The AI cases are not about AI.

Disputes over artificial intelligence are misrepresentation, contract, warranty and product cases. They are decided on the company's own documents: the metric it tracked internally, what it told the counterparty, the vendor agreement that shows what it bought and what it built, and the emails that sit between the two.

What those disputes require of a tribunal is someone fully comfortable with the technology, to the point of near-fluency, who can read a technical record on its own terms, hold each side to its proof, and keep a hearing proportionate when both sides would rather retain competing experts and argue about the model.

Disputes heard

• AI vendor, licensing and implementation agreements, including service-level and acceptance disputes
• Performance and warranty claims over what a system was represented to do, and what it did
• AI-washing and misrepresentation claims between businesses, investors and acquirers
• Data, training-set, confidentiality and trade-secret disputes
• Discovery disputes over model outputs, logs, prompts and retention, including appointment as special master
• Technology and software disputes generally, where the contract rather than the technology decides the case

Issues

• What the contract actually promised, as against what the marketing said
• Which internal metric measured performance, who calculated it, and who saw it
• Whether capability was developed in-house or licensed from a supplier
• Scope, cost and proportionality of discovery into systems and their outputs
• Allocation of responsibility between developer, integrator and user

Writing

Author, “AI-Washing Is Old-School Fraud,” Daily Business Review (2026).

Use of artificial intelligence in a proceeding

I use AI tools the way I use a law clerk: for research, for review of large document sets, and for the mechanics of scheduling and drafting. I do not use them to decide anything. The evaluation of evidence, the assessment of witnesses and the award are mine, and no part of a case is submitted to a public model without the parties' agreement.