15 trackers · Cases, sources & public debate
AI Law Trackers
AI legal cases, judicial AI and the future of legal work.
Explore my AI law trackers for AI legal cases, AI hallucination cases, judicial AI and the debate over whether AI will replace lawyers or judges. Find the collection that matches your question and see what the public material establishes.
This site hosts 15 AI Law Trackers including: AI Hallucination Cases Tracker; Judicial AI Use Tracker; AI Equality, Bias and Discrimination Case Tracker; Government AI Hallucination Tracker; Will AI Replace Judges? Tracker; and Will AI Replace Lawyers? Tracker.
On this page
01 / Courts, citations & public bodies
AI hallucination cases and judicial AI.
These four collections bring together false legal material, government errors and the ways judges and courts use or discuss AI. The UK and international hallucination trackers have different geographical scopes. The judicial AI tracker also covers uses and policies that do not involve an error.
AI Hallucination Cases Tracker
International · False legal materialPublic court and tribunal material involving fabricated citations, non-existent authorities and other false legal material. The collection includes suspected and confirmed AI use, together with comparable incidents where AI involvement is disputed or not established. Entries distinguish the available evidence and any recorded court response.
Open tracker
UK AI Hallucination Cases Tracker
United Kingdom · Courts & tribunalsUK court and tribunal material involving false or fabricated legal citations and suspected or confirmed AI use. Some entries concern allegations, suspicions or disputed accounts. The public summaries distinguish those positions, so inclusion does not by itself establish that AI produced the material or that misconduct was found.
Open tracker
Judicial AI Use Tracker
Judges · Courts · Judicial bodiesHow judges, courts and judicial bodies use, test and discuss artificial intelligence. This judicial AI collection brings together public examples, judgments, official guidance, policies and speeches. It covers possible benefits as well as limitations and risks; inclusion does not imply that the use described was improper.
Open tracker
Government AI Hallucination Tracker
Government · Reports · Public informationFalse, fabricated or unreliable material in government reports, policy documents, consultation papers and other public-sector work. Entries include suspected or alleged AI-generated errors and some related non-AI citation mistakes recorded for context. Inclusion does not establish that AI caused the error or that a named person acted improperly.
Open tracker“AI hallucination cases” is a subject label. Some records concern suspected AI use or comparable non-AI mistakes. The description of each record identifies the position supported by its sources.
02 / The changing legal profession
Will AI replace lawyers or judges?
These two trackers follow what people say about the future of legal work and judging. They keep the speaker, statement and context central, including the distinction between helping with a task and replacing a professional role. The collections record a debate whose arguments and predictions continue to change.
Will AI Replace Lawyers? Tracker
Public views · Lawyers · Legal tasksPublic statements about the future of lawyers, law firms, legal services and particular legal tasks. The tracker allows readers to compare the views of legal professionals, technologists and other speakers. Replacing a task, changing a role and replacing lawyers are distinct propositions; the statement’s wording and context matter.
Open tracker
Will AI Replace Judges? Tracker
Public views · Judicial functionsAttributable views on whether AI might assist judges, replace particular judicial tasks or take over the judicial role. The tracker brings together differing statements from judges, legal institutions, academics and technologists. It records who expressed a view and its context, without treating predictions as settled facts.
Open trackerRecorded statements are not a forecast, a representative survey or evidence that a predicted change has occurred. Any accompanying charts describe the statements included in that tracker.
03 / Deepfakes, rights & evidence
Deepfake cases and other AI legal cases.
Deepfake cases involving synthetic images, audio or video lead this collection of AI legal cases about equality, evidence, confidentiality, human rights and responsibility for harm. These nine trackers organise that material by subject. They include AI’s use or proposed use to remove barriers and advance equality, alongside alleged or established harms.
International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker
Synthetic images · Audio · VideoLegal proceedings and reported disputes involving alleged, suspected or confirmed deepfake images, audio or video. The subject includes civil claims, criminal proceedings and regulatory action. An allegation that material was artificially generated is distinct from a finding that a deepfake existed, and the procedural stage remains relevant.
Open tracker
AI Equality, Bias and AI Discrimination Case Tracker
Equality · Bias · AccessibilityBoth sides of AI’s relationship with equality: bias and exclusion, and AI’s use or proposed use to prevent discrimination, improve accessibility and level the playing field. Alleged harm, established findings, documented benefits and requests for assistance have different evidential weight. The collection does not establish the overall balance of benefits and harms.
Open tracker
AI Privilege & Confidentiality Tracker
Prompts · Outputs · Protected informationCases and guidance concerning information shared with AI tools, legal professional privilege, work-product protection, confidentiality and disclosure. The tracker identifies the issue raised in the source and its procedural setting. It does not provide advice on whether a particular communication, document or use of an AI system is protected.
Open tracker
AI Prompt Injection & Hidden Text Legal Tracker
Hidden instructions · Adversarial promptsCases and official material concerning concealed instructions intended to influence an AI system, including white-on-white text and indirect prompt injection. Entries may concern alleged, attempted, blocked or established conduct. The presence of an entry does not establish that an instruction was followed or that the attempt affected an outcome.
Open tracker
AI Expert Evidence Case Law & Court Guidance Tracker
Expert material · Reliability · EvidenceAI-generated or AI-assisted expert material and the questions it raises in legal proceedings. Sources may address methodology, reliability, evidential weight, disclosure and the expert’s role. Some records concern allegations or procedural disputes rather than final findings about the evidence or the conduct of an expert.
Open tracker
AI Agents, Autonomous Transactions & Liability Tracker
Agents · Automated actions · ResponsibilityEmerging AI-agent disputes and relevant earlier automated-transaction cases. The collection covers questions of authority, attribution, contracts, payments, supervision and responsibility when software takes action. Earlier automation cases provide context; inclusion does not imply that every system used modern AI or that liability has been established.
Open tracker
AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker
Public decisions · Biometrics · RightsCases and official material connecting human rights with AI, automated decisions, algorithms, facial recognition, biometrics or AI-generated evidence. The collection makes the relevant issues discoverable across different settings and jurisdictions. Inclusion identifies a connection with the subject; it does not establish that a court found a human rights breach.
Open tracker
AI Rights and Legal Personhood Tracker
Legal status · Rights · PersonhoodCases and official discussion about whether AI systems, robots or autonomous agents can hold rights or occupy legal roles, including questions about applicants, inventors, authors and ownership. An entry records an issue, argument or decision. It does not imply that AI has been recognised as a legal person.
Open tracker
AI Chatbot Harm, Wrongful Death & Safety Litigation Tracker
Chatbots · Alleged harm · SafetyClaims and legal developments concerning alleged chatbot-related harm, emotional dependency, wrongful death, product safety, warnings and protective systems. Many records concern active proceedings and contested allegations. Inclusion does not establish causation, wrongdoing or legal responsibility by a company, developer or other named person.
Open trackerSome collections include related automated-system cases for context. A case can be relevant to more than one tracker, so adding the separate tables’ totals would not give a count of unique AI legal cases.
Scope, sources & the questions readers ask
About the AI law trackers.
The hub brings the collections together. Each linked tracker explains its own scope, terminology and source limitations; its records may have different procedural and evidential status.
What are the AI Law Trackers?
A collection of 15 subject-based research resources by Matthew Lee at Natural & Artificial Law. They bring together AI legal cases and related public material, organised around the issue involved. Each tracker has its own scope and source limitations. The hub provides a route into those collections rather than a separate combined case database.
What subjects do the 15 AI Law Trackers cover?
AI hallucination cases, judicial AI, government errors, equality and bias, human rights, deepfakes, privilege, prompt injection, expert evidence, AI agents, personhood and chatbot harm. Two further trackers record views on whether AI will replace lawyers or judges. Subject areas can overlap, so the same case may appear in more than one collection.
Where can I find AI legal cases?
The cards above organise the collections by AI issue. The AI Law Reports section below offers a second route, through ten areas of law. Depending on the collection, records may include judgments, claims, pleadings, orders, official guidance, regulatory material and public reporting. These source types do not have the same evidential status.
Where can I find AI hallucination cases?
The international tracker covers multiple jurisdictions, while the UK tracker focuses on UK court and tribunal material. Both distinguish suspected or alleged AI use from confirmed use. Some comparable false-citation incidents are included without established AI involvement. Government material has its own tracker.
What does judicial AI mean?
Here, judicial AI concerns judges, courts and judicial bodies using, testing or discussing artificial intelligence. It can include practical uses and official policies as well as public debate. It does not necessarily mean automated judging, and it does not imply that the use of AI was improper.
Do the trackers include allegations and suspected cases?
Yes. Depending on the collection, entries may include allegations, suspected incidents, disputed accounts and unresolved proceedings. That breadth helps record issues as they emerge, but it also makes the wording of each entry important. A report, allegation, settlement and judicial finding are different things.
Does inclusion establish AI use, wrongdoing or liability?
No. Inclusion means that a record falls within the stated subject of a tracker. It does not establish that AI was used, caused an error or harm, or that a person or organisation acted unlawfully. Nor does inclusion of a proposed AI benefit establish that the benefit occurred.
