Artificial Intelligence law at Niue
1. Waymo vs. Uber (2017–2018) – Trade Secrets and Autonomous Vehicles
Jurisdiction: U.S. (California)
Issue: Alleged theft of trade secrets related to self-driving car technology.
Facts:
Waymo, a subsidiary of Alphabet (Google), developed proprietary LiDAR and autonomous vehicle technology.
Anthony Levandowski, a former Waymo engineer, left to start his own company, which was later acquired by Uber.
Waymo alleged that Levandowski took thousands of confidential files related to Waymo’s autonomous vehicle technology.
Legal Questions:
Does copying data for use in a new company constitute theft of trade secrets?
How does liability extend when AI technology is involved in commercial innovation?
Outcome:
Uber settled, agreeing to give Waymo a 0.34% equity stake (~$245 million) and promised not to use Waymo’s proprietary information.
Highlighted how AI innovations can lead to high-stakes intellectual property disputes.
2. Loomis v. Wisconsin (2016) – AI in Sentencing
Jurisdiction: U.S. (Wisconsin Supreme Court)
Issue: Use of AI risk assessment in criminal sentencing.
Facts:
Eric Loomis was sentenced using a tool called COMPAS, which predicts the risk of reoffending.
He argued that the use of COMPAS violated his due process rights because the algorithm was proprietary and its logic opaque.
Legal Questions:
Can courts rely on “black-box” AI systems in sentencing?
Do defendants have the right to challenge AI decisions that affect their liberty?
Outcome:
Court allowed COMPAS to be used but ruled that judges cannot rely solely on the AI score and must explain their reasoning.
This case shows the tension between AI automation and individual rights.
3. Thaler v. USPTO (2019–2022) – AI and Copyright/Patents
Jurisdiction: U.S.
Issue: Can AI be considered an inventor for patent purposes?
Facts:
Dr. Stephen Thaler filed patents listing an AI system (“DABUS”) as the inventor.
The U.S. Patent Office rejected it, stating that only humans can be inventors.
Legal Questions:
Can AI-generated inventions be legally patented without human inventors?
How does intellectual property law adapt to generative AI?
Outcome:
Courts consistently ruled that AI cannot be listed as an inventor.
Raised questions about ownership of AI-generated works and who holds liability or rights.
4. Facebook / Meta Algorithmic Moderation – Discrimination Claims
Jurisdiction: U.S. & Europe
Issue: Bias in AI content moderation and advertising algorithms.
Facts:
AI algorithms on Facebook were used to target ads and filter content.
Complaints arose that certain ads for housing or jobs were disproportionately shown or blocked for racial minorities.
Legal Questions:
Can AI algorithms be considered discriminatory under civil rights law?
Who is responsible — the company or the AI system?
Outcome:
Meta reached settlements and revised algorithms to reduce discriminatory outcomes.
This shows how AI can create legal liability in civil rights, even unintentionally.
5. Tesla Autopilot Accidents – Product Liability
Jurisdiction: U.S.
Issue: Liability for autonomous driving accidents.
Facts:
Tesla’s Autopilot system was engaged during several crashes.
Plaintiffs argued that Tesla was negligent in marketing the system as “self-driving.”
Legal Questions:
Is Tesla liable for accidents caused by its partially autonomous AI systems?
Does user misuse affect liability?
Outcome:
Some lawsuits were dismissed; others resulted in settlements.
Raised important questions about product liability in AI-enabled vehicles.
6. UK ICO v. Clearview AI (2020–2021) – Biometric Privacy
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Issue: AI facial recognition and privacy violations.
Facts:
Clearview AI scraped millions of images from social media to create a facial recognition database.
Used by law enforcement without explicit consent from individuals.
Legal Questions:
Does AI-enabled mass data collection violate privacy and data protection laws?
What liability exists for companies that process AI data without consent?
Outcome:
UK Information Commissioner’s Office fined Clearview AI and ordered deletion of UK citizens’ data.
Shows how AI law intersects with privacy, consent, and data protection.
✅ Key Takeaways Across Cases
Intellectual Property: AI can generate inventions or content, raising questions about ownership (Thaler/DABUS).
Liability: Autonomous systems can create liability for developers or users (Tesla).
Bias and fairness: AI systems can inadvertently discriminate (Facebook).
Privacy: AI scraping and surveillance can violate data protection laws (Clearview AI).
Transparency and accountability: Black-box AI in courts or decision-making raises due process concerns (Loomis).
Trade secrets: AI technologies are commercially valuable, and theft can trigger litigation (Waymo vs. Uber).
RELATED Blog
comments