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.
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.
Tracker Status: Active/Monitoring
Publication Date: 30 October 2025
Last Verified: 5 September 2026
Author and Contact: Matthew Lee (Barrister). Read more about Matthew Lee and Natural & Artificial Intelligence in Law.
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.
