Sorry Attorney General, my AI ate the contract
- Gibson Alexander
- 7 days ago
- 3 min read
MONDAY 15 JUNE 2026 - BOSTON - Two articles ago, we examined allegations of illegal ticket pricing at World Cup 2026. Last week, we asked whether FIFA's discounted tickets were a lifeline or a brand betrayal. This week, we turn from FIFA's ticket marketplace to a commercial negotiation closer to home, and highlight the risks of AI being used in contract drafting without adequate legal oversight.
Even if FIFA used AI in negotiations of its contracts with ticket agents, it almost certainly contracted specialist lawyers to oversee the process.
Someone is currently using AI in contract negotiations with me. That party shall remain anonymous — this article is not about apportioning blame, but about highlighting risks and sharing an experience that others may find useful. If the circumstances sound familiar, take it in that spirit.
Because of an imminent deadline for my client to confer significant benefit on the other party, we conducted swift negotiations and agreed heads of terms in writing under English law. My client wanted assurance of the amount and duration of its rewards before taking action of significant value to the other party:
"20% on revenue received"
"All renewals indefinitely"
Once the heads of terms were clear, my client acted before the deadline.
Later, while finalising the full contract, the other party proposed alternative language that adjusted what had been agreed in plain English between native speakers of British English. The new language included: bounded tail, step-down, and sunset.
It appeared the other party was attempting to reduce both the amount and duration of my client's rewards. We persisted politely in good faith to clarify their intentions. When the adjustments were confirmed, we were compelled to highlight the contradictions with earlier communications in which the heads of terms had already been agreed.
Fortunately, we found a way through. We shall say no more on that, save to offer one observation.
AI has a role in contract negotiations...
It can improve communications and flag risks. But any output must be reviewed by individuals with the relevant professional qualifications and experience before it reaches the other party.
Our experience is not isolated. The risks of unchecked AI in legal drafting have already attracted judicial attention. In May, a top-20 UK law firm was admonished by a High Court judge after a junior solicitor used AI to draft misleading letters in an insolvency application — the AI generated fictitious statutory wording and incorrect legal rules. A leading Wall Street firm suffered the wrath of a federal judge in a US bankruptcy case in similar circumstances.
Such practices are unlikely to be confined to insolvency work, though the risks are heightened in large firms handling high volumes of matters.
My client has consented to this article being published on the basis that the other party remains anonymous, and was strongly in favour of sharing the experience. The risk of unchecked AI-generated contractual language is not a minor inconvenience. It costs significant legal time to rein in hallucinations and misunderstood terms — and if left unchecked, they can quietly erode rights clearly agreed in plain English.
From FIFA's ticket marketplace to a negotiation closer to home, the lesson is the same: read your contracts, and make sure a qualified human has read them too.
If you have encountered similar issues, we would be glad to hear from you. The conversation is worth having — before the contract is signed. Contact Gibson Alexander.
Comments