Artificial intelligence no longer sits at the periphery of legal risk. It is embedded in workflows, products, and decisions that touch consumers, patients, workers, investors, and governments. As organizations scale models from pilots to production, the civil justice system is beginning to absorb disputes involving algorithmic bias, hallucinated content, privacy violations, IP conflicts, safety failures, and opaque decision-making. For litigators, this moment resembles the early era of mass data and e-discovery only the technical substrate is more complex, the stakes are broader, and the factual record is less intuitive. Preparing for AI litigation means mastering a new evidentiary landscape, adapting familiar doctrines to novel facts, and pairing legal strategy with technical literacy. The most effective advocates will meet courts where they are, translate machine learning into adjudicable facts, and use governance evidence proactively to frame reasonableness, causation, and remedy.
The threshold question in nearly every AI dispute is how to classify the harm and match it to a cognizable legal theory without oversimplifying how the system works. Product-adjacent harms, such as an autonomous feature causing physical injury or a recommendation engine contributing to a foreseeable accident, invite strict liability and negligent design claims, but software still occupies a contested space between good and service in many jurisdictions. Contract claims arise when models fail to meet service-level commitments or deviate from documented performance, while consumer-protection statutes reach deceptive marketing about accuracy or safety. Employment and civil-rights cases often frame disparate impact from automated decision tools as discrimination, requiring plaintiffs to link statistical disparities to specific model features or data choices. Intellectual property disputes look in two directions at once: upstream at training data acquisition and downstream at whether generated outputs are substantially similar to protected works. Privacy suits may focus on scraping, consent, and retention, or on downstream disclosure of sensitive attributes inferred by a model. A single controversy can contain elements of all of these theories, and early case assessment should map them to the technical pipeline data collection, labeling, training, evaluation, deployment, and monitoring so the court sees where duty, breach, and causation allegedly reside.
Jurisdiction and venue decisions are amplified in AI cases because the technology and the data often cross borders even when the parties do not. Plaintiffs may file where users were harmed, where servers processed data, or where the defendant developed models. Choice-of-law battles can be outcome-determinative when one forum treats software as a product for strict liability and another does not, or when a jurisdiction imposes special duties for automated decision systems. Counsel should anticipate that courts will scrutinize boilerplate forum selection and arbitration clauses for online tools more closely when claims involve public rights or injunctive relief that reaches beyond the immediate parties. Arbitration provisions can reshape the trajectory of a dispute, but mass claims and class-wide injunctive requests can also push cases back into court. In transatlantic matters, counsel must blend arguments about personal jurisdiction with practical explanations of where training, fine-tuning, or inference occurred, and why logs and artifacts stored in a third country are or are not within a party’s control.
Standing and injury also look different in AI matters because some harms are probabilistic or reputational rather than purely economic. Courts will continue to test whether increased risk from a model’s decisions constitutes an injury in fact, and whether exposure to an automated system with error rates higher than represented creates concrete harm. Where discriminatory impact is alleged, plaintiffs will be pressed to show they were subject to the challenged algorithm and that the disparity is traceable to the model rather than to independent factors. Defendants, in turn, will emphasize guardrails, human-in-the-loop review, and calibration to contest traceability and redressability. The party that frames these questions in plain terms what the model saw, what it did, and why a different configuration would have changed the outcome will control the standing narrative.
Causation requires special care because many AI systems are components inside larger socio-technical processes. A chatbot that hallucinates defamation may not be the only cause of reputational harm if a platform amplified the content, humans misinterpreted it, or safeguards were bypassed. Conversely, proximate cause may be satisfied if the model’s predictable failure mode says, a tendency to attribute crimes to public figures when asked leading questions made the harm foreseeable. Plaintiffs should resist the temptation to reduce black-box complexity to mysticism and instead anchor causation in testable behavior: error rates on representative tasks, known failure patterns under adversarial prompts, or documented drift after deployment. Defendants should avoid abstract invocations of “AI is hard,” and instead demonstrate robust validation against the use case, clear warnings about limitations, effective monitoring in production, and timely remediation when issues surfaced. Courts tend to reward empirically grounded narratives over rhetorical extremes.
Discovery will be the most distinctive feature of AI litigation because the relevant evidence is a tapestry of artifacts that traditional ESI protocols rarely enumerate
To reconstruct the “facts” of an AI decision, counsel will need model version identifiers, configuration files, training and fine-tuning data lineage, labeling instructions, evaluation protocols, benchmark results, prompt and response logs, safety filter versions, change approvals, and monitoring alerts. Standard preservation letters should evolve to name these items specifically and to emphasize ephemeral stores ephemeral logs and rolling buffers can erase the very prompts and system states that explain a disputed output. Defendants will rightly raise confidentiality, trade secret, and security concerns, and courts will increasingly rely on tiered protective orders that distinguish between outside counsel eyes-only, restricted expert access, and in-camera inspection. Special masters or neutral experts may supervise secure “model rooms” where source code and weights can be examined without exfiltration. Counsel should anticipate spoliation risk if model artifacts are overwritten by continuous deployment and should negotiate snapshot protocols early, including hashed model files and cryptographic attestations to confirm that the version examined in litigation matches the version in production on the date at issue.
Privilege and work-product doctrine present unusual traps for sophisticated organizations that have invested in AI governance. Many companies conduct bias assessments, red-team exercises, and model audits. These can be valuable exculpatory evidence if they demonstrate reasonable care, but they can also become discovery liabilities if framed as business processes rather than legal risk assessments. The safest course is to involve counsel early, define the legal purpose of assessments, segregate raw testing data from business reporting, and document remediation steps. Courts are unlikely to shelter routine QA under privilege, yet they respect candid legal risk analyses commissioned by counsel. The line between those categories should be bright from the moment testing begins.
Expert testimony will often decide the case. The Daubert reliability factors map imperfectly to machine learning, but judges will still ask whether the methods are testable, error rates are known, standards exist, and conclusions are peer-reviewed in a meaningful sense. Effective experts explain how a model’s architecture affects interpretability, why a particular evaluation method fits the use case, and how to replicate key findings without unrealistic access to proprietary secrets. They also help courts distinguish between statistical significance and practical significance when measuring disparate impact or safety benefits. Cross examination should probe dataset representativeness, distribution shift, hyperparameter choices, and whether the opposing expert’s experiments reflect real-world operating conditions. Parties that can recreate contested outputs in controlled conditions by replaying prompts against a frozen model checkpoint hold a credibility advantage.
Intellectual property fights in AI now come in several flavors, and litigators must keep them analytically separate. Disputes over training data acquisition raise questions about copyright’s limits, database rights in some jurisdictions, and the scope of text-and-data-mining exceptions. These cases often turn on whether copies made for training are protected intermediate reproductions or unfair substitutes for the original works, and how licensing markets should be valued. Output-similarity claims require a careful comparison of generated content to asserted works and an explanation of how the model’s parameterization makes exact memorization rare but not impossible. Disputes about ownership of AI-assisted works focus on the boundary between human authorship and machine contribution; courts and agencies have made clear that fully machine-generated material is not protected, but human selection, arrangement, and revision remain protectable when they reflect creative choices. Trade secret cases add a different angle: parties that shared data or models under NDAs may argue misappropriation through fine-tuning, reverse engineering, or misuse of confidential evaluation sets. Each of these disputes benefits from precise technical proofs rather than umbrella rhetoric about transformation or originality.
Content liability presents another evolving frontier. Generative systems have produced false or harmful statements about individuals, raising defamation and false light claims. Defendants are likely to argue that outputs are probabilistic predictions, not assertions of fact, and that warnings and user controls mitigate foreseeable misuse. Platforms hosting third-party prompts and outputs will test familiar immunities in unfamiliar contexts, but even when statutory shields apply to hosting, they do not automatically protect the developer of a model that itself produced the contested content. Success will depend on showing courts how guardrails, safety classifiers, and reinforcement learning narrow the distribution of responses and how known edge cases were addressed, not on gestures toward the inscrutability of large models.
Anti-discrimination law has moved fast to grapple with algorithmic decision-making in hiring, credit, housing, and insurance. Plaintiffs often pursue disparate impact theories, which shift attention toward validation studies and business necessity. Defendants should be prepared to show that inputs are job-related and consistent with business necessity, that less discriminatory alternatives were evaluated with rigor, and that vendors were held to documented standards. Local and state regimes increasingly require independent audits and notice to applicants when automated tools play a role in employment decisions; noncompliance can supply per se unfair-practice arguments even before disparate impact is proven. Courts will expect concrete confusion-reducing explanations from both sides regarding what the tool did and did not do, and why observed disparities reflect model structure rather than unrelated socioeconomic factors.
Regulatory overlays now supply both substantive obligations and persuasive evidence of reasonableness. Risk-management frameworks encourage organizations to inventory their AI systems, document intended uses and limitations, perform context-specific impact assessments, and maintain model cards, data sheets, and hazard analyses. Sector-specific regulators have integrated AI into existing safety and fairness mandates; device regulators expect human-factors validation for clinical decision support, consumer-protection agencies police exaggerated accuracy claims, financial regulators scrutinize model risk management for credit decisioning, and antitrust enforcers look askance at collusive use of algorithms to coordinate pricing. Internationally, comprehensive frameworks are phasing in obligations proportional to system risk, from transparency and record-keeping to post-market monitoring and incident reporting. For litigators, these frameworks serve a double function: they can establish a baseline for the standard of care, and they can provide a vocabulary to explain to judges and juries what responsible AI development looks like in practice.
Remedies in AI cases are evolving beyond damages to include structural relief that reshapes models and processes. Injunctions may require changes to prompts, filters, or decision thresholds; courts may order retraining with different datasets or revalidation against more representative cohorts. In consumer and privacy actions, regulators have experimented with algorithmic disgorgement and deletion of ill-gotten data; private litigants will likely pursue analogues, arguing for destruction or unlearning of models trained improperly. Practicality matters here: unlearning specific data points or categories is an active research area, and defendants who document technical constraints, propose feasible remediation, and commit to independent monitoring tend to fare better than those who resist all structural relief. Settlement agreements increasingly include audit rights, model-risk committees, and annual reporting that mirror internal governance.
Insurance and indemnity provisions play a quiet but powerful role in AI disputes. Cyber and tech E&O policies vary widely in how they treat algorithmic errors and data-driven harms, and some carriers are introducing exclusions for AI-related risks. Vendors and customers should negotiate allocations that reflect where modeling control sits; generic “AI indemnity” language is often under-specified and produces surprises. Where open-source models or datasets were used, counsel should trace license obligations and compatibility. Downstream users frequently overestimate the coverage that comes with a license or API agreement and underestimate the operational responsibilities that contracts assign to them, from providing accurate ground truth to maintaining human oversight.
From the corporate perspective, litigation preparedness begins long before a claim. The organizations that litigate most effectively can pull a clean thread from product to proof: they know which models they have, where they run, what data they used, who approved them, and how they performed over time. They maintain registries that record versions, datasets, and evaluations; they preserve representative prompts and outputs; they run incident-response drills for model failures that mirror cybersecurity playbooks. They integrate legal review into go-to-market timelines so that claims about accuracy, safety, or compliance are tied to documented validation. They treat bias and safety testing not as compliance theater but as engineering work with audit trails, and they channel findings through counsel when appropriate. When a dispute arises, these practices convert what might have been hand-waving into admissible, comprehensible evidence.
For plaintiffs, early steps can shape the entire case. Sending preservation notices that name specific artifacts, asking targeted questions about versioning and deployment, and retaining technical experts who can specify what logs or checkpoints would enable replication will uncover more than broad demands will. The discovery plan should be sequenced so that the most illuminating artifacts arrive first configuration files, evaluation reports, and prompt logs often tell the story more directly than bulk source code. Experts should design tests that mirror the facts alleged, using the defendant’s frozen model where feasible and the plaintiff’s documented prompts or data. Where opacity remains high, plaintiffs can propose neutral inspections under strict protective orders that protect legitimate secrecy while revealing salient behavior.
Defense counsel should build their narrative on reasonableness anchored to the intended use. A model developed for summarizing public documents may be reasonably safe and effective at that task even if it fails at legal advice when misused. Clear warnings and use restrictions will not immunize a defendant from all claims, but they will help courts calibrate expectations. Documented post-deployment monitoring alerts for drift, thresholds for rollback, processes for handling red-team reports demonstrates that the company treated AI as an evolving system rather than a one-off deliverable. When plaintiffs allege bias, the defense should present not only aggregate metrics but also cohort-specific analyses and the practical trade-offs that product teams navigated. Transparency does not mean surrendering trade secrets; it means making the engineering legible enough for a court to evaluate duty and breach.
Judicial education is a shared responsibility. Judges face steep learning curves and limited time. Effective briefs use ordinary language to describe data pipelines and training loops, anchor abstractions in concrete examples relevant to the dispute, and avoid exotic jargon unless it is truly indispensable. Technical appendices, demonstrative exhibits, and staged explanations starting with what the model does and only then how it does it help decision-makers keep the thread. In appropriate cases, parties can propose court-appointed technical experts or special masters to manage discovery disputes and to certify that model inspections answered narrow questions without exposing unnecessary secrets. Over time, bench books and pattern instructions will evolve, but in the near term, the advocates who teach best win more often.
Looking ahead, litigators should assume that AI evidence will become routine rather than exceptional. The line between a “traditional” case and an “AI case” will blur as more products and services depend on machine learning under the hood. This should encourage proportionality and pragmatism. Discovery fights about weights and gradients are rarely necessary when configuration files, evaluation reports, and logs already resolve the core factual disputes. Conversely, defendants should not reflexively block technical discovery that would allow a plaintiff to prove or disprove allegations efficiently. The system will function best when the parties approach AI as an engineering domain that generates testable facts rather than as a metaphysical black box.
The profession also has an opportunity to shape best practices outside of court. Bar associations can update competence guidance to reflect that technology literacy now includes basic familiarity with data science and machine learning concepts. Law schools can integrate evidence-focused AI modules into trial-advocacy courses so that future litigators know how to question experts about training data quality, model drift, and evaluation bias. Insurers and regulators can collaborate with industry to promote safe-harbor practices that encourage transparency without penalizing candor. The alternative is an arms race of secrecy and overbroad demands that will strain judges and litigants alike.
Ultimately, preparing for AI litigation is not about learning a new doctrine as much as it is about reclaiming the discipline of fact development. When models make or inform decisions, there is a record to reconstruct and a story to tell. The winning stories will be concrete: they will show what the model was trained to do, how it was validated, what the observed failure mode was, why that failure caused the harm at issue, and how alternative choices would have changed the result. They will resist generalities and meet technology on the ground where it operates. In that respect, the new era of technology lawsuits asks the legal system to do what it has always done at its best, dig into the evidence, test competing narratives, and craft remedies that fit the facts.
The path to that competence is open to any litigator willing to invest in the craft. Build relationships with technical experts before a crisis. Ask clients to inventory their models and preserve their artifacts. Learn to read evaluation reports and to translate them for judges and juries. Treat governance documents as both shields and potential swords. Expect more cross-border disputes, more structural remedies, and more judicial experimentation with procedure. This is not a temporary spike of novelty; it is the new normal. Those who prepare now will be ready to turn complexity into clarity when it matters most.
Contact Tishkoff:
Tishkoff PLC specializes in business law and litigation. For inquiries, contact us at www.tish.law/contact/. & check out Tishkoff PLC’s Website (www.Tish.Law/), eBooks (www.Tish.Law/e-books), Blogs (www.Tish.Law/blog) and References (www.Tish.Law/resources).
This publication is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult counsel for advice on your specific circumstances.
Sources:
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (Version 1.0), 2023.
https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework
European Union, Artificial Intelligence Act, 2024.
https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/the-act/
U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 2024. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/
The Sedona Conference, Principles and Commentary on Electronic Document Production and Evidence, latest edition
https://www.thesedonaconference.org/sites/default/files/3-2_Sedona_Principles_3d_Ed.pdf
Federal Trade Commission, Aiming for Truth, Fairness, and Equity in Your Company’s Use of AI, 2021.
https://privacysecurityacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Aiming-for-truth-fairness-and-equity-in-your-companys-use-of-AI.pdf