The digitization of business has occurred much faster than the transformation of approaches to presenting evidence in court. Today, most communications, agreements, and even the creation of intellectual property take place online—in messaging apps, CRM systems, task managers, and cloud services. At the same time, the judicial system continues to apply the basic criteria for evaluating evidence: relevance, admissibility, reliability, and sufficiency.
It is precisely at this intersection that a key problem arises: not every digital tool or file is automatically recognized as evidence. Moreover, the same information in different forms may have different legal weight. Judicial practice, particularly the positions of the Supreme Court, is gradually shaping an approach to how exactly electronic evidence should be handled, and where the line lies between “information” and full-fledged evidence.
ChatGPT: A Convenient Tool, but Not Evidence
The use of artificial intelligence (hereinafter “AI”) occupies a special place in modern disputes. The popularity of ChatGPT has led to attempts to use its responses as confirmation of certain facts or legal positions. However, judicial practice has already taken a fairly clear stance on this issue.
AI-generated responses are not admissible as evidence in court. This is because such systems are not sources of factual information. They generate text based on statistical models, do not disclose specific sources, and do not guarantee the accuracy of the information provided. From a procedural standpoint, this means that the information cannot be verified, which directly contradicts the requirements for evidence.
In practice, ChatGPT can be used as a tool to assist in drafting documents, analyzing information, or developing arguments, but not as evidence in its own right. Even if its response appears convincing or logically sound, this does not give it legal weight in court proceedings.
“Digital Traces”: When Data Serves as Evidence
Unlike AI, another category of electronic data—digital traces—is increasingly being used in judicial practice. These include messaging app chats, emails, records in project management systems (such as Jira), document revision histories, server logs, and other technical data.
The value of such evidence lies in the fact that it captures users’ actual actions and the processes that took place in the digital environment. For example, in disputes between a client and a contractor in the IT sector, it is precisely the records in Jira that can confirm which tasks were assigned, who performed them, what changes were made, and when this occurred. This allows one to establish not only the fact of interaction between the parties but also its content and scope.
Similarly, correspondence via instant messaging or email can confirm agreements, changes to the terms of cooperation, or the approval of certain decisions. In such cases, digital data serves not as a supporting element but as full-fledged evidence capable of influencing the outcome of a case.
The Problem with Screenshots: Why They Are Not Enough
Despite common practice, screenshots remain one of the weakest forms of electronic evidence if they are not supported by other data. The main problem is that an image alone does not answer key questions: whether it is genuine, whether it has been altered, and whether it corresponds to the original source.
When evaluating such evidence, the court always considers the possibility of verifying it. If the opposing party disputes the authenticity of the screenshot, additional confirmation must be provided: access to the original correspondence, technical data, message history, or other sources that confirm its authenticity.
Otherwise, even a large number of screenshots does not guarantee a favorable outcome. Without proper verification, they may be deemed insufficient or failing to meet the requirements for admissibility of evidence.
The Importance of Metadata and Primary Sources
A key element of working with electronic evidence is the preservation of primary information and metadata. It is these that allow us to determine when and by whom the information was created or modified, as well as whether it has been tampered with.
Such data includes information about the file’s creation date and time, the author of the changes, IP addresses, edit history, and other technical characteristics. In many cases, these parameters are crucial for confirming the authenticity of the evidence.
In complex disputes, it may be necessary to further authenticate electronic evidence, particularly by involving a notary or conducting an expert examination. This ensures their preservation and enhances the court’s confidence in the evidence.
Systematic Approach as the Key to Success
Modern judicial practice demonstrates that the most persuasive evidence is not isolated information, but a body of evidence that mutually corroborates one another. Correspondence, records in management systems, emails, and technical data should form a single, coherent picture of events.
This approach minimizes the risk of the opposing party challenging the evidence and enhances its probative value. In such cases, the court evaluates not isolated pieces of information but a cohesive system that supports the party’s position.
Electronic evidence has already become an integral part of legal proceedings, but its effectiveness directly depends on the correct approach to its collection and documentation. The difference between “mere data” and evidence lies not in the information itself, but in the ability to prove its authenticity and origin.
AI, particularly ChatGPT, remains a supporting tool and does not constitute independent evidence. However, digital traces—such as correspondence, Jira data, metadata, and so on—can serve as key arguments in a dispute if they are properly documented and verified.
That is why businesses should develop an approach to working with digital data in advance, not only for convenience but also to account for potential legal risks.
If disputes arise in your business involving electronic evidence, or if you need to assess its admissibility and properly prepare it for court, it is advisable to seek professional legal support. We possess the necessary experience and expertise, which allows us not only to avoid common mistakes but also to significantly increase the chances of a successful outcome in the case.
artificial intelligence / ChatGPT / copyright / intellectual property / Jira
