The AI Era Enters the Courtroom
This article was originally published on Funder in June 2026.
In the past, video carried evidentiary weight. A recording, photograph, signed document, or video call gave the court a factual basis on which to rely. Parties could argue over interpretation, circumstances, or what was said before and after, but the documentation itself was generally perceived as relatively stable.
Artificial intelligence is changing the rules of the game. A CEO’s voice can be replicated. A board meeting can appear real even if it never took place. A document can be written in professional language, with precise wording and convincing details, and still be entirely fabricated.
The immediate danger is forgery. The deeper danger is doubt. If every recording can be fake, every video can be edited, and every document can be synthetically generated, the legal discussion is no longer only about what happened. It begins with a more basic question: how do we know that what is being presented to us actually occurred?
For Israeli companies operating in the United States, this is not a futuristic question. Israeli companies manage cross-border relationships, raise capital from investors, work with customers and suppliers remotely, sign digital documents, hold video calls, and make sensitive decisions through online channels. Each of these points of contact may become the focus of a future dispute.
The scenarios no longer sound imaginary. A fake video call can lead to a transfer of funds. A synthetic recording can attribute a statement to an executive that was never made. A fabricated correspondence can look like a binding business approval. Even if it is eventually proven that the evidence is fake, getting there can cost significant money, time, and trust.
The American legal system is beginning to confront these questions, but the tools are still developing. For years, the rules of evidence relied on a world in which authenticating a document, photograph, or recording was a relatively defined challenge. In the age of AI, bringing the file itself is not always enough. It is necessary to show where it came from, who created it, how it was preserved, what metadata it contains, who handled it, and when.
Lawyers, too, have already received a painful reminder that this technology is not merely a work tool. Cases in which fake legal authorities generated by AI were submitted to courts have shown how easily false information can appear clean, professional, and convincing. A lie no longer necessarily arrives with obvious mistakes. Sometimes it arrives in polished legal language.
As a result, preparation must extend beyond the cybersecurity department. It reaches legal counsel, management, finance departments, human resources, and anyone responsible for approving sensitive actions. Companies will need to preserve metadata in an orderly manner, document approval processes, verify instructions through an additional channel, train employees to identify impersonation, and ensure that every piece of digital evidence is preserved in a way that can be defended in the future.
The more sophisticated the technology becomes, the greater the value of organizational credibility. A court that struggles to determine the authenticity of a particular file may look more broadly: how the company operates, whether it has procedures, whether it acts consistently, whether it preserves information, and whether its decisions are documented in real time.
In an era in which a voice, image, and document can be forged, trust will not rest only on the file. It will rest on the party presenting it, on the way it was preserved, and on whether the company behind it can prove that it operates in an orderly and reliable manner.
