In a recent post (here), I wrote about a lawsuit that had just been filed against Microsoft’s board, alleging that the company’s directors had violated their fiduciary duties by knowingly allowing its AI development efforts to engage in copyright infringement. The case, I said, represented an example of “silent AI” – that is, the seepage of AI-related matters into various insurance coverages that were not consciously intended to provide coverage for certain exposures. The case showed how a matter that would not typically be covered under a D&O policy (copyright infringement) can translate into a potentially covered matter (a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit).

In the latest example of this kind of lawsuit, a plaintiff shareholder has filed a derivative lawsuit against the board of Nvidia, alleging that its directors knowingly permitted its AI models to violate copyright holders’ rights and allowed violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Nvidia, the complaint alleges, has been the target of numerous copyright infringement actions, as well as class actions brought for alleged BIPA violations concerning individual voiceprints. The derivative lawsuit seeks to hold the company’s directors liable for the company’s “potentially massive liability and related costs and reputational damages” that the company faces in the underlying litigation. As discussed below, the new Nvidia derivative lawsuit, which may be found here, represents yet another example of “silent AI” in operation in the D&O context.

Continue Reading More About “Silent AI” and Follow-On D&O Litigation
Evan Bundschuh
Burkhard Fassbach

In the following guest post, Evan Bundschuh and Burkhard Fassbach share and analyze their research into the AI-related Form 10-K disclosures of 26 U.S.-listed public companies, in order to assess the level and significance of public companies’ disclosure statements pertaining to artificial intelligence. Evan is Vice President at GB&A, a retail insurance brokerage in New York, and Burkhard is a D&O lawyer in private practice in Germany. My thanks to Evan and Burkhard for allowing us to publish their article on this site. Here is their article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: Mapping AI Risks: Insights from 2025 10-K Filings

In recent months, securities class action litigation patterns involving AI-related disclosures have emerged and developed, as has been documented on this site (most recently, for example, here). There has of course been a great deal of other kinds of AI-related litigation, including lawsuits involving intellectual property issues, privacy and data-collection concerns, discrimination and bias claims, and a variety of different kinds of tort allegations.

In a shareholder derivative lawsuit recently filed against the board of software firm Adobe, these two lines of AI-related litigation crossed; the plaintiff shareholder alleges that the defendants violated their board duties by knowingly permitting the company to train its artificial intelligence tools using material copyrighted by others and in a way that subjected the company to IP-related litigation. As discussed below, the new lawsuit illustrates how the broader range of AI-related litigation can translate into follow-on D&O claims, representing yet another area of AI-related D&O risk.

Continue Reading AI-Related IP Litigation Triggers Follow-On D&O Lawsuit
Sarah Abrams

Readers may be aware of Anthropic’s recent settlement of its high-profile AI copyright infringement case. The lawsuit and its settlement clearly involve important intellectual property issues. In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, considers whether the lawsuit and its settlement may also point toward D&O liability and insurance issues as well. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing me to publish her article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like submit a guest post. Here is Sarah’s article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: Is Claude the Next Napster?
Sarah Abrams

Workplace utilization of artificial intelligence-enhanced tools, including AI-based Large Language Models, is becoming pervasive. But could employee use of AI tools potentially lead to executive liability? That is the question addressed in this guest post, from Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing me to publish her article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Sarah’s article.

Continue Reading Guest Post: Does Employee Use of AI at Work Create Executive Risk?