Leigh Osofsky (North Carolina; Google Scholar) presents Automated Agencies: The Transformation of Government Guidance (Cambridge Univ. Press 2025), co-authored with Joshua Blank (UC–Irvine; Google Scholar), at a UNC Law book launch event on November 21, 2025:
Speaking at a book release event on November 21, Osofsky detailed findings from Automated Agencies: The Transformation of Government Guidance. Federal agencies across the government are deploying automated chatbots and guidance systems to help millions of Americans navigate complex regulations. While this advice is often helpful to users, it can also oversimplify legal complexities and provide incorrect advice.
The research began approximately 10 years ago when Osofsky and Blank examined resources the IRS uses to help people understand their legal obligations, including publications, tax return forms and frequently asked questions. They noticed the law described in these resources often differed from the actual underlying tax law in terms of specific terms used, exceptions de-emphasized, and standards simplified. Sometimes, this leads taxpayers to forego deductions they’re entitled to take. Other times, it might encourage them to take positions that are more favorable than the underlying law permits.
“These systems actually just get the answers wrong a fair number of times,” Osofsky said. “They’re giving an answer that might be right for most people, but it’s not right in a particular circumstance.”
With the IRS alone operating more than 10 different automated systems that respond to tens of millions of inquiries annually, even a 10 percent error rate affects substantial numbers of users.
Automated tools can tell members of the public they don’t qualify for benefits they’re legally entitled to receive, or conversely, advise them to take positions they cannot legally take. Unlike traditional agency guidance, users cannot legally rely on these automated responses to protect themselves from penalties if audited.
The researchers propose that agencies should indicate when laws are unsettled or have recently changed, clearly show effective dates for legal provisions, maintain records of guidance provided to users, improve communication between legal experts and technology teams, and conduct substantive accuracy testing beyond user satisfaction metrics.
