This database tracks legal decisions in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content – typically fake citations, but also other types of AI-generated arguments. . . . While seeking to be exhaustive (972 cases identified so far), it is
At the recent ACI Drug and Medical Device annual conference, Bexis created something of a stir by broaching the subject of litigation discovery into the “prompts” that are typically used to create output from generative artificial intelligence. A fair number of the attendees apparently had not considered that possibility. Well, it’s already being done, and
Not quite three years ago, we co-authored a chapter in a Digital Health guide put out by International Comparative Legal Guides. It bore the pithy title “Predicting Risk and Examining the Intersection of Traditional Principles of Product Liability Laws with Digital Health.” We continue to tinker with the principles of product liability law
Since it was published in 2011, the third edition of the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual for Scientific Evidence has been the go-to guide for federal judges seeking to sort out scientific testimony, and a major source of non-precedential authority for both sides when arguing motions under Fed. R. Evid. 702. 2011, however, was fifteen
This “just desserts” story caught our eyes earlier this year – a hot-shot expert witness, on artificial intelligence, no less, got caught with his own hand in the AI cookie jar. As a result, his credibility was destroyed, and his testimony was excluded. The litigation leading to Kohls v. Ellison, 2025 WL 66514 (D.
Today’s guest post is by Reed Smith‘s Jamie Lanphear. Like Bexis, she follows tech issues as they apply to product liability litigation. In this post she discusses a pro-plaintiff piece of legislation recently introduced in Congress that would overturn the current majority rule that electronic data is not considered a “product” for purposes
Almost ten years ago Bexis argued that the Federal Rules were technologically out-of-date and proposed a number of topics that would benefit from rules-based codification. One of those topics involved machine learning – specifically use of predictive coding in ediscovery.
That didn’t go anywhere, but on May 2, 2025, the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules proposed language for a new rule – Fed. R. Evid. 707 – addressed to the impact of artificial-intelligence-generated evidence in the courtroom. Here’s the proposed language:
Rule 707. Machine-Generated Evidence
When machine-generated evidence is offered without an expert witness and would be subject to Rule 702 if testified to by a witness, the court may admit the evidence only it if satisfies the requirements of Rule 702 (a)-(d). This rule does not apply to the output of basic scientific instruments.
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, Agenda Book, at Appendix B, page 75 of 486 (June 10, 2025). This proposal is the product of three years of research and investigation. Id.Continue Reading Federal Judicial Conference Evidence Rules Committee Releases Possible New Rule Pertaining to Artificial Intelligence
Today’s guest post comes from our Reed Smith colleague Jamie Lanphear on a topic near and dear to the Blog’s heart: The new EU Product Liability Directive. As always, our guest posters deserve 100% of the credit, and any blame, for their posts. But, also as usual, our guest posters deliver the goods, so we
December is both a festive and frantic month. Along with all the caroling, wassailing, and gift-buying, the last month of the year invariably sees us squeezing in continuing legal education (CLE) credits, reconnecting with old friends at the ACI drug and device conference in New York City, and wrapping up the Fall/Winter semester class we
Some of us are participating in beta testing of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) for legal applications in the law firm environment. So far the verdict is – associates can breathe easy, at least for now. Nothing we’ve seen is capable of replicating legal research even at a first-year level of quality.
But that doesn’t mean that AI won’t impact prescription medical product liability litigation. In particular, we’re not surprised to learn that AI is being used in the context of FDA-required adverse event reporting, purported problems with which have become one of the other side’s go-to preemption dodges. Just a few examples from a simple Google search:Continue Reading Musing about Discovery and Artificial Intelligence