Will AI replace lawyers or judges?
The two “Will AI replace” trackers collect attributable public views on that question. Their purpose is to map the debate, including differences between assistance, task replacement and replacement of a professional role. They do not predict the outcome, measure adoption or present the views collected as a representative opinion poll.
Are the AI Law Trackers complete and always up to date?
No. These are evolving research collections, not official or exhaustive registers. New sources and later decisions may change an entry. The review date on this hub relates to the directory and its presentation; it does not certify that every record in every linked tracker has been checked on that date.
What can readers find behind the public tables?
Some trackers display a concise public selection and charts drawn from a fuller research record. Where offered, supporting notes may be available on request, subject to availability and applicable restrictions. The hub does not expand the visible columns of those tables or publish additional research fields.
Do the AI Law Trackers provide legal advice?
No. The trackers, legal reports and articles provide general information and commentary. They do not advise on a particular dispute, explain what a reader should do in their circumstances or create a lawyer–client relationship. Professional instructions to Matthew Lee are through his clerks at Doughty Street Chambers.
Continue by area of law
Introducing The AI Law Reports.
I also write The AI Law Reports, a connected publication bringing together AI-related legal developments by area of law, with registries and legal reports and articles. It provides another route into the material collected through my research.
The AI law trackers above are organised around AI issues. The ten registries below organise material through familiar areas of legal practice, from employment and housing to criminal law and immigration. Coverage varies between registries, and a resource’s existence does not imply that its research is complete.
Employment law
Work, recruitment and workplace disputes.
Explore registry AI law registry 02Criminal law
Criminal proceedings and AI-related material.
Explore registry AI law registry 03Housing & property
Housing, land and property disputes.
Explore registry AI law registry 04Public law
Public bodies and administrative decisions.
Explore registry AI law registry 05Intellectual property
Copyright, inventorship and creative work.
Explore registry AI law registry 06Tort & liability
Civil wrongs and questions of responsibility.
Explore registry AI law registry 07Family law
Family proceedings and related AI issues.
Explore registry AI law registry 08Tax law
Tax disputes and tribunal proceedings.
Explore registry AI law registry 09Civil litigation & procedure
Court process, evidence and litigation practice.
Explore registry AI law registry 10Immigration & asylum
Immigration decisions and asylum proceedings.
Explore registryThe AI Law Reports is my independent publication. Its registries and writing provide general information and commentary, subject to their stated scope and limitations.
The Definitive International Index of Artificial Intelligence in the Courts
The AI Law Trackers Hub brings together 15 live resources from Natural & Artificial Intelligence in Law. These AI Law Trackers provide routes into AI legal cases, AI hallucination cases, judicial AI, equality, evidence, human rights, government use of AI, liability and the debate about whether AI will replace lawyers or judges.
Further information on the the AI Law Trackers
Depending on the tracker, entries may concern judgments, tribunal decisions, allegations, suspected incidents, unresolved proceedings, official guidance, speeches, policy material or public reporting. Inclusion does not necessarily mean that AI use, wrongdoing, causation or liability has been established. Readers should follow the links, read the underlying material and make their own assessment.
Ad/Marketing communication
UK-based legal commentary and comparative analysis of international material on AI-related legal issues. This AI Law Trackers Hub forms part of Matthew Lee’s legal articles/reports and lecturing, teaching and writing on AI law and is published in connection with promoting his practice. General commentary only, not legal advice. Matthew Lee is not authorised for Public (Direct) Access. Instructions may be given only through his clerks at Doughty Street Chambers.
The AI Law Trackers Hub
Explore the 15 live AI Law Trackers below.
Together, these trackers provide routes into AI legal cases, AI hallucination cases, judicial AI, equality, evidence, human rights, liability and the continuing questions: will AI replace lawyers, and will AI replace judges? Readers searching for “AI hallucinations cases” can begin with either the international or UK tracker.
The trackers bring together publicly available material. Depending on the subject, entries may concern final findings, allegations, suspected incidents, disputed accounts, active proceedings, official guidance or public reporting. Inclusion does not necessarily mean that AI use, wrongdoing, causation or liability has been established. Readers should follow the links within each tracker, read the underlying source and make their own assessment.
1. AI Hallucination Cases Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: Fabricated Citations, False Authorities & Court Responses
A global collection of public court and tribunal material involving false or fabricated citations, non-existent authorities and suspected or confirmed AI hallucinations. It also includes some comparable matters in which false legal material appeared but AI use was alleged, suspected or not established.
The tracker records judicial responses, inquiries, corrections, warnings and sanctions where these appear in the available material.
