Why Sneaker Resellers and Designers Should Think Twice Before Using AI for Legal Advice
Court Rules AI Conversations Are Not Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege
Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming part of how people research legal issues, evaluate disputes, and even draft potential defenses. A recent federal court decision makes clear that using AI this way can come with serious legal risk.
A court in the Southern District of New York recently ruled that materials created by a person using a public AI platform were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Even though the individual later shared those materials with his lawyers, the court allowed them to be discovered and used in the case.
The decision reinforces a simple but critical point. Communicating with an AI tool is not the same as communicating with a lawyer.
What the Court Considered
The individual in the case used a commercial AI system, Claude, to analyze legal exposure and develop possible defense strategies after learning he was under investigation. He generated numerous written outputs through the AI tool and later provided those materials to his attorneys.
When the government obtained the documents, the defense argued they were privileged because they were created to help obtain legal advice. The court rejected that argument.
Why Privilege Did Not Apply
Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a client and a lawyer made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. The court found that conversations with an AI system do not meet that standard. An AI platform is not legal counsel and is not bound by professional confidentiality obligations.
The court also emphasized that confidentiality must actually be preserved for privilege to exist. Many consumer AI platforms store or process user inputs under their terms of service. That weakens any claim that the communication was private in the way the law requires.
The work-product doctrine also did not apply. That protection typically covers materials prepared by or at the direction of an attorney in anticipation of litigation. Documents generated independently by a user experimenting with an AI tool did not qualify. The fact that those materials were later given to a lawyer did not retroactively create protection. If the lawyer told or directed the client to conduct those AI searches for litigation, then maybe the outcome here would have been different.
Why This Matters in the Real World
This ruling has immediate consequences for anyone using AI to think through legal problems before speaking with counsel. Information entered into a public AI platform can potentially become discoverable evidence. Once that happens, opposing parties may gain access to strategy discussions, factual summaries, or legal theories that would normally remain confidential if shared directly with an attorney.
For businesses, creators, and entrepreneurs, this risk is not theoretical. Many people already use AI to evaluate contracts, assess disputes, or research enforcement strategies. That includes people in the sneaker and streetwear space who are dealing with authenticity claims, resale conflicts, intellectual property disputes, or marketplace enforcement actions.
What This Means for the Sneaker Industry
The sneaker ecosystem runs on information. Resellers analyze authenticity disputes. Designers evaluate infringement risks. Brand owners investigate counterfeiting and gray market activity. Marketplace sellers respond to takedowns or account suspensions. In all of these situations, people are tempted to paste facts into AI tools to get quick answers.
This decision confirms that doing so may expose sensitive legal strategy.
Imagine a reseller accused of selling counterfeit sneakers who uploads transaction records and dispute details into a chatbot to prepare a response. Or a designer exploring trade dress risks who enters confidential product development plans into an AI platform. Or a brand preparing enforcement strategies against unauthorized sellers who uses AI to draft legal theories. Under the logic of this ruling, those inputs may not be privileged and could later be obtained in litigation.
In industries driven by intellectual property and authenticity disputes, that is a significant exposure.
The Bottom Line
AI is a powerful research and drafting tool, but it is not a substitute for legal counsel and it does not create a confidential attorney-client relationship. If sensitive facts or legal strategies are involved, the safest course is to speak with a lawyer first and determine whether and how AI can be used within a protected legal framework.
In short, if the issue is serious enough to analyze with AI, it is serious enough to bring to counsel before typing anything into a public platform.
United States v. Heppner, Case No. 25 Cr. 503 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2026) (docket entry number 22)
LEGAL DISCLAIMER
The content on this blog is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It’s meant to help creators, designers, and brands better understand the legal side of the sneaker, fashion, and streetwear industries. Not to provide advice on any specific situation.
Reading this post, commenting on it, or contacting Sneaker & Streetwear Legal Services through this website does not create an attorney–client relationship. I am an attorney, but I am not your attorney, until we both sign the Sneaker Legal Attorney Client Engagement Agreement.
Laws and regulations change, and how they apply depends on your unique facts and circumstances. Before making any business or legal decisions, you should consult with a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. Sneaker & Streetwear Legal Services makes no guarantees about the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the information provided here. Any opinions expressed are those of the author and don’t necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients.
If you’re looking for legal guidance tailored to your brand or creative business, reach out to us directly.
