New York Senate Bill S09390

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/6/26
• Refer: 3/6/26

Caption

Provides that in any civil, criminal or family court proceeding, where evidence is offered and a party contends that such evidence has been fabricated by means of generative artificial intelligence, the court shall not, on that ground alone, conduct an inquiry into such alleged fabrication unless the party so contending makes a showing sufficient to support a reasonable inference that the evidence may not be authentic.

Impact

The enactment of S09390 will significantly impact how courts evaluate the admissibility of evidence, particularly in the context of rapidly evolving technologies relating to artificial intelligence. By establishing a higher threshold for questioning the authenticity of evidence purportedly generated by AI, the bill seeks to streamline legal proceedings and address potential overreach in claims regarding AI-generated content. This can protect legitimate uses of AI while maintaining robust legal frameworks, although it also raises questions about the reliability and scrutiny of AI-produced evidence in sensitive legal contexts.

Summary

Bill S09390 proposes amendments to the civil practice law, criminal procedure law, and the family court act in New York, establishing new rules of evidence concerning the admissibility of evidence that is allegedly fabricated using generative artificial intelligence. The bill stipulates that in civil, criminal, or family court proceedings, mere allegations of evidence being fabricated by generative AI do not warrant a court inquiry unless the alleging party presents sufficient grounds to suggest that the evidence may not be authentic. This provision aims to reduce the burden on courts to investigate every claim of evidence fabrication without substantial backing.

Contention

Notably, the bill may face contention regarding its implications for due process and the integrity of the judicial system. Critics might argue that simplifying the standards for evidence admissibility could allow less scrutiny of important evidence, thereby undermining the quality of justice. Additionally, as AI technology advances, there may be concerns about the possibility of fabricated evidence that could drastically influence case outcomes, which could lead to debates about the balance between innovation and legal accountability. Advocates for the bill, however, may emphasize the necessity of adapting legal standards to accommodate technological advancements without stifling their benefits.