2. Judicial AI Use Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: How Judges and Courts Use AI
This judicial AI tracker follows public examples of judges, courts and judicial bodies using, testing or discussing artificial intelligence.
It includes judgments, official guidance, policies, speeches and commentary addressing possible benefits, practical uses, limitations and risks. Inclusion does not mean that the particular use of AI was improper.
3. AI Equality, Bias and Discrimination Case Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: Equality, Bias, Discrimination & Access to Justice
This tracker collects AI legal cases and other public material in which AI or algorithmic systems are linked to equality, bias, discrimination, accessibility or access to justice.
It includes allegations and unresolved claims, as well as examples suggesting that AI tools may have helped reduce barriers or enabled people to participate more effectively in legal or administrative processes.
4. Government AI Hallucination Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: Government Errors, Public Information & Public Law
This tracker records public examples of false, fabricated or unreliable material in government reports, policy documents, consultation papers, legislative material and public-sector systems.
It includes suspected or alleged AI-generated errors, together with some related non-AI citation mistakes recorded for context and comparison. Inclusion does not establish that AI was responsible for the error.
5. Will AI Replace Judges? Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: The Future of Judging & Automated Decision-Making
This tracker collects public views from judges, legal institutions, academics and technologists on whether AI may assist judges, replace particular judicial functions or ever replace human judges.
It maps the range of opinions and predictions rather than presenting the question “will AI replace judges?” as having a settled answer.
6. Will AI Replace Lawyers? Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: The Future of Lawyers & Legal Work
This tracker collects attributable public comments on whether AI will replace lawyers, particular legal roles or individual legal tasks.
It brings together differing predictions and arguments so that readers can consider who expressed the view, when it was expressed and the basis on which it appears to have been made. It maps the debate rather than predicting a particular outcome.
7. The UK AI Hallucination Cases Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: Fabricated Citations & Suspected or Confirmed AI Use in the UK
This UK-only tracker collects public court and tribunal material involving false or fabricated legal citations and suspected or confirmed AI use.
It also records related UK incidents in which AI was alleged, suspected or not proved. Readers should check the description and underlying source for each entry because the evidence and status of the matters recorded differ.
8. International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: Deepfakes, Synthetic Media & Legal Proceedings
This tracker records public legal cases, prosecutions, civil claims, regulatory action and reported litigation involving alleged, suspected or confirmed deepfake images, audio or video.
An entry may concern an allegation that content was artificially generated rather than a final finding that a deepfake existed. The source and procedural stage should therefore be considered carefully.
9. AI Privilege & Confidentiality Tracker | Global Case Law
Status: Active | Focus: Legal Privilege, Confidentiality & Disclosure
This tracker collects cases and guidance concerning how prompts, outputs and information shared with AI tools may affect legal professional privilege, work-product protection, confidentiality and disclosure.
The legal position may depend heavily on the facts, the particular AI system, how it was configured and the jurisdiction involved.
10. AI Prompt Injection & Hidden Text Legal Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: Prompt Injection, Hidden Instructions & White Text
This tracker records cases, sanctions and official guidance concerning hidden or adversarial instructions intended to influence an AI system.
It includes issues such as white-on-white text, concealed instructions and indirect prompt injection. Entries may concern attempted, alleged, suspected, blocked or established conduct, and inclusion does not mean that an attempt succeeded.
11. AI Expert Evidence Case Law & Court Guidance Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: AI-Assisted Expert Evidence & Expert Duties
This tracker collects cases and court guidance concerning AI-generated or AI-assisted expert material.
The issues may include reliability, evidential weight, admissibility, disclosure, prompts, methodology and the expert’s personal duties. Some entries concern allegations or procedural disputes rather than final findings about the expert evidence.
12. AI Agents, Autonomous Transactions & Liability Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: AI Agents, Automated Transactions & Legal Responsibility
This tracker collects emerging AI-agent cases and earlier automated-transaction cases that may help explain authority, attribution, contract formation, payment, supervision and liability when software takes action.
Some entries involve allegations or unresolved disputes in which responsibility remains contested. Earlier automated-system cases are included where they may provide a useful legal comparison for newer AI agents.
13. AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: Artificial Intelligence & Human Rights Law
This tracker collects public cases and official material in which AI, automated decision-making, algorithms, facial recognition, biometrics, deepfakes or AI-generated evidence are relevant to human rights law.
Inclusion means that the material appears relevant to the tracker’s subject. It does not mean that a court found a human rights breach.
14. AI Rights and Legal Personhood Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: AI Rights, Legal Status & Personhood
This tracker follows cases and official discussion about whether AI systems, autonomous agents, robots or digital entities could be treated as rights-holders, legal persons, applicants, victims, inventors, authors, owners or other legal actors.
