Videogame lawyer says it’s become ‘just boilerplate’ this year to include no-AI clauses in contracts: ‘It’s not worth the legal liability’
A videogame lawyer has revealed that anti-AI clauses have become standard “boilerplate” practice in industry contracts as of this year, reflecting how legal frameworks are finally beginning to catch up with rapid technological development. The attorney noted that including such clauses is no longer a contentious negotiation point but rather expected protective language, asserting that omitting them “is not worth the legal liability.”
The observation highlights a persistent friction between technological advancement and legal systems—where innovations develop over years while bureaucratic and legislative frameworks move glacially. The gaming industry has spent years hyping generative AI’s potential to democratize game development, promising that smaller studios could produce bigger titles more efficiently through AI-generated concept art, music, dialogue, and other assets.
However, the normalization of anti-AI contract clauses suggests the industry is taking a more cautious approach to AI adoption than early enthusiasm indicated. This development underscores growing concerns about AI’s implications for creative work, intellectual property, and labor within game development, even as companies continue exploring AI’s practical applications.