AI and Software Contracts: Legal Issues for Georgian Technology Companies
AI and software contracts should define scope, acceptance, service change, data use, security, IP, third-party components, human oversight, output treatment, liability, suspension, termination and usable exit. Existing Georgian contract, data, IP and employment rules apply even without a single general AI statute.
Why this issue changes business decisions
The contract review should begin with the technical deployment. Is the model hosted by a vendor, fine-tuned with customer information, integrated into a high-stakes workflow, or used only to assist an employee? Does the provider retain prompts or outputs? Can the model or subprocessor change? Legal risk follows those facts.
Software ownership also requires a chain of title. Founders, employees, contractors, open-source projects, stock content, datasets and vendors may contribute rights or restrictions. The company should not grant a customer an unlimited ownership warranty without knowing what the product contains.
What the official Georgian sources show
The Civil Code supplies the contract framework, while personal-data processing is governed by the current Georgian Data Protection Law. Trademark, copyright, employment and sector rules may apply depending on the product and inputs. Official source
AI output clauses should avoid absolute promises that the technology cannot support. The parties can allocate evaluation, permitted use, human review, prohibited decisions, incident cooperation and infringement claims, but the language should reflect evidence and insurance. Official source
Exit is an operational legal issue. The customer may need data export, model artefacts, configuration, documentation, transition support and deletion evidence before access ends. The format, time and cost should be agreed in advance. Official source
Decisions to record before the company acts
Document model, data, user and vendor flows before drafting.
Confirm contributor and open-source rights in code, content and datasets.
Allocate evaluation, oversight, change, incident and customer-claim responsibility.
Design export, transition, continuity and deletion before termination.
Issues counsel should connect
Software transactions
Draft development, SaaS, cloud, support, implementation, escrow and licensing agreements.
AI procurement
Allocate permitted use, input rights, output treatment, evaluation, oversight, change and incident responsibilities.
Data and security
Coordinate data roles, locations, subprocessors, security commitments, breach support and deletion.
IP chain
Confirm employee, contractor and third-party rights in code, content, datasets, brands and documentation.
Platform terms
Prepare business terms, acceptable use, complaints, suspension, payments and liability for digital services.
Exit resilience
Address portability, export formats, transition assistance, continuity and deletion when the relationship ends.
A practical sequence for this matter
- 1
Map the product, users, data, vendors and target jurisdictions.
- 2
Identify legal roles, IP chain, regulated functions and material technical assumptions.
- 3
Prepare or review the contract and a concise risk/decision schedule.
- 4
Coordinate technical, security, tax and foreign-law confirmations with their owners.
- 5
Complete signing, implementation controls and a review trigger for model or product changes.
Documents and evidence
- product and architecture description
- source-code and contributor records
- dataset and content provenance
- vendor and subprocessor list
- security and incident materials
- service levels and acceptance criteria
- customer terms and privacy notices
- AI evaluation, oversight and change records
Risks to test
- IP ownership is assumed rather than assigned
- vendor may reuse confidential inputs
- AI output warranties exceed technical evidence
- service changes without customer control
- data roles or locations are unclear
- termination provides no usable export or transition
Official public sources used
This publication cites only legislation, registries and regulators. It does not rely on other law firms or competitor commentary as authority.