Artificial Intelligence is taking society by storm and has even made a name for itself in the courtroom. With the ease of utilizing AI to generate various forms of data, presenting evidence at trial can be a much less arduous process than in years prior, when technology was not as sophisticated. However, alongside AI’s countless benefits lie the risks of reliability and authenticity concerns, which are critical issues in litigation when expert witness testimony and case-related evidence and data are concerned.

On May 2, 2025, the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules voted 8-1 in favor of Rule 707 – Machine-Generated Evidence – a proposed rule to mitigate the risk of introducing potentially unreliable AI-generated evidence at trial. Rule 707 would subject all AI and machine-generated evidence without an accompanying expert witness to the same reliability standards and scrutiny as standard expert witness testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In its notes to the proposed rule, the Advisory Committee made clear that the “rule is not intended to encourage parties to opt for machine-generated evidence over live expert witnesses. Indeed, the point of the rule is to provide reliability-based protections when a party chooses to proffer machine evidence instead of a live expert.” 

While it’s simple to see the benefits of protecting the integrity of evidence introduced at trial with such a rule, not everyone is certain that the proposal is in the courtroom’s best interest. Judges have questions about the proposed rule’s ability to be implemented, with some committee members expressing the potential need for public commentary to avoid potential blind spots, considering the ever-evolving nature of AI and its advancements. A representative for the U.S. Department of Justice, the sole dissenting vote on the committee, stated that it was the DOJ’s view that Rule 702 already covers the use of machine-generated evidence, and that Rule 707 only seeks to predict and regulate future needs.

The Advisory Committee acknowledged the limits of its expertise on matters of technology and deemed public comment as the best way to obtain the necessary information to support or reject the rule. Before Rule 707 is circulated for comment, however, the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure must meet on June 10 and critique the proposed rule.