Technology’s Effect on Advocacy
outside traditional private litigation. This leaves one of the central challenges in AI litigation: determining when courts may intervene before harm becomes irreversible. California does not require plaintiffs to wait until an injury has fully materialized before seeking equitable relief. However, neither will courts issue injunctions based upon generalized concerns or speculative fears regarding emerging technologies. Instead, a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must demonstrate a genuine threat of imminent and irreparable harm together with the inadequacy of traditional legal remedies. California courts have consistently emphasized that injunctions are preventive—not punitive—and therefore require a reasonable probability that the challenged conduct will continue or recur if judicial intervention is denied. The law therefore recognizes the possibility of preventing future injury but imposes a demanding evidentiary burden before extraordinary equitable relief will be granted.
obtain temporary or preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiffs must support their requests with verified complaints or sworn declarations containing specific factual allegations rather than conclusory assertions. Courts require competent evidence showing that the threatened injury is real, imminent, and likely to occur, not merely speculative. The threatened harm must also be irreparable, meaning it cannot be adequately remedied through monetary damages. This standard presents a particular challenge in educational settings. Many AI-related harms are neither immediate nor easily measurable. Instead, they may develop gradually through algorithmic decision-making, behavioral profiling, cognitive dependence, or the accumulation of sensitive student data. As discussed above, emerging research suggests that many of these harms remain largely invisible until long after the technology has influenced a child's educational experience. The challenge, therefore, is not simply demonstrating that AI poses risks, but translating cumulative and developmental harms into theconcrete evidentiary showing required for preventive equitable relief. Existing statutes and remedies provide important legal tools. The remaining question is how legal practitioners should apply those tools in a
The Evidentiary Problem
Perhaps the greatest obstacle in AI litigation is the evidentiary burden plaintiffs face when seeking to
61
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM September/October 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs