AI Opportunity vs AI Liability: What Investors Need to Know

At AI Strategy Day, hosted by AI Pathfinder, private equity professionals took on a deceptively simple challenge: rank three promising AI opportunities not by their upside, but by their risk.

The exercise quickly exposed a truth we see every day: efficiency gains may grab headlines, but it’s risk that determines whether those gains are bankable. And in today’s environment, risk is no longer abstract. Courts, regulators, and insurers are already redrawing the boundaries of AI liability.

Here’s what the room debated — and why it matters for investors and operators right now.

Three familiar plays, three uncomfortable truths

On paper, these models look like easy wins. In practice, each carries liabilities investors can’t ignore. All companies and offerings were fictional, but representative of evolving markets.

1. Conversational commerce: Every chatbot promise is binding

Retail bots like ConversaCart don’t just answer questions; they process payments, issue refunds, and resolve disputes. On paper, that means a 60% reduction in customer service costs and millions in daily transactions.

But in Moffatt v. Air Canada (2024), the court ruled that a chatbot’s false promise of a bereavement discount was legally binding. The principle is blunt: a chatbot is not a separate entity. Every AI-generated commitment is a corporate commitment.

For ConversaCart, that translates into exposure: £2.3M in daily transactions, uncapped liability clauses in nearly a third of contracts, and no AI-specific insurance. Savings can evaporate in an instant.

2. Medical transcription: When hallucination becomes malpractice

MediScript AI sells efficiency: a 70% reduction in physician documentation time, worth hundreds of millions annually.

But performance under pressure tells another story. Independent testing showed accuracy degrading from 95% to 76% with accents or speech impediments. Some systems even delete source audio “for storage efficiency,” erasing the only audit trail.

Cornell’s Careless Whisper study found OpenAI Whisper hallucination rates of 1.4%, with nearly 40% of errors harmful. Malpractice insurers selectively exclude ‘algorithmic decisions’ from coverage, raising new questions about defensibility. Without audit trails, a single mis-transcribed dosage note can cascade into claims that no policy will defend.

3. Candidate screening: Bias isn’t just bad optics

Platforms like TalentIQ promise 75% faster hiring and a 40% improvement in “quality of hire”. Their multimodal assessments span CV parsing, psychometrics, and video analysis.

Yet a third-party audit revealed 15% higher rejection rates for candidates over 40 and 22% higher for non-native speakers. In Mobley v. Workday (2025), a federal court allowed claims that the vendor itself could be treated as an agent of the employer, opening the door to joint liability for discrimination.

Layer in NYC Local Law 144’s mandatory bias audits and candidate notifications, and the efficiency narrative collapses into a compliance headache.

Patterns too important to ignore

These cases look different, but the themes overlap:

• Legal precedents are already here. Courts reject the idea that AI is separate from the companies that deploy it.

• Marketing claims collapse in practice. The liability sits in the gap between “95% accuracy” claims and messy real-world performance.

• Insurance markets are pulling back. Silent exclusions and contested claims mirror the early days of cyber risk. Affirmative AI cover exists, but only if governance frameworks are in place.

• Regulatory convergence is unforgiving. The EU AI Act fines up to €35M or 7% of global turnover, with no grandfathering. US state laws on bias and disclosure are already live.

• Concentration risk magnifies exposure. Three clouds run over 60% of AI workloads; NVIDIA controls up to 92% of AI chips. Outages cascade, and vendor switching is rare.

Why this matters for value

During AI Strategy Day, groups discovered that governance improvements, such as adding audit trails, tightening contract language, or running bias audits, could move a use case up the ranking and reduce its perceived risk. What became clear is that these improvements do not only change perceptions in a workshop setting; they also shape how businesses are valued in the real world.

Insurability now depends on governance. A number of insurers are starting to introduce explicit AI exclusions in professional liability policies. Affirmative coverage is often available only when clear governance frameworks are in place. For investors, that translates directly into capital costs: a business with governance built in can protect its valuation by reducing downside exposure.

AI diligence is entering the deal room. In mergers and acquisitions, uncertainty around AI risk is already slowing transactions. Buyers want certainty, and targets that can demonstrate compliance with evolving standards, from the EU AI Act’s conformity assessments to state-level bias rules in the United States, are seen as safer prospects. The result is fewer delays, smoother integrations, and less regulatory risk priced into the final valuation.

Defensibility commands a premium. Efficiency claims are always discounted when they are fragile or unverified. Where oversight and auditability are present, those claims become bankable. That resilience is increasingly being treated as a premium feature. In a market where caution is high, defensibility can be what separates a discounted company from one commanding top multiples.

Five practical moves

From the materials and discussions, six actions stood out for operators and investors alike:

• Inventory AI use cases. You can’t govern what you can’t see.

• Preserve source data. Deleting inputs destroys audit trails and weakens defence.

• Run bias audits. In hiring, lending, and healthcare, these are becoming both good practice and, increasingly, a regulatory requirement.

• Plan for Humans In the Loop. This is often the most underestimated overhead to check for quality, bias, and accuracy. A core legal and regulatory requirement. 

• Check insurance coverage. Many policies quietly exclude algorithmic decisions.

• Plan backwards from 2026. The EU AI Act and state-level rules set immovable compliance deadlines.

Bottom line

AI does not only change what a business can do; it changes what it is accountable for. Courts, regulators, and insurers are already redrawing the boundaries, and those shifts are being priced into valuations today.

For investors, the signal is clear. The priority is no longer simply to identify the most promising AI plays, but to prove that those plays can withstand scrutiny. Ability may open the door, but defensibility is what keeps it open.

For operators, the incentives are direct. Governance is not just a compliance exercise. It unlocks access to insurance cover, smooths regulatory approvals, and reduces litigation risk. It makes claims about efficiency more durable, and it builds resilience into business models that depend on third-party infrastructure.

The AI dividend is real, but it will accrue only to those who treat governance as an enabler rather than an afterthought. Those who do will capture higher exit multiples, enjoy faster deal cycles, and maintain investor confidence. Those who do not will discover that in AI, the cost of neglecting governance is not theoretical. It is measured directly in lost value.

Ability opens the door. Reliability keeps it open.

If you’d like the workshop pack or a tailored summary for your team, click below to get in touch - and follow us on LinkedIn for future insights.