The Dallas Morning News reported earlier this week that “[t]rial lawyers who both sue and defend large technology companies predict state courts from Texas to California are about to see their dockets swell with lawsuits that accuse AI developers of knowingly making and marketing dangerous and defective products.”
The article (which is cited below) observed that during the past week, both Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent “stated publicly that AI giants such as OpenAI and Anthropic should have no legal shields from liability when their products do illegal things and cause intellectual property and financial damages.” Unlike the industries who produced asbestos, cigarettes, or social media platforms, the article went on, numerous AI developers have openly warned of the potential dangers of their product.
Lawyers predict that multiple types of litigation lie ahead, particularly class actions and mass torts stemming from society-level “catastrophic events.” And if you have an AI robot mowing your lawn (not to mention one taking care of your elderly loved one in a nursing home), you’d better hope it doesn’t cut off your neighbor’s (or more likely your neighbor’s dog’s) foot.
As always when new litigation trends become evidence, Texas lawyers are leading the way. Susman Godfrey has already settled (for $1.5 billion) a lawsuit against Anthropic for stealing thousands of authors’ copyrighted materials. It has likewise brought suit on behalf of The New York Times and other newspapers against OpenAI and Microsoft.
The article quotes Zac Henderson, a professor of law at SMU Dedman School of Law, as saying, “We are on the verge of everyone having an AI agent in their hands. That could open up a ton of litigation because AI agents can now handle people’s credit cards—so costly financial harms, small and big, are virtually inevitable.” Professor Henderson goes on to predict massive suits against financial institutions.
Industry efforts to lobby Congress to extend liability protection have gone nowhere and are unlikely to given the negative public perception, at least in some quarters, of the industry. But that won’t prevent them from going state-to-state peddling their wares.
We should note that the Business Court, at least as far as its current jurisdiction is concerned, will not be available for much of the potential litigation, which is likely to involve personal injury, products liability, property damage, and consumer claims. As things currently stand, the district courts will likely be the first stop when the train really gets rolling.