Inclusion records the issue or argument. It does not imply that any court or legal system has recognised the AI system as having rights or legal personality.
15. AI Chatbot Harm, Wrongful Death & Safety Litigation Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: Chatbot Harm, Safety Systems & Legal Responsibility
This tracker follows claims and legal developments concerning alleged chatbot-related injury, emotional dependency, self-harm, wrongful death, product safety, warnings, intervention and protective systems.
Many entries concern allegations made in active proceedings. Inclusion does not establish that a chatbot caused the alleged harm or that any company, developer or other person is legally responsible.
These AI Law Trackers are evolving research aids and may not contain every relevant case or development. Entries may be added, corrected, reclassified or updated as further material becomes publicly available. Readers should examine the full judgment, pleading, official document or report linked within the relevant tracker before reaching a conclusion.
Frequently Asked Questions about the AI Law Trackers
What are the AI Law Trackers?
The AI Law Trackers are 15 subject-based resources bringing together publicly available material about artificial intelligence and law. They are intended to make it easier to find, compare and follow AI legal cases and related developments.
The trackers are starting points for further reading. They are not official or exhaustive legal databases, and readers should examine the source linked within each entry
What subjects do the 15 AI Law Trackers cover?
The trackers cover AI hallucination cases, judicial AI, equality and discrimination, government errors, deepfakes, privilege and confidentiality, prompt injection, expert evidence, AI agents, human rights, legal personhood, chatbot harm and predictions about the future of lawyers and judges.
Some subjects overlap. A case or development may therefore be relevant to more than one tracker.
Where can I find AI legal cases?
Select the tracker that most closely matches the issue you are researching. Some trackers focus mainly on judgments and tribunal decisions. Others also include claims, pleadings, court orders, official guidance, regulatory action, government documents, speeches or public reporting. The status of the source matters.
Where can I find “AI hallucinations cases”?
Readers searching for “AI hallucinations cases” can use either the international AI Hallucination Cases Tracker or the separate UK AI Hallucination Cases Tracker.
The usual wording used on this site is “AI hallucination cases”. Entries may involve confirmed AI use, suspected or alleged AI use, or fabricated and false citations where the cause was not established. The underlying judgment or other source should always be checked.
What does judicial AI mean?
Judicial AI refers broadly to the use, testing or discussion of artificial intelligence by judges, courts and judicial institutions.
The Judicial AI Use Tracker includes possible uses, benefits, limitations, guidance, warnings and concerns. It is not limited to judicial mistakes or AI hallucinations.
Do the trackers include allegations and suspected cases?
Yes. Depending on the tracker, an entry may concern an allegation, suspected incident, disputed account, active claim, rejected argument, procedural decision, official warning or final legal finding.
Inclusion means only that the publicly available material appears relevant to the stated subject of the tracker. It does not mean that every allegation has been accepted or proved.
Does inclusion mean that AI use, wrongdoing or liability has been established?
No. Inclusion in an AI Law Tracker does not necessarily mean that AI was used, that it caused the event, that anyone acted improperly or that legal liability has been established.
Readers should consider the wording of the entry, the type of source, the stage reached in any proceedings and whether there have been later judgments, appeals, corrections or other developments.
Will AI replace lawyers or judges?
There is no settled answer to whether AI will replace lawyers or judges.
The Will AI Replace Lawyers? Tracker and the Will AI Replace Judges? Tracker collect attributable public views from different people and institutions. They record predictions and arguments rather than endorsing them or predicting a particular outcome.
Readers should consider who expressed each view, when it was expressed and what evidence or assumptions appear to support it.
Are the AI Law Trackers complete and always up to date?
No. The trackers are evolving research resources and may not contain every relevant case, claim or development. Entries may be added, corrected, updated, reclassified or removed as further information becomes publicly available.
Proceedings and public reporting can also change after an entry is added. Readers should therefore check the underlying source and look for later developments before relying on an entry.
How should I use the AI Law Trackers?
Use the trackers to identify potentially relevant material and then follow the link to the judgment, pleading, official document, guidance or report.
Check the jurisdiction, date, source, procedural stage and any later history. The short description within a tracker is not a substitute for reading the full source and reaching your own view about what it shows.
Do the AI Law Trackers provide legal advice?
No. The trackers provide general legal commentary and signpost publicly available material. They do not provide advice about any individual case, dispute or situation.
Nothing on the trackers should be treated as a substitute for reading the relevant legal materials or obtaining advice about the particular facts and law involved.
