the case was so weak that judges didn't need to touch it. It produced fake case citations. Moreover, the AI-generated brilliance that the firm promised also misrepresented legal standards, and one section of a court filing had what the panel called "the highest density" of fabricated quotes.

"Briefs and other court submissions that include fictitious quotations, inaccuracies discoverable with elementary professional care, are unacceptable," Judge Hamilton wrote.

What This Means for You

The Fake Citations Problem

Let's translate the legalese. Lawyers submitted court documents with made-up quotes from nonexistent cases, the panel called it sloppy work and serious problem, attorney Aaron Walner didn't sign filing, yet the signature is supposed to certify he reviewed it. He apparently didn't.

Internet law expert Eric Goldman, who monitored the case, told Ars Technica that this lawsuit mirrors others where men tried and failed to get critical posts removed from "Are We Dating the Same Guy" and similar groups. These posts are opinions protected by the First Amendment. They keep losing. This one lost harder because the lawyers brought fake citations to the fight.

The Sanctions Question

Sanctions could cover the Rajalas' costs to fight the appeal. Fines for Trent and Walner are on the table. The firm has until June 16 to request a hearing or file statements on whether sanctions are warranted. MarcTrent.AI did not respond to Ars Technica's request for comment.

Here is the deal: the court is not messing around. The panel outlined three fronts for sanctions: misleading the court about the screenshot's authenticity, using AI to introduce fake citations, and filing a frivolous appeal. Courts have been forgiving when lawyers admit AI misuse and apologize. But forgiveness is getting rarer.

"Submitting fictitious quotations to a court, regardless of how they are generated, is obviously inconsistent with the standards of conduct this court expects from attorneys practicing in this court," Hamilton wrote.

The Real Takeaway

This matters. So the "Are We Dating the Same Guy" groups help people share honest experiences, since the First Amendment protects those opinions, you can't sue people into silence for not liking what they said about you.

But the bigger warning here is for lawyers. AI can draft. AI can suggest. AI cannot replace the human duty to verify every citation, every quote, every fact before handing it to a judge. Skip that step and you might be the one writing the check.

• The case was dismissed with prejudice by a district court before the appeal.
• The three-judge appeals panel unanimously called the appeal "frivolous."
• Fake AI-generated citations appeared throughout the legal filings.
• Sanctions could include fines and costs for the defendants' legal fees.
• The firm has until June 16 to respond to the sanctions order.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the 'Are We Dating the Same Guy' lawsuit about?

The lawsuit alleges that the Facebook group defames men by allowing unverified accusations, leading to reputational harm.

Who is suing the 'Are We Dating the Same Guy' group?

Multiple men who claim they were falsely accused of misconduct in the group have filed defamation lawsuits.

Can the group be held legally responsible for user posts?

Yes, if the group moderators fail to remove defamatory content after being notified, they may face liability.

What does this lawsuit mean for group members?

Members could be sued individually for posting false statements, so caution is advised when sharing accusations.

How might this case affect similar online groups?

It could set a precedent requiring stricter moderation and clearer disclaimers to avoid legal risks.