A programming contractor delivered a game project milestone created using generative AI, but the deliverable was non-functional and riddled with issues. Haley MacLean, an intellectual property lawyer at Voyer Law and head of its gaming practice, stated that after the client refused acceptance and requested revisions, the contractor claimed inability to complete the revisions yet still demanded full payment.
MacLean shared this anonymous contract dispute on Bluesky. She stated that, upon further investigation, the client discovered the delivered content was generated by generative AI, and the contractor themselves was unaware of what they had actually produced. As a result, the contractor will not receive payment, and the client's time was wasted.
The incident also involves confidentiality obligations. To have AI tools produce the project milestone, the contractor input confidential game materials into them. MacLean used this case to distinguish between using AI tools and relying on AI without judgment, summarizing the difference with the analogy: "Ordering food at a restaurant doesn't make you a chef."
MacLean has previously summarized the risks of generative AI in game development as issues related to copyright, reputation, and ownership of rights, noting that more clients are beginning to include clauses restricting AI use in contracts. She recommends that when publishers may be involved in asset creation, marketing, porting, or quality assurance, contracts should also clarify whether they are permitted to use generative AI. Currently, the identities of the contractor and client, the project scale, and the specific contract terms have not been disclosed.