A brief history
Section 230 of the US Communications Act of 1934, enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, is fundamental to the commercial development of the internet over the past 30 years. It has been called “the 26 words that made the Internet” – referring specifically to
Thursday 26 March 2026. 5 pm Brisbane time, 6 pm Sydney / Melbourne time.
Link to Register (no cost): Tickets.
Dr Owen Bradfield is presenting When Algorithms Write the Record – AI Scribes and the legal Obligations of doctors for the Australian Centre for Health Law Research (QUT Brisbane or online access).
Precis:
The DISCO platform brings together our Ediscovery, Cecilia AI, timelines, and deposition management tools at one all-in, competitive price.
If worrying about our soon-to-be AI overlords wasn’t enough, two rulings recently dropped that illustrate the risk that an AI platform’s terms of use and privacy policy limitations may pose to confidential information. On February 17, 2026, in U.S. v. Heppner, Judge Jed Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that AI-generated documents were not entitled to either attorney/client or attorney work product protection, citing waiver of confidentiality due to the defendant’s consent to Anthropic’s privacy policy. And on January 5, 2026, in a case that has not received the same notoriety, Trinidad v. OpenAI, Inc., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1129, 2026 WL 21791, Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed that case because he found that the plaintiff forfeited her trade secrets claim under OpenAI’s terms of use.
These cases not only serve as a cautionary tale for trade secret owners but a reminder of the impact that terms of service–the fine print many of us scroll through and consent to when securing access to a website or online tool–may have in future trade secret disputes. This begs the following question: should courts reconsider applying those terms of service and privacy policies so broadly in situations of confidentiality? Read on to find out . . .
We are proud to announce that Amanda Tynan has been selected as a recipient of the Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing, widely regarded as the most prestigious honor in legal writing.
Law schools across the country compete for this distinction. Each school may submit only one nominee, and from that national pool the award
Supporting access to justice
Supporting access to justice is core to Clio’s mission, which is why we see recent consumer-facing AI developments as an important and encouraging step forward.
Research from the American Bar Foundation, the World Justice Project, and the Legal Services Corporation consistently show that more than 70% of people with legal problems
GenAI will disrupt client-firm relationships and billing models. It’s not just me saying it, 657 in-house legal professionals are saying it too.
The post GenAI Will Disrupt Client-Firm Relationships and Billing Models: Artificial Intelligence Trends appeared first on eDiscovery Today by Doug Austin.
To keep you informed of recent activities, below are several of the most significant federal events that have influenced the Consumer Financial Services industry over the past week.
Federal Activities:
On February 18, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced the conclusion of a major public‑private initiative, launched under President Donald
Editor’s Note: As part of the Winter 2026 eDiscovery Pricing Survey series, conducted by ComplexDiscovery OÜ in partnership with the EDRM (Electronic Discovery Reference Model), this post explores the pricing of document review services — from technology-assisted review and predictive coding to managed review by attorneys, both onsite and remote.
Document review is where the
AI copyright memorization now drives real product risk, not academic debate. A new paper, Extracting books from production language models, reports a method for pulling long blocks of in-copyright book text from several production-grade language models.
Model output matters because it sits in front of customers. If a model reproduces protected text, plaintiffs can frame