Can artificial intelligence legally decide who wins a boxing match? This controversial question is at the forefront as Jake Paul gears up for his exhibition bout against Gervonta “Tank” Davis in Miami, November 2025. This match isn’t just a typical sporting event; it's a legal experiment that could redefine the role of AI in professional sports.

The fight, set to be streamed globally on Netflix, introduces an AI-powered boxing judge that will score the fight in real-time alongside two human judges. Promoted as a step towards "objective scoring," this AI system has been trained on thousands of past bouts. However, this technological advancement enters a regulatory gray area concerning AI accountability, biometric privacy, and fairness in sport.

Legally, only licensed human officials can adjudicate professional contests under U.S. athletic law, which is why this match is labeled an entertainment exhibition. This classification skates around traditional athletic commission oversight, exploiting a loophole in Florida Statutes §548.002(6) that allows the event to serve as a testing ground for new technology.

Legal analysts are concerned about the implications if the AI's decisions impact the fighters' futures. Issues of contract law, administrative review, and due-process rights could surface, especially since the AI's scoring could influence public reputation, rankings, and sponsorship deals.

Adding to the complexity, Jake Paul's dual role as both a fighter and promoter through his company, Most Valuable Promotions (MVP), places him at the center of a new debate over AI liability. The use of facial recognition and motion-tracking data by the AI system puts MVP in the position of a data controller under privacy laws like the Florida Biometric Information Privacy Act and the EU’s GDPR.

If the AI exhibits any bias or malfunctions, it could lead to privacy violations, conflict of interest allegations, or unfair trade practices. This situation underscores a broader issue: the risk lies not in the technology itself, but in who controls it, how it’s trained, and its auditability for fairness.

The integration of AI into judging also intersects with sports betting and broadcasting rights. If AI-driven analytics influence betting or contractual obligations, it could trigger a myriad of legal issues from gaming regulations to breach-of-contract claims.

Moreover, the event follows Jake Paul's involvement in an AI deepfake controversy, raising additional questions about digital likeness and biometric data rights. As AI becomes more embedded in live entertainment, the legal boundaries concerning an athlete’s digital representation become murkier.

This exhibition might seem like a spectacle, but it is a critical test case for regulatory bodies. It challenges them to redefine the boundaries of AI decision-making in sports and beyond, potentially influencing fields like arbitration and financial audits. Whether this AI judging experiment will pave the way for hybrid human-AI officiating frameworks or become a cautionary tale in entertainment law remains to be seen. Jake Paul, known for pushing boundaries, is now testing the limits of the law itself.