America’s AI Rules Are Being Written in Courtrooms | American Enterprise Institute
America’s AI Rules Are Being Written in Courtrooms | American Enterprise Institute
https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/americas-ai-rules-are-being-written-in-courtrooms/
Publish Date: 2026-05-05 05:32:00
Source Domain: www.aei.org
The debate over regulating artificial intelligence usually focuses on two competing visions. In Europe, lawmakers are writing detailed rules that govern how AI can be developed and used. In the United States, policymakers are taking a lighter touch, allowing companies, investors and consumers to shape the technology’s future.
But a new analysis from students at the University of Florida identifies a third force quietly shaping the future of AI in America: the courts.
As AI spreads faster than any previous technology, judges and juries are being asked to resolve disputes. In doing so, they are not simply applying existing laws—they are, case by case, defining what responsible AI use looks like. The result is a distinctly American form of AI governance: one built through the give and take of negotiations and legal processes rather than legislation.
So far, courts have mostly resisted treating AI as something fundamentally new. Instead, they have folded AI into existing legal doctrines, focusing on the humans and institutions behind the technology.
Consider employment discrimination. In EEOC v. iTutorGroup, an AI-driven hiring system screened out older applicants. The case ended in a settlement, but its message was clear: Employers remain responsible. The technology does not shift accountability.
This pattern repeats across much of AI litigation. Courts are less concerned with the machines than with whether their use allows people to avoid responsibility.
But that approach becomes harder to sustain as cases move into less familiar terrain. In defamation disputes, for example, courts are beginning to grapple with what it means for an AI system to “say” something false. In Walters v. OpenAI, a Georgia court rejected a claim based on erroneous chatbot output, emphasizing context, disclaimers, and the lack of actual malice. The ruling suggests users should exercise caution when using AI that hallucinates.
Other cases are pushing even…
