Courts Treat AI Chat Logs Like Email, Raising Preservation Duties

Context The Delaware Court of Chancery recently ruled that a CEO’s exchanges with ChatGPT fall under standard discovery obligations. That decision aligns with earlier rulings in *Warner v. Gilbarco* and *United States v. Heppner*, which held that AI‑generated communications are not exempt from legal scrutiny. As generative AI tools embed deeper into daily workflows, courts are treating them as ordinary electronically stored information (ESI).

Key Facts - The Chancery Court cited the CEO’s ChatGPT logs alongside email and Slack messages, confirming they are discoverable ESI. - *Warner v. Gilbarco* and *United States v. Heppner* reinforced that AI chats can be subject to privilege challenges but remain within the discovery framework. - Legal precedent obligates companies to preserve relevant ESI once litigation is reasonably anticipated; AI chat logs now count toward that duty. - Many AI platforms lack centralized storage, use personal accounts, or allow rapid deletion, creating practical hurdles for preservation.

What It Means Companies must expand their information‑governance policies to cover AI tools. Practical steps include: 1. Cataloguing every AI service used across the enterprise, from corporate licences to employee‑level apps. 2. Auditing retention settings and ensuring logs can be exported to litigation‑hold systems. 3. Updating hold notices to explicitly reference AI‑generated communications. 4. Training staff to retain relevant chats when a hold is issued and to avoid deleting histories. 5. Coordinating with IT and vendors to secure timely data collection.

Failure to preserve AI chats can trigger the same sanctions applied to lost emails—court‑imposed fines, adverse inference instructions, or other remedial orders. The risk is amplified by the ease with which users can erase or overwrite chat histories.

Looking Ahead Watch for guidance from corporate counsel and technology vendors on integrating AI logs into e‑discovery platforms, and for any appellate rulings that may refine the scope of discoverability.