About this service

A dispute connected with artificial intelligence — damage caused by a system, disagreement over a model's outputs, improper use of data or breach of contractual obligations — is resolved in Georgia under the ordinary rules of civil procedure: there is no separate procedural statute for this field. The substance of such a case, however, is technical, and success depends largely on how the parties handle the two decisive instruments: electronic evidence and court expertise. This service is built precisely on those instruments. We assist parties to disputes in the field of artificial intelligence — from framing the claim and systematising the evidence, through formulating the questions for the expert, to assessing the expert's conclusions.

Electronic evidence — where every such case begins

Under Article 134 of the Civil Procedure Code, written evidence comprises acts, documents, and business or personal letters containing information about circumstances relevant to the case. In artificial-intelligence disputes this category is broad: system logs, records of requests and responses, archives of model outputs, correspondence conducted by e-mail — all of it may contain information about circumstances relevant to the case. The law adds an important aid: an electronic document as defined by legislation, as well as a document confirmed by electronic signature or a certified document, has evidentiary force. This means that material recorded digitally does not lose its right to be produced in court merely by being intangible. Written evidence is submitted to the court by the parties; and where a party was unable to obtain the evidence from the person who holds it, that party may apply to the court for its production. The party seeking production must substantiate which circumstance relevant to the case can be established by that evidence, and what grounds its assumption that the evidence is in the hands of the person indicated. A refusal to order production must be reasoned by the court in a ruling.

The appointment of expertise — when it is ordered and on whose initiative

Article 162 of the Civil Procedure Code sets the rule: where a judge lacks special knowledge on a question connected with the examination of a case, the court may, on its own initiative, appoint expertise at any stage of the proceedings — but only where the interpretation of that question is essential for the decision of the case and a ruling is impossible without it. Assessing the behaviour of an artificial-intelligence system is exactly such a question: a judge as a rule has no technical knowledge of a model's architecture, training data or output defects, and the fate of the case often hinges on the expertise. In such a case the court issues a reasoned ruling. The parties also have a route of their own: they may independently arrange for expertise to be conducted, in which case the expert's conclusion must be submitted to the court at the stage of filing or preparing the case. When filing the claim, a party is entitled to request a time limit for producing the conclusion. Producing a conclusion at the main hearing is possible only exceptionally — where the need for it could not have been known at the preparation stage for objective reasons, or where the party for an excusable reason failed to secure it. One further rule matters: failure to produce a conclusion cannot serve as a ground for adjourning the case — the court may only set the party a deadline.

Several experts and diverging opinions

Technical cases often exceed the capacity of a single expert: the same system may require both a software specialist and a data analyst. Article 164 of the Code takes this into account: where several experts are appointed, they have the right to confer with one another. If the experts reach a common opinion, all of them sign a single conclusion; the expert who disagrees with the others draws up a separate conclusion. In practical terms this means that a party benefits from anticipating possible disagreement within a joint conclusion: the conclusion of an expert holding a separate opinion may be assessed in the case and used as an additional argument at the hearing.

The form and content of the expert's conclusion

Article 170 provides that the expert gives the conclusion in writing. The court has the right to propose that the expert give an oral explanation of the conclusion — the oral explanation is entered into the hearing record, read back to the expert and signed. The substantive requirements for the conclusion are equally clear: it must contain a written description of the examination conducted, the conclusions reached and reasoned answers to the questions posed by the court. In artificial-intelligence cases this is precisely where the lever of the dispute lies: the precision of the questions posed by the court determines how far the conclusion answers what actually matters for deciding the case. That is why the formulation of the questions — how the system behaved under specific parameters, whether the result was foreseeable and what caused the defect — must be done with the participation of a specialist.

Assessment of the conclusion — why it is not the final truth

Article 172 contains an important guarantee: the expert's conclusion is not binding on the court. The court approaches the conclusion under the general rules for evaluating evidence, but its rejection of a conclusion must be reasoned in the decision delivered on the case or in a ruling. This works both ways: a party may challenge an expert's conclusion with other evidence, and may request an oral explanation or the conduct of a contradictory examination; while a court that does not share the conclusion is obliged to say so openly and with reasons. Treating the expertise as the end of the case is therefore never worthwhile — the assessment of the conclusion is itself an arena of the courtroom struggle.

How we can help

Our team handles artificial-intelligence disputes across the full cycle: we assess the disputed situation and determine which factual circumstances need to be established; we help you fix and produce electronic evidence correctly, including where an application to the court is needed to obtain it from the other side; we frame the questions for the expertise so that the answers genuinely confirm or demolish your position; and we evaluate the conclusions produced by the opponent for completeness and reliability. Contact us and receive a concrete plan for turning a technical advantage into a courtroom argument.

AI Litigation

AI-Related Disputes

Related Categories

AI Litigation

AI-Related Disputes

Related Categories