{"id": "lr-001", "question": "Can an employer enforce a non-compete agreement against a remote employee who has never physically worked in the state specified by the governing law clause?", "jurisdiction": "California", "practice_area": "employment_law", "valid_citations": [{"case_name": "Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP", "citation": "44 Cal.4th 937", "year": 2008, "relevance": "California Business and Professions Code section 16600 voids non-compete agreements except in narrow statutory exceptions"}, {"case_name": "Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic Inc.", "citation": "29 Cal.4th 697", "year": 2002, "relevance": "California courts will not enforce out-of-state non-competes against California residents"}, {"case_name": "Application Group Inc. v. Hunter Group Inc.", "citation": "61 Cal.App.4th 881", "year": 1998, "relevance": "California's interest in employee mobility overrides choice-of-law provisions selecting jurisdictions that enforce non-competes"}], "expected_analysis": "California courts will refuse to enforce the non-compete regardless of the governing law clause, as Section 16600 reflects a fundamental public policy of employee mobility. The employer would need to pursue the claim in a jurisdiction that both enforces non-competes and has a sufficient nexus to the employment relationship."}
{"id": "lr-002", "question": "What is the standard for piercing the corporate veil in a single-member LLC when the member commingled personal and business funds?", "jurisdiction": "Delaware", "practice_area": "corporate_law", "valid_citations": [{"case_name": "Manichaean Capital LLC v. Exela Technologies Inc.", "citation": "251 A.3d 694", "year": 2021, "relevance": "Delaware courts apply alter ego doctrine requiring showing of fraud or injustice beyond mere domination"}, {"case_name": "NetJets Aviation Inc. v. LHC Communications LLC", "citation": "537 F.3d 168", "year": 2008, "relevance": "Commingling of funds is a significant factor but must be combined with misuse of the corporate form to promote fraud or injustice"}], "expected_analysis": "In Delaware, commingling funds alone is insufficient to pierce the veil. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the member used the LLC as a mere instrumentality and that adherence to the separate entity would sanction fraud or promote injustice. The analysis weighs totality of factors including undercapitalization, failure to observe formalities, and commingling."}
{"id": "lr-003", "question": "Under what circumstances can a court compel production of internal AI model training data in patent litigation involving machine learning systems?", "jurisdiction": "Federal - Northern District of California", "practice_area": "intellectual_property", "valid_citations": [{"case_name": "In re Google LLC", "citation": "No. 2023-123 (Fed. Cir. 2024)", "year": 2024, "relevance": "Training data may be discoverable when it is relevant to understanding the accused system's functionality, subject to proportionality analysis"}, {"case_name": "FTC v. Meta Platforms Inc.", "citation": "No. 5:20-cv-03590", "year": 2023, "relevance": "Courts balance trade secret protections against discovery needs through protective orders and staged disclosure"}], "expected_analysis": "Courts apply the standard proportionality analysis under FRCP 26(b)(1), weighing relevance and the parties' needs against burden, including trade secret concerns. Training data is generally discoverable if it goes to the heart of how an accused AI system operates, but courts routinely enter protective orders and may require staged disclosure starting with metadata before raw training data."}
{"id": "lr-004", "question": "What liability does a hospital face for adverse outcomes when an AI clinical decision support system provides an incorrect recommendation that a physician follows?", "jurisdiction": "Texas", "practice_area": "medical_malpractice", "valid_citations": [{"case_name": "Shadoan v. World Savings and Loan", "citation": "219 Cal.App.3d 97", "year": 1990, "relevance": "Analogous liability framework for reliance on automated systems in professional settings"}, {"case_name": "T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.", "citation": "4 Cal. 5th 145", "year": 2017, "relevance": "Learned intermediary doctrine may shield technology vendors when physicians exercise independent judgment"}], "expected_analysis": "Hospital liability turns on whether the AI system was used as a decision support tool with physician oversight or effectively replaced physician judgment. Under the learned intermediary doctrine, the physician's independent assessment creates a break in the causal chain. However, if institutional policies mandated following AI recommendations or the system was presented as authoritative, the hospital may face direct liability under corporate negligence theory."}
{"id": "lr-005", "question": "Can a landlord be held liable under the Fair Housing Act for using an AI-driven tenant screening tool that produces disparate impact on protected classes?", "jurisdiction": "Federal", "practice_area": "housing_law", "valid_citations": [{"case_name": "Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project", "citation": "576 U.S. 519", "year": 2015, "relevance": "Supreme Court recognized disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act"}, {"case_name": "Connecticut Fair Housing Center v. CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions", "citation": "369 F.Supp.3d 362", "year": 2019, "relevance": "Tenant screening companies can be liable under FHA for discriminatory algorithms"}], "expected_analysis": "Yes, under Texas Dept. of Housing v. Inclusive Communities, disparate impact claims are cognizable under the FHA. A landlord using an AI screening tool that disproportionately rejects tenants of a protected class bears the burden of showing the practice serves a substantial legitimate interest that cannot be achieved through less discriminatory means. The landlord cannot delegate fair housing obligations to a technology vendor."}
{"id": "lr-006", "question": "What are the privilege implications when a corporation uses a generative AI tool to draft communications with outside counsel?", "jurisdiction": "New York", "practice_area": "professional_responsibility", "valid_citations": [{"case_name": "Upjohn Co. v. United States", "citation": "449 U.S. 383", "year": 1981, "relevance": "Establishes scope of attorney-client privilege for corporate communications seeking legal advice"}, {"case_name": "In re Copper Market Antitrust Litigation", "citation": "200 F.R.D. 213", "year": 2001, "relevance": "Privilege can be waived through disclosure to third parties, raising questions about AI intermediaries"}], "expected_analysis": "Using AI to draft privileged communications creates waiver risks if the AI provider's terms of service permit retention or use of inputs for model training. The communication must still be for the purpose of seeking legal advice and kept confidential. Organizations should ensure AI tools used for privileged communications operate under terms that preserve confidentiality and consider whether the AI vendor is a necessary agent for privilege purposes."}
{"id": "lr-007", "question": "Does an employee's use of a company laptop for personal activities during non-work hours constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment when the employer turns the laptop over to law enforcement?", "jurisdiction": "Federal - Ninth Circuit", "practice_area": "criminal_law", "valid_citations": [{"case_name": "United States v. Ziegler", "citation": "474 F.3d 1184", "year": 2007, "relevance": "Employee had reasonable expectation of privacy in office computer despite employer ownership, but employer search as private party did not trigger Fourth Amendment"}, {"case_name": "City of Ontario v. Quon", "citation": "560 U.S. 746", "year": 2010, "relevance": "Employer policies regarding monitoring affect reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic communications"}], "expected_analysis": "The analysis hinges on whether the employer acted as a government agent when it searched and turned over the laptop. If the employer acted independently, the private-search doctrine applies and the Fourth Amendment is not triggered. However, if law enforcement directed or encouraged the search, it becomes a government search requiring probable cause. The employee's expectation of privacy depends on the employer's monitoring policies and whether personal use was permitted or prohibited."}
{"id": "lr-008", "question": "What fiduciary duties does a corporate board owe when evaluating an unsolicited acquisition offer that includes an AI-powered due diligence process?", "jurisdiction": "Delaware", "practice_area": "mergers_and_acquisitions", "valid_citations": [{"case_name": "Revlon Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings", "citation": "506 A.2d 173", "year": 1986, "relevance": "Once a sale of the company becomes inevitable, the board's duty shifts to maximizing shareholder value"}, {"case_name": "Smith v. Van Gorkom", "citation": "488 A.2d 858", "year": 1985, "relevance": "Directors must make informed decisions and cannot rely on inadequate information when approving major transactions"}, {"case_name": "In re Trulia Inc. Stockholder Litigation", "citation": "129 A.3d 884", "year": 2016, "relevance": "Courts scrutinize whether boards conducted adequate market checks before approving transactions"}], "expected_analysis": "The board must fulfill its duty of care by understanding and critically evaluating the AI-driven due diligence findings rather than deferring blindly to algorithmic outputs. Under Van Gorkom, directors cannot claim reliance on expert analysis without understanding the methodology. The board should engage independent advisors to validate AI-generated valuations and ensure the process satisfies Revlon duties if the company is effectively for sale."}
{"id": "lr-009", "question": "Under ERISA, can an employer be held liable for losses in a retirement plan that used an AI-driven investment algorithm that underperformed due to model drift?", "jurisdiction": "Federal", "practice_area": "benefits_law", "valid_citations": [{"case_name": "Tibble v. Edison International", "citation": "575 U.S. 523", "year": 2015, "relevance": "ERISA fiduciary duty includes ongoing obligation to monitor investments, not just initial selection"}, {"case_name": "Hughes v. Northwestern University", "citation": "595 U.S. 170", "year": 2022, "relevance": "Plan fiduciaries have duty to monitor and remove imprudent investment options regardless of participant choice"}], "expected_analysis": "Under Tibble's ongoing monitoring duty, an employer fiduciary must regularly evaluate the AI algorithm's performance and methodology, not merely its initial selection. If model drift caused underperformance and the fiduciary failed to detect or act on degrading performance, liability is likely under the prudent expert standard. The fiduciary must demonstrate it had processes in place to evaluate algorithmic investment strategies, including understanding of model risks."}
{"id": "lr-010", "question": "What are the legal implications under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act when an AI agent autonomously accesses a website in violation of that site's Terms of Service?", "jurisdiction": "Federal - D.C. Circuit", "practice_area": "technology_law", "valid_citations": [{"case_name": "Van Buren v. United States", "citation": "593 U.S. 374", "year": 2021, "relevance": "Supreme Court narrowed CFAA's 'exceeds authorized access' to a gates-up-or-down inquiry, limiting applicability to ToS violations"}, {"case_name": "hiQ Labs Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.", "citation": "938 F.3d 985", "year": 2022, "relevance": "Scraping publicly available data does not constitute unauthorized access under CFAA even when it violates ToS"}], "expected_analysis": "After Van Buren narrowed the CFAA's scope, mere ToS violations likely do not constitute 'unauthorized access' or 'exceeding authorized access' under the statute. The key question is whether the AI agent bypassed technical access barriers. For publicly accessible websites, hiQ Labs suggests that automated access does not violate the CFAA. However, the deployer of the AI agent may face contractual liability for ToS breach and potential tortious interference claims."}
