A federal judge recently concluded that the defendant in a white-collar securities dispute may not claim that his conversations with the artificial intelligence (“AI”) tool, Claude, are privileged. Litigators and clients now must take heed.
Artificial intelligence is moving beyond standalone large language model wrappers toward collections of specialized AI agents that reason, act, and collaborate to achieve complex outcomes. This multi-agent vision, articulated in Google’s Introduction to Agents whitepaper,[1] marks a subtle, but seismic, shift in how businesses will deploy AI; and spotlights nuanced legal challenges that litigators and in-house counsel should start addressing now.
[1] https://www.kaggle.com/whitepaper-introduction-to-agents (last visited January 21, 2026).
Biometric technologies—such as fingerprint scanners, facial recognition systems, and retina scans—are now commonplace in modern business operations. From employee timekeeping systems to facility security and customer-facing applications, these tools offer efficiency and convenience for many businesses. But these same conveniences have sparked backlash in the form of privacy litigation. In Illinois especially, companies are facing a surge of class-action lawsuits under the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), a pioneering law that imposes strict requirements on the use of biometric data and hefty penalties for companies failing to adhere to the law. This trend is not confined to Illinois: a growing patchwork of similar laws in other states means that using biometrics without proper safeguards can expose companies nationwide to significant statutory damages and legal risks.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- The DOJ’s New Corporate Enforcement Policy: A Familiar but Now Nationally Unified Framework for Voluntary Self-Disclosure
- The Case Was Settled, but ChatGPT Thought Otherwise: A Dispute Poised to Define AI Legal Liability
- “Claude Is Not an Attorney”: Individuals Risk Abandoning the Attorney-Client Privilege and Attorney Work-Product Doctrine When Consulting AI
- Prediction Markets v. State Gaming Laws: The Kalshi Litigation Gamble
- Sentencing Commission Seeks Public Input on Amendments to Fraud Sentencing Guidelines