A new fact pattern, old discipline
The case is built on documents and the chain of responsibility, not on the hype around the technology.
Disputes that arise from AI - its output, its data, its decisions, and the tools behind it - litigated for the party harmed and the party blamed.
AI does not create a new body of law so much as a new set of facts that existing law now has to absorb: liability for what a tool produces, defamation and synthetic media, discrimination in automated decisions, and data exposure under a privacy regime that, since Amendment 13, has real enforcement behind it. The firm runs these disputes with the same discipline it brings to any case: the documents first, the chain from input to harm mapped, the line of responsibility kept straight.
The firm reads the record the system created - the inputs, the logs, the output that caused the harm - because an AI dispute is still won on documents, not on the novelty of the technology. It maps the chain from data to output to harm and finds where responsibility actually sits, by reference to who controlled the data, the decision, and the deployment. It scopes exposure in a range early, so the client decides on numbers.
The case is built on documents and the chain of responsibility, not on the hype around the technology.
Where the harm runs from data to output to claimant, and where responsibility sits.
The firm prosecutes and defends these, and scopes the exposure in a range before the matter sets its own course.
A business is sued over content produced with an AI tool it used, with the claimant treating the business as the author. The firm maps the chain from the tool's input and output to the alleged harm, locates where responsibility sits by reference to who controlled the data and the decision, and scopes the realistic exposure before deciding whether to defend or settle.
Described in abbreviated, anonymised form to preserve client confidentiality.
Yes; defamation and the misuse of a person's likeness are actionable regardless of the tool, and synthetic media has drawn specific legislative and enforcement attention, so the route exists for both removal and damages.
Responsibility turns on who controlled the data, the decision, and the deployment, and on the duty owed to the person harmed; using a tool does not move that responsibility away from the organisation that put it to work.
Since Amendment 13 took effect, the Privacy Protection Authority's enforcement powers are materially stronger, so a data incident involving an AI system carries real enforcement exposure, separate from any civil claim.
Yes; an AI-assisted decision in hiring, credit, or eligibility is judged by its effect, and a discriminatory outcome is actionable whether a human or a model produced it.