AI Litigation Attorney for Disputes Over Autonomous Systems
Astraea Counsel litigates disputes arising from AI systems — losses caused by autonomous agents, AI vendor and licensing failures, AI-washing securities claims, and algorithmic decision-making challenges.
Lead attorney: Brandon Orewyler, Founder & Principal
- Licensed in California · State Bar No. 324391 — verify
- Consultations scheduled directly with the attorney, not an intake desk
When companies call us
- An autonomous agent caused a loss and your counterparty, your vendor, and your insurer each say responsibility sits somewhere else
- An AI vendor’s product did not perform as warranted and the contract’s limitation of liability is now the whole fight
- You are facing an AI-washing claim — that public statements overstated what your AI actually does
- A plaintiff alleges an automated decision system caused discriminatory or unfair outcomes
- Your agent transacted outside its intended scope and the counterparty says the resulting contract binds you
- A training-data or model-provenance dispute has turned into litigation rather than a licensing negotiation
What engagement gets you
- Liability mapped under the doctrines that already govern — agency, negligence, product liability, unfair practices, and board oversight — rather than a theory that waits for AI-specific legislation
- The authorization record built or reconstructed: which legal person the agent acted for, what scope it held, what the counterparty was told, and what the audit trail proves
- Vendor and licensing disputes litigated around what the agreement actually allocated, including limitation-of-liability and warranty terms drafted before anyone modeled agent failure
- Securities-side defense on AI disclosure claims, informed by the same enforcement posture the firm advises on before disputes arise
- Litigation led by a principal who clerked three years in the Los Angeles Superior Court’s Complex Division, first-chaired a books-and-records trial in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and argued a unanimous Ninth Circuit reversal
Recognition
- Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America — Commercial Litigation (2027), Brandon Orewyler
- Astraea Counsel ranked in Chambers USA: Spotlight 2026 — Fintech (Los Angeles)
- Lawdragon 500 X — The Next Generation: Crypto Regulation, Disputes, Blockchain (2026), Chanté Eliaszadeh
- Quoted throughout "AI Agents Can Move Money – Lawyers Say Nobody Knows Who's Liable," part four of Sandmark's seven-part Agentic AI series (August 6, 2026), Chanté Eliaszadeh
Common Questions
Who is liable when an AI agent causes a loss?
There is no settled federal rule allocating responsibility between the operator of an AI agent and its end user, and that gap is the practical problem in every one of these disputes. In practice the analysis follows control. The user is often the starting point, having chosen to let the agent act on their behalf, and the federal E-SIGN Act recognizes contracts formed by electronic agents where the agent’s action is legally attributable to the person to be bound. But a deployer risks liability where the agent fails outside the course of normal operations, and a developer risks it where a system marketed for autonomous operation fails in a foreseeable way. Which of those framings governs is usually the case.
Is there such a thing as AI litigation yet?
The disputes are real; the doctrines are mostly not new. Claims arising from AI systems are being litigated today under agency, negligence, product liability, contract and warranty, unfair competition, securities, and board-oversight law — the same body of law that governs any commercial dispute, applied to a system that acted without a human in the loop. Waiting for an AI-specific statute is not a defense strategy, and the parties who did the authorization work in advance are in materially better shape when the dispute arrives.
What is an AI-washing claim?
It is a misrepresentation claim about AI capability — that a company’s public statements overstated what its systems actually do, how autonomously they operate, or how much of a result they produced. The SEC has brought enforcement on this theory, and private plaintiffs follow enforcement. The defense usually turns on what the technical record supports and what was disclosed about limitations, which is why the substantiation for marketing claims is worth fixing before anyone is asking for it in discovery.
Book a Call With Brandon Orewyler
Pick a time that works for you — a 15-minute introductory call, no forms, no waiting.
Pick a date and time
Prefer to send a message instead?
Get your AI dispute assessed
Schedule a consultation on agent liability, an AI vendor dispute, or an AI disclosure claim.
Talk to an AttorneyAttorney advertising. Each case result described on this page was dependent on the facts of that case, and the results will differ if based on different facts. No attorney-client relationship is formed by visiting this page or submitting the contact form.