Artificial intelligence is no longer just a business tool. It is increasingly part of the evidentiary landscape, and it is beginning to affect how disputes are run and how digital material is assessed in litigation. Emails drafted with AI assistance, AI-generated reports, deepfake-style audio or video, altered voice recordings and synthetic documents are now realistic possibilities in commercial disputes.
Australian courts are now confronting a practical question: can digital evidence still be trusted in the same way it once was?
For businesses, this is not an abstract concern. Many disputes turn on what was said in an email, what was agreed in a message thread, or what was captured in a recording. If those materials are challenged as manipulated or fabricated, the dispute can quickly shift away from the underlying commercial issue and into a technical contest about authenticity and proof. Understanding how courts approach authenticity is becoming critical.
The Rise of Synthetic Content
AI tools can now generate convincing text, images, audio and video in seconds. Many of these tools are used legitimately and responsibly in everyday business operations. However, the same technology can also be used to fabricate documents, mimic voices, alter recordings or create realistic but false digital material.
The issue is not simply that this can be done, but that it can be done cheaply and without specialist expertise. A fabricated email chain can be made to look genuine. A recording can be edited to alter meaning without obvious signs of tampering. A document can be subtly amended before it is produced in proceedings. These are no longer remote or hypothetical scenarios.
In commercial litigation, where digital documents often form the backbone of a claim or defence, this creates a new layer of risk.
Authenticity and Proof in Australian Courts
The rules of evidence have not fundamentally changed. Whether proceedings are governed by the Uniform Evidence Acts (including the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and equivalent State legislation) or Queensland’s Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), parties must still establish that the material they rely upon is what it purports to be and can be treated as reliable.
Historically, authenticity disputes have often been resolved through relatively straightforward evidence about authorship, storage and alteration. In many cases, the reliability of a document was assumed unless there was a clear basis to doubt it.
AI alters that landscape. Manipulation may not leave obvious traces. AI-generated content can appear coherent, professional and entirely plausible, even if it is false. This does not mean courts will accept AI-affected material without scrutiny. If anything, it increases the importance of demonstrating the provenance and integrity of digital records.
Metadata, audit trails, server logs and, in some cases, forensic expert evidence are likely to become increasingly significant.
The Burden of Proof Has Not Changed
Even as technology evolves, the legal principles remain steady. The party relying on a document or recording continues to bear the burden of proving authenticity and relevance. What is changing is the complexity of proving it.
A dispute that once focused squarely on commercial facts may instead become dominated by questions about document history, file creation, access permissions, version control and whether AI tools were used to generate or modify the material. That shift can add cost, delay and uncertainty to proceedings, even where the evidence ultimately proves genuine.
For businesses involved in high-value disputes, strong document governance and secure record-keeping are becoming strategic safeguards.
Deepfakes and Altered Recordings
One of the most concerning developments is the rise of deepfake audio and video. In commercial disputes, recordings of meetings, negotiations or phone calls can be decisive. If a party alleges that a recording has been altered or synthetically generated, the evidentiary dispute may become as significant as the underlying commercial claim.
Even where allegations are unfounded, the widespread availability of AI tools makes authenticity easier to challenge. This can delay proceedings, complicate settlement discussions and require additional expense for technical analysis or expert reports.
Courts are alert to these risks, and challenges to electronic recordings are likely to become more frequent as the technology evolves.
Courts Are Already Responding
Australian courts have begun addressing AI-related risks directly, particularly in relation to litigation documents and submissions. In September 2025, the Supreme Court of Queensland issued Practice Direction No. 5 of 2025, acknowledging the increasing use of artificial intelligence in litigation while warning that generative AI tools may produce apparently plausible but inaccurate or fictitious material. The Court emphasised that responsibility for accuracy and integrity remains with the party and their legal representatives.
The message is clear: AI may be used as a tool, but it does not dilute professional and evidentiary obligations.
What Businesses Should Be Doing Now
The most effective response to authenticity challenges is preparation. Businesses should not wait for litigation to consider whether their digital records would withstand close scrutiny.
Robust document management systems, secure storage practices and disciplined version control are increasingly important. Preserving metadata and maintaining clear audit trails can be critical if authenticity is questioned.
Internal awareness also matters. Staff should understand that AI tools can introduce risk, particularly in sensitive communications, contract drafting or internal reporting. Clear policies about when AI may be used and how that use is documented can significantly strengthen a business’s position if evidence is challenged.
These measures do not eliminate risk, but they enhance credibility – and credibility often shapes outcomes.
AI as Evidence in Its Own Right
In some disputes, AI systems themselves may become the subject of evidence. A claim may turn on how an algorithm reached a decision, whether it relied on flawed data, or whether an automated process operated as intended.
In those cases, transparency and documentation become critical. Businesses deploying AI tools in operational or decision-making contexts should be able to explain how those systems function, what data they rely upon and what safeguards are in place. Without that clarity, defending a claim may become considerably more difficult.
Early Legal Strategy Matters
Disputes involving digital evidence and allegations of manipulation are rarely straightforward. They often require early strategic decisions about preservation of records, forensic investigation and expert engagement. Acting too late can result in loss of metadata, incomplete audit trails or an inability to clearly explain how evidence was created and stored.
Early advice and timely evidence preservation can shape the direction and sometimes the outcome of a dispute.
A New Evidentiary Landscape
AI is not replacing the legal system, but it is reshaping how evidence is created, challenged and proved. As synthetic content becomes more sophisticated and accessible, authenticity is likely to become a more frequent battleground in commercial litigation.
Strong governance, secure systems and proactive planning are increasingly essential. Where the authenticity of digital evidence is questioned, preparation may determine whether a business can prove its case, defend its position or resolve the dispute efficiently.
If your organisation is navigating a dispute involving digital material, or is seeking to strengthen its internal safeguards before one arises, careful legal planning now may avoid far greater difficulty later.
As the evidentiary landscape continues to evolve, preparation matters. If you would like to strengthen your internal safeguards or seek advice on a current dispute, our team is here to assist. Contact us to start protecting your position with confidence.
