ailawsafe.com is available for acquisition

Make an Offer
Practice Area 08

AI Litigation, Investigations & Regulatory Defense

When an AI system is blamed — for a biased decision, an infringing output, a confidential leak, or a harmful recommendation — you need counsel fluent in both the technology and the claims. We defend AI-related class actions, IP and copyright disputes, employment and consumer discrimination claims, and investigations by regulators before they become enforcement actions.

Who this is for

AI vendors and deployers facing claims, professional firms using AI tools, employers using algorithmic decisions, and companies responding to regulator or congressional-style inquiries.

What you get

  • Class action and complex commercial defense
  • Copyright and training-data litigation strategy
  • Algorithmic discrimination and employment defense
  • Regulatory investigation and enforcement response
  • Expert coordination with ML and fairness specialists
  • Preservation, discovery, and privilege strategy for model artifacts and evals

Frequently asked questions

What happens when a regulator opens an AI investigation?

Early scope control matters: preserve relevant model, data, and decision logs; identify the legal theories in play; assemble a privilege-safe fact record; and engage before positions harden. We run the response plan so engineering is not improvising with regulators.

Are AI outputs protected by fair use?

Fair use is fact-intensive: purpose, transformativeness, market effect, and the nature of the training material all matter, and outcomes differ by circuit and use case. We assess exposure on your actual pipeline and outputs rather than relying on categorical claims.

How should we preserve evidence for AI disputes?

Model versions, training data provenance, eval results, prompt/response logs, incident tickets, and governance decisions — all with counsel-directed retention. Spoliation risk is real when teams retrain and overwrite artifacts casually.