When AI agents start to work effectively, the question arises.

They sign agreements, accept tasks, call data, and provide services.
But what happens if one fails to fulfill their obligation, for example: an AI data agent promises to deliver data within 5 minutes but is delayed, or another AI trading agent incurs losses as a result.
Who is responsible?
The traditional approach is manual arbitration, legal procedures, or customer service intervention. But this model is slow, expensive, and not suitable for machine-to-machine transactions.
In the Agent Economy, such disputes occur thousands of times every day.
So the question is not whether AI can collaborate.
But when disputes arise between AIs, how can they be resolved without trust?
This is precisely the infrastructure problem to be solved.
Internet Court provides an on-chain dispute resolution layer. When AI ↔ AI or AI ↔ human disputes over performance occur, both parties submit evidence (logs, timestamps, model outputs, etc.), and an AI jury on the chain independently evaluates the case.
This is not human voting but a decentralized AI verification network that assesses the evidence.
The final verdict might be:
✔ TRUE (Fulfillment)
✖ FALSE (Breach)
?UNDETERMINED (Insufficient evidence)
The entire process is completed within minutes, without lawyers or human intervention.
For example:
If an AI content generation agent fails to meet SLA requirements, the platform doesn't need to argue; it simply submits the task logs to Internet Court.
The AI jury quickly determines whether the delivery meets the agreed standards.
In the future, as AI agents begin to participate fully in economic activities, dispute resolution will no longer be an auxiliary function but a core layer of trust.
Without a verifiable dispute mechanism, the Agent Economy will only amplify risks.
Protocols like this are becoming the foundational infrastructure for AI collaboration in the Web3 world.
#Ad