The headline is a bit misleading.

It's not "no attorney-client privilege for AI chats" in general.

But a situation where the same would also apply if, instead of going to an chat bot, the person had gone to a random 3rd party non-attorney related person.

As in:

- the documents where not communication between the defendant and their attorney, but the defendant and the AI

- the AI is no attorney

- the attorney didn't instruct the defendant to use the AI / the court found the defendant did not communicate with the AI with the purpose of finding legal consule

- the communications with the AI (provider) where not confidential as a) it's a arbitrary 3rd party and b) they explicitly exclude usage for legal cases in their TOS

Still this isn't a nothing burger as some of the things the court pointed out can become highly problematic in other context. Like the insistence that attorney privilege is fundamentally build on a trusting human relationship, instead of a trusting relationship. Or that AI isn't just part of facilitating communication, like a spell checker, word program or voice mail box, legal book you look things up. All potentially 3rd parties all not by themself communication with a human but all part of facilitating the communication.