The courts are about to overrun with AI-generated lawsuits (even more so than they have been[0]).
[0]https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/06/04/1138391/courts-c...
[0]https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/06/04/1138391/courts-c...
They are also really good at making stuff up as evidenced by the many, many, many examples you read in the news about actual lawyers using AI to write briefs that are full of errors and hallucinations.
In civil courts, you'd likely get more sympathy from a judge if you represented yourself and admitted your lack of understanding, rather than try to appear as someone you're not because you wrote some prompts and copied the output.
The stupidest analogy is open source projects having a hard time accepting LLM generated PRs from the masses, because review process is the bottleneck.
No idea how to fix this, to be honest. In coding world, with some mental gymnastics, I can see code not being reviewed by people anymore. In courts, things generally have more consequences, and you can’t really roll back decisions that easily.
the cost of making a legal argument can collapse while the cost of reaching an enforceable, legitimate decision may go higher, which will gate the "justice" system even more.
If you got the judge, all the parties, and all the witnesses in a conference room together until the case was resolved, you could probably handle a lawsuit in a few months. But each judge has hundreds of cases pending before them, so that would never work. Instead, you get something like how a GPU works. You do some work on a case, submit the work to the court, then work on something else for a few months while you wait around to get the results back. Then you do some more work and submit it to the court, then go do something else for a few months while you wait to get the results back. A few months of actual work gets spread out over a few years that way.
At the end of the day, litigation is conflict resolution. You don't just need a decision, you need a decision from someone authoritative enough to bully Fortune 500 CEOs into submission to accept the judgment.
You dropped this /s
Creating virtual products get cheaper, so shouldn't it even decrease if everyone vibe codes their app for less than a dollar instead of hiring a dev team for 50k or ordering a white label app or spending 3 dollars to buy an existing app?
I don’t know in the USA but in France, if it’s deemed that you launched a lawsuit knowing very well it wouldn’t succeed, you are susceptible to get a 10k€ fine. Even jail in serious cases.
IME the American legal system is set-up to discourage litigation, though. A common tactic is to bury your opponent in the threat of heavy damages or jail-time to get them to settle for what you were originally after, which courts are perfectly happy to facilitate because it gets a potentially lengthy trial off their dockets. They'll punish (or be biased against) whichever party seems responsible for not accepting a "reasonable" settlement.
Algorithmic abuse of the system to extract payments already exists in the form of the debt collection industry.
That's not how litigation actually works in this country. Unless the plaintiff can actually prove damages, there's no threat of "heavy" damages. The primary economic concern is spending a lot of money on legal fees, which is the primary trigger for getting businesses to settle instead of litigate. It doesn't work so well against people though.
They'll punish (or be biased against) whichever party seems responsible for not accepting a "reasonable" settlement.
That is false and any judge caught doing that would be removed from the bench, immediately. The judge does not exercise any judgement over what a "reasonable" settlement is as they don't and wouldn't know what is reasonable until the facts have been presented...at trial.
Algorithmic abuse of the system to extract payments already exists in the form of the debt collection industry
The debt collection system doesn't use the court system at all. Assuming you are referring to individual debts, not corporate debts, debt collectors have a very low success rate in court since (a) they have to prove the debt is valid, (b) that they now own the debt contract, and (c) they did not violate any laws in the pursuit of collecting on that debt. A and C are actually really hard for a third-party debt collector to prove.