I wrote a dispute clause into my third intelligent contract on GenLayer. The logic was simple: if the delivered work does not match the brief, the escrow does not release. Five validators reviewed the evidence independently and agreed on a verdict in under two minutes. Cost: near zero. Then I watched the @GenLayer film. A man in India filed a bank case in 1951. The courtroom sat empty for 75 years until a judge finally dismissed it because nobody showed up for either side. Seventy five years to reach the same conclusion my contract reached in two minutes. That contrast is the whole argument. Courts were built for a world where disputes arrived slowly. AI agents will generate millions of transactions per day. Some will fail. Deliveries that never arrive, services that do not match the description, payments that should not have settled. If a single bank dispute can sit unanswered for 75 years, what happens when automated commerce produces a thousand new disputes every hour? The film tells three cases. A subpostmaster bankrupted by a faulty computer and a court that trusted the machine. A man on death row for nearly 30 years because a thousand dollars separated him from the evidence that would have freed him. And that empty courtroom in Calcutta, proof that the system can simply forget you exist. Justice that requires money, patience, or luck is not a system. It is a lottery. The AI era needs judges that read evidence instead of invoices. #JusticeNeedsAnUpgrade