Modern technologies are rapidly changing our lives, and with them, the legal sphere. One of the most powerful trends in recent years has been the development of artificial intelligence (hereinafter referred to as AI). Programs such as ChatGPT from OpenAI or Grok from xAI have become everyday assistants for businesses, students, marketers, and even lawyers. But what if someone wants to use AI responses or conclusions in a court case? Is such information considered evidence that can be referenced in court? And what is the position of the Supreme Court of Ukraine on this issue?
What is the position of judicial practice in Ukraine?
In July 2025, the Commercial Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court considered case No. 925/496/24, where one of the issues concerned the use of AI responses as evidence in the case. The court ruled that:
- artificial intelligence responses cannot be considered reliable evidence, as they do not meet the criteria of relevance, admissibility, and reliability of evidence established by Chapter 5 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – CPC),
- AI can be an auxiliary tool, but it cannot replace professional analysis and human decision-making by a judge.
This decision is directly confirmed in the Supreme Court ruling of July 8, 2025, and a number of comments. Another aspect is that even if someone tries to include quotes or interpretations obtained from AI systems (e.g., ChatGPT) in the justification of their positions in procedural documents, this does not mean that they are automatically acceptable evidence. They can be used as supporting material, but not as an independent source of truth or legal conclusion.
How does this comply with the rules of procedural law?
To understand why AI is not currently recognized as a source of evidence in courts, it is necessary to recall the basic principles of evidence:
The Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine establishes the following requirements for evidence:
- Relevance – evidence must be legally significant in a particular case;
- Admissibility – evidence must be obtained legally and must not violate the rights of the parties;
- Reliability – the court must have a real opportunity to assess the content of the evidence and verify it.
Since the AI algorithm is not a subject of legal relations, its responses do not have legal responsibility confirmed by legislation or practice, do not always contain verified factual data, and may be based on internal models and assessments – they do not meet the classic requirements for evidence.
What is the place of AI in legal practice today?
A supporting tool – today, courts and lawyers recognize that AI can be used for:
- analyzing large volumes of legal norms and precedents;
- preparing draft documents;
- structuring arguments;
- quickly searching for relevant legal information.
For example, a Thomson Reuters report shows that up to 72% of lawyers use AI to reduce routine tasks, saving them up to 4 hours per week. However, none of these tasks make AI responses equivalent to evidence or legal conclusions in themselves.
No AI technology assumes the ethical, moral, and procedural responsibility for legal conclusions that a judge or lawyer bears. This is directly confirmed by the positions of practitioners and comments by the head of the High Council of Justice regarding the limits of AI use.
Judicial practice in Ukraine is consistent: AI is not evidence in court. Decisions on the merits of a case cannot be based solely on the conclusions of algorithms or the responses of generative systems, whether ChatGPT, Grok, or others.
AI can be a useful and effective resource in the work of a lawyer—for analysis, organization of information, or preparation of documents. But the final word always rests with human legal analysis, verified evidence, and judicial assessment.
If you plan to use modern technologies in preparing your case or want to form a legally sound position in court, the team at Kopiright Law Firm is ready to help.
We will prepare a legal strategy that complies with the requirements of the law, takes into account judicial practice, and ensures the most effective protection of your rights and interests. Contact us for a consultation and make sure that modern technologies work for you, not against you.
artificial intelligence / copyright / court / evidence / intellectual property
