AI Litigation & Disputes

Artificial intelligence has introduced unprecedented complexities into dispute resolution. When algorithms make decisions affecting employment, credit access, insurance coverage, or medical treatment, aggrieved parties increasingly seek legal redress. Yet the doctrinal frameworks developed over centuries for human decision-making require careful adaptation when applied to automated systems. Our litigation practice operates at this frontier, developing strategies that address the evidentiary, procedural, and substantive challenges unique to AI-related disputes.

Evidence admissibility in AI cases presents formidable challenges. The Indian Evidence Act provisions governing electronic records require authentication protocols that may not straightforwardly apply to machine learning outputs. Model inference logs, while potentially probative, may be challenged as derivative rather than primary evidence. Expert testimony explaining algorithmic decision-making must navigate the boundary between technical exposition and impermissible opinion on ultimate legal questions. We counsel clients on evidence preservation strategies and work with technical experts to present AI-related evidence in forms courts will find comprehensible and admissible.

Algorithmic accountability claims represent an emerging category of litigation. When AI systems produce outcomes that disproportionately disadvantage protected groups—whether in lending decisions, hiring processes, or service allocation—affected parties may bring claims under anti-discrimination statutes, consumer protection laws, or fundamental rights provisions. We advise defendants on response strategies that address both immediate litigation exposure and underlying system modifications required to mitigate ongoing risk. For claimants, we assess the viability of novel theories and develop strategies for obtaining the discovery necessary to prove algorithmic discrimination.

Regulatory enforcement proceedings under emerging AI frameworks demand specialized advocacy. The EU AI Act grants market surveillance authorities extensive investigative powers, including the ability to require access to training data, model documentation, and source code. Defence strategy must balance cooperation requirements with protection of legitimate trade secrets. We counsel clients facing regulatory inquiries on response protocols, document production strategies, and engagement with enforcement officials. Where proceedings advance to formal enforcement, we provide advocacy calibrated to the technical nature of AI-related allegations.

Contractual disputes involving AI systems require understanding of both commercial transaction principles and technical AI realities. Performance claims may turn on whether agreed accuracy metrics were appropriately specified and measured. IP disputes may involve complex questions about model ownership, training data rights, and the scope of deployment licenses. We bring commercial litigation experience together with AI-specific technical understanding to pursue or defend contractual claims effectively. Alternative dispute resolution, including arbitration with technically qualified tribunals, often provides advantages for AI-related commercial disputes.

Cross-border dimensions pervade AI litigation. A model trained in one jurisdiction, deployed in another, and affecting users in a third creates choice of law and jurisdictional complexities that require careful navigation. The EU AI Act's extraterritorial provisions may expose Indian companies to European enforcement even for systems not directly marketed in Europe. We develop litigation strategies that account for multi-jurisdictional exposure, coordinate with local counsel in relevant jurisdictions, and optimize forum selection where procedural rules permit.

Emerging jurisprudence on AI liability continues to develop across jurisdictions. Courts are grappling with questions of attribution—whether liability attaches to model developers, system deployers, or both—and with the applicability of existing legal frameworks to novel AI scenarios. We monitor judicial developments across key jurisdictions, identifying precedents that may strengthen our clients' positions and distinguishing adverse rulings. This ongoing intelligence gathering informs both litigation strategy and pre-dispute counselling on liability exposure management.