Visible to the Court: How AI Is (and Isn't) Litigated in U.S. Federal Court Opinions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.23888v1
• Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2026 23:19:41 GMT
• Title: Visible to the Court: How AI Is (and Isn't) Litigated in U.S. Federal Court Opinions
• Abstract summary: We review 559 U.S. federal court opinions in which AI plays a role in the parties' contentions.<n>We identify seven recurring dispute areas, six categories of AI technologies at the center of litigation, and four types of common litigants.
• Score: 15.600644502024211
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In the United States, artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly deployed amid limited federal regulation. With courts become a recurring forum in which AI-related practices are scrutinized, it is important to empirically understand the AI litigation landscape to date. We address this gap through a systematic review of 559 U.S. federal court opinions in which AI plays a role in the parties' contentions, taxonomizing (1) common topics of dispute, (2) the AI technologies implicated, and (3) the parties involved, including common plaintiff and defendant types. We identify seven recurring dispute areas, six categories of AI technologies at the center of litigation, and four types of common litigants, alongside legal doctrines used by the litigants. A comparison of this taxonomy to the AI Incident Database revealed substantial gaps in coverage, definitions, and prevalence between documented and litigated harms, suggesting courts capture only part of the AI risk landscape. In addition, we found that court decisions primarily rely on pre-existing legal doctrines to manage AI rather than making new AI-specific laws, producing a form of "piecemeal" AI governance. As a result, federal court outcomes are shaped less by where AI has caused harms and more by which harms are cognizable under existing statutes, leading to certain AI harms remaining unresolved.

Related papers

• Democracy and Distrust in an Era of Artificial Intelligence [0.0]
  I argue that the rise of three trends-privatization, prediction, and automation in AI-have combined to pose similar risks to minorities.<n>I outline what a theory of judicial review would look like in an era of artificial intelligence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-14T00:40:36Z)
• Beware! The AI Act Can Also Apply to Your AI Research Practices [2.532202013576547]
  The EU has become one of the vanguards in regulating the digital age.<n>The AI Act specifies -- due to a risk-based approach -- various obligations for providers of AI systems.<n>This position paper argues that, indeed, the AI Act's obligations could apply in many more cases than the AI community is aware of.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T08:01:36Z)
• AI Debate Aids Assessment of Controversial Claims [73.8907110799657]
  We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial factuality claims.<n>In Study I, debate consistently improves human judgment accuracy and confidence calibration, outperforming consultancy.<n>In Study II, AI judges with human-like personas achieve even higher accuracy (78.5%) than human judges (70.1%) and default AI judges without personas (69.8%)<n>These findings highlight AI debate as a promising path toward scalable, bias-resilient oversight in contested domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T19:01:53Z)
• Concerning the Responsible Use of AI in the US Criminal Justice System [5.5215545294476485]
  Piece advocates for clear explanations of AI's data, logic, and limitations.<n>Calls for periodic audits to address bias and maintain accountability in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T20:33:42Z)
• Ethical Challenges of Using Artificial Intelligence in Judiciary [0.0]
  AI has the potential to revolutionize the functioning of the judiciary and the dispensation of justice.<n>Courts around the world have begun embracing AI technology as a means to enhance the administration of justice.<n>However, the use of AI in the judiciary poses a range of ethical challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-27T15:51:56Z)
• Almost AI, Almost Human: The Challenge of Detecting AI-Polished Writing [55.2480439325792]
  This study systematically evaluations twelve state-of-the-art AI-text detectors using our AI-Polished-Text Evaluation dataset.<n>Our findings reveal that detectors frequently flag even minimally polished text as AI-generated, struggle to differentiate between degrees of AI involvement, and exhibit biases against older and smaller models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T18:45:37Z)
• Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
  This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence. As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z)
• Don't Kill the Baby: The Case for AI in Arbitration [0.0]
  Article argues that the FAA allows parties to contractually choose AI-driven arbitration, despite traditional reservations.<n>By advocating for the use of AI in arbitration, it underscores the importance of respecting contractual autonomy.<n>Ultimately, it calls for a balanced, open-minded approach to AI in arbitration, recognizing its potential to enhance the efficiency, fairness, and flexibility of dispute resolution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-21T13:34:20Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Election Campaigns: Perceptions, Penalties, and Implications [44.99833362998488]
  We identify three categories of AI use -- campaign operations, voter outreach, and deception.<n>While people generally dislike AI in campaigns, they are especially critical of deceptive uses, which they perceive as norm violations.<n>Deception AI use increases public support for stricter AI regulation, including calls for an outright ban on AI development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T12:58:20Z)
• Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
  General purpose AI seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. We introduce PARTICIP-AI, a framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z)
• Report of the 1st Workshop on Generative AI and Law [78.62063815165968]
  This report presents the takeaways of the inaugural Workshop on Generative AI and Law (GenLaw) A cross-disciplinary group of practitioners and scholars from computer science and law convened to discuss the technical, doctrinal, and policy challenges presented by law for Generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-11T04:13:37Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.