INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, WilmerHale
Looking ahead to new challenges Two key new global challenges that pose significant litigation risk are the regulation of crypto-assets and environmental regulation. These are politically polaris- ing issues, as the US presidential election highlighted. Along with a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape, an increasing number of disputes relating to crypto- assets and blockchain technologies are giving rise to complex legal challenges posed by the novel nature of the assets themselves. Climate change-related litiga- tion also poses novel legal issues, including concern- ing questions of justiciability and the role of human rights law and remedies in climate change litigation. A continued, exponential rise in litigation in both of these areas is expected. Cybersecurity and data disputes also continue to increase, as cyber-attacks pose an increasing threat to businesses across the globe that hold sensitive commercial information. The shift to digital work- ing and rapid advances in the use of AI have further increased this threat. According to a recent report published by QBE, the number of cyber-attacks taking place each year has more than doubled since 2020. This has generated a wave of cybersecurity-related litigation, which is expected to continue into 2026.
of generative AI. This is having obvious and profound effects on the litigation landscape. For legal practition- ers navigating complex document-heavy disclosure processes, AI and, in particular, generative AI (GenAI), offers a potentially transformative and cost-effective solution. There is now a growing consensus among legal practitioners that they are likely to use AI and GenAI for other purposes, including assisting with drafting and predictive case analytics. The increased use of AI in litigation is, in turn, gener- ating its own litigation. In a recent case in the English Court, Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383, the Court found that a witness statement was submitted that had been prepared using GenAI and cited non-existent case law and authorities. The Court gave a clear message: AI-generated content cannot be accepted at face value, and lawyers using an AI assistant for research should independently verify the AI’s findings.
10 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook