The court system is responsible for interpreting law so playing semantic games doesn't work very well unless you have a corrupt judge who sides with you and is willing to interpret it in this way
I don't think it'd be difficult to blur the lines in terms of implementation details in order to "AI launder" desired functionality in such a manner where the "AI" distinction becomes a philosophical debate between SMEs.
I think you can blur the lines to an extent and if the judge isn't very capable, pull one over on them, but to say an LLM or ML model is not artificial intelligence to a capable judge with a prosecution who points out there is an LLM, it would be hard to get around imo
"playing semantic games" is a euphemism for the entire practice of law.