A US law firm is alleging that UK-based telecoms and software company ConnexAI sold it software and AI systems that failed to perform as the vendor claimed, and then unlawfully renewed its contract. ConnexAI has rejected the allegations. The dispute has involves two court cases, both of which are ongoing.
DK Law, a personal injury specialist based in California, alleged in a California court filing in April that ConnexAI promises “customers a telephone system and AI software solution with functionality that does not exist or perform as represented.”
It also alleges in the California complaint [PDF] that ConnexAI continued to send it invoices after it had told the vendor it was not renewing the year-long contract.
The Register understands that ConnexAI believes the allegations to be frivolous and without merit. The vendor is branded ConnexAI, and registered as Connex One Limited in the UK and Connex One Inc in the US.
The customer’s claim followed a complaint that ConnexAI itself filed against the law firm the month before. In March 2026, in a New York court, ConnexAI filed a complaint [PDF] claiming its law firm customer had breached its contract by failing to pay invoices.
Dan Richardson, ConnexAI general manager of North America, said in a statement: “There is a limit to what we can say while the matter is before the court. This claim is one part of a wider dispute which was initiated by Connex One Inc. The allegations now being made are rejected, and we would note that they were raised only after we issued proceedings which are active.”
In its complaint in the US District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division, DK Law alleges that ConnexAI sold it a telephone system and software on the basis that it would provide phone and voice services integrated with SMS and WhatsApp. ConnexAI also said its Athena software included “sentiment analysis, entity recognition, call transcripts, interaction clustering, training cues, and the ability to identify trends.” Crucially, it also claimed the AI transcription worked in Spanish.
“ConnexAI represented that the Athena AI software included AI Agent, