AI Is No Longer "A Little Cloud On The Horizon": How To Manage The “tsunami” Of Claims

At a turning point for UK civil justice in the 21^st century, Lord Briggs, UK Supreme Court judge, recently advocated¹ for proactive thinking to equip the UK court system for a "tsunami of claims" enabled by AI.

At a time when AI is already beginning to transform legal services at all levels, with numerous impressive use cases and deployments in the legal and commercial spheres, Lord Briggs' speech highlights some of the consequences likely to flow from individual access to increasingly sophisticated AI products. Whilst elements of the debate in this area necessarily revolve around the political and philosophical, there is an overwhelming practical challenge facing both the Courts and companies (particularly those that are consumer-facing).

In this article, we explore how AI-driven claims are reshaping the disputes landscape and how organisations can respond.

Access to justice

There is no question that access to justice will be revolutionised in the technological era of AI. Small to medium value claims can by formulated passably and quickly with genAI tools at little cost, with only the court fee to cover. Of such claims, Lord Briggs commented, "It may not be as good as a draft prepared by a qualified lawyer, but it will certainly be sufficient to get the complainant through the court door as a LIP (litigant in person)."²

The tsunami and the court system

Whilst transformative in theory for litigants in person, there are practical hurdles. Those lie in the preparedness of the court system and rules to be able to handle the escalation of such claims at the scale and speed they are arriving.

AI can generate claims at a speed that the Courts' more deliberative review and adjudication processes cannot match. Courts already face resource constraints, and significant increases in judicial capacity are unlikely to be publicly funded at scale.

Tsunami of company complaints and claims

It is not just the court system which needs to think fast and look forward in preparation for coping with the "impending tsunami of civil litigation"³ now that AI is no longer "a little cloud on the horizon".⁴

Organisations are already grappling with rising volumes of corporate complaints, employment claims, data subject access requests (DSARs), patent applications and low-value disputes, putting a strain on current systems and causing backlogs. GenAI tools are accelerating both the volume and sophistication of the documents, making them faster to submit, broader in scope and more difficult to triage. AI enables customers to convert dissatisfaction into structured legal claims quickly. What were once routine complaints handled by corporate teams are more likely to escalate to formal disputes.

We are already seeing signs of this shift across the disputes landscape. Now "on the precipice of another technological revolution in the form of AI"⁵, organisations should expect more claims, more quickly, and from a wider pool. Claims in the tens of thousands, which were historically uneconomic to pursue, are now viable. Combined with the availability of litigation funding and consumer focussed class action firms, the prospects for such claims improve. For corporates, however, defending them can still involve disproportionate cost, particularly if not managed efficiently. The implications for in-house teams are significant.

More formal and complex workplace grievances

Employers are seeing a rise in AI-assisted grievances, with tools such as ChatGPT enabling employees to generate detailed, formal written complaints quickly. This is making disputes harder to resolve informally and accelerating a shift back towards more structured, process-driven handling.

In some cases, organisations that had moved towards mediation are now seeing a resurgence of formal grievances that are more numerous, more complex and more time-consuming to manage, often increasing the likelihood of escalation to litigation.

Designing new rules for AI era

Lord Briggs made three suggestions for how the Court should approach designing new rules for the revolution of AI-enabled claims:

1. Think prospectively about probable applications, including how to address the sorts of risks posed by AI (at least presently). For example, should there be disclosure of AI use in legal submissions, and guidance on judicial use of AI tools?
2. Consider the approaches of other jurisdictions which were early adopters of AI, such as Brazil.
3. Consider whether the current approach to designing civil procedure rules is sufficiently agile to keep up with the swift rate of AI advancement.

He also observed that, given that AI-generated legal services are owned by a small number of global private companies outside UK regulatory control, traditional procedural rules may not be the "main way of keeping AI in the civil legal arena within democratically acceptable bounds." Other forms of regulation may need to be implemented. On the value of good regulation, read more in our recent article: Why deregulation isn't the answer.

Reacting too slowly to technological change

At present, the Courts continue to apply existing procedural rules, seeking to overlay them onto the use of AI. For example, it is still necessary for pleadings and witness statements to be signed by a statement of truth, and there is significant debate over how the rules on privilege impact AI-generated advice in the context of litigation, as explored in our article on AI and privilege: are my chats with AI privileged?

Lord Briggs cautioned against reacting contemporaneously rather than in advance to technological change. When the civil justice system adapted to digitisation over the past decade, procedural rules lagged behind technological developments, resulting in piecemeal and ad hoc rule development.

Lord Briggs urged that this approach should not be repeated in the era of AI. Instead, courts, and by extension the legal ecosystem, must proactively design rules and principles before AI becomes embedded in practice.

Employment tribunals

The employment context is particularly advanced in this respect. Employment Tribunals have long dealt with litigants in person, but volumes are increasing further driven both by expanded statutory protections and the accessibility of AI tools that help individuals formulate claims.

In response to growing pressure and backlog, reform proposals by the Employment Lawyers Association have emerged to improve efficiency. These include:

• More structured claim and response forms
• Focused questions and word limits
• Use of AI tools to help articulate claims more clearly

More ambitious proposals include the use of AI-driven assessment models to provide early indications of the merits of a claim. The aim is to encourage earlier resolution and reduce the number of cases progressing through the full Tribunal process.

Intellectual property and platform risk

From an intellectual property (IP) perspective, AI raises additional considerations. Not only could genAI enable claims to be drafted more readily, but genAI will also impact the creation of new rights. Patent offices (including the UKIPO) are already seeing a significant increase in new patent filings, and AI tools can also assist in both invention discovery and identifying potential prior art.

In IP claims, many online platforms already use automated decision-making, for example, to help triage online takedown requests based on trade marks and designs. The challenge is not whether automation will be used, but where to draw the line and how to prevent systems being strategically exploited.

This mirrors the judicial concern about maintaining fairness and integrity in AI-assisted processes.

Insurance is increasingly emerging as a potential tool to manage IP risks and provide coverage for pursuing infringement of IP rights. In environments where the frequency of disputes increase faster than legal budgets such solutions are likely to become an increasingly important tool in how in-house departments manage claims.

How to approach complaints and claims management in the AI era

1. Strengthen intake and triage processes Ensure complaints and claims can be rapidly categorised, escalated appropriately and managed at scale.
2. Invest in defensible automation Deploy AI to support initial responses, manage high-volume interactions and identify patterns and risk signals. But ensure outputs remain reviewable and accountable. Consider when, and how, those systems interact with the process for instructing outside counsel on claims.
3. Reassess dispute strategy for low-value claims Consider alternative resolution pathways, early settlement strategies, and cost-efficient defence models.
4. Consider and preserve privilege Carefully consider how legal advice is input, stored and processed to ensure that privilege is preserved.
5. Review insurance coverage Evaluate whether existing policies adequately cover high-volume, low-value litigation and AI-related exposures.
6. Build governance frameworks now Develop internal policies around use of AI in legal and complaints processes; data handling and confidentiality, and documentation and auditability. For AI governance, see Artificial Intelligence in business: a starter for boards.

Handling claims in the AI tsunami – key takeaway

Looking forward, there may be a spectrum where it becomes acceptable for low-value disputes to be AI-assisted with AI-driven outcomes, but high-stakes matters to still require human judges. For businesses, this suggests a future where dispute resolution becomes tiered, with automation increasing as value and complexity decrease.

Rules and regulatory frameworks around AI enabled decision-making and dispute handling will evolve quickly. Organisations relying on legacy processes risk misalignment with future procedural expectations.

As championed by Lord Briggs in the context of civil justice, early adopters of prospective, thoughtful rules for the management of AI-driven claims will be best positioned for the AI surge. This will include structured complaints and claims handling processes with well-governed AI workflows where appropriate. For legal and compliance teams, this reinforces the need to move from reactive fixes to forward-looking governance and dispute management.

Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com

Footnotes

1.] Para 31, ibid.

2.] Para 21, ibid.

3.] Para 2, ibid.

4.] Keynote Address to Oxford Civil Justice Systems in the 21^st Century Conference May 2026: AI and Civil Justice: Preparing for the Tsunami – Lord Briggs of Westbourne, Justice of the UK Supreme Court

5.] Para 26, ibid.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.