Predictive justice covers AI tools that forecast judicial outcomes and reoffending risk. In the US, the COMPAS algorithm was accused of racial bias and later upheld in court under strict limits. In France, the DataJust project was abandoned. The EU AI Act classifies these systems as "high-risk." While AI can streamline civil litigation, using it in criminal justice raises serious questions about transparency, discrimination, and accountability.

AI creates, but who owns it? In the US and EU, copyright requires real human creative input. Fully autonomous AI outputs fall into the public domain. On training data, Getty Images v. Stability AI gave creators a partial setback. But France is moving: a bill adopted by the Senate in April 2026 reverses the burden of proof, forcing AI providers to prove they didn't use protected works. The law is catching up, slowly, unevenly, and with enormous stakes for the entire creative e

An AI can't be sued, but someone has to answer for its mistakes. Between the Civil Code, the EU AI Act, and a liability directive scrapped in 2025, the legal framework remains fragmented. Developers, deployers, users: who actually carries the liability when an algorithm discriminates, injures, or misleads? A close look at a legal vacuum that worries lawyers and victims in equal measure, and the early court rulings starting to fill it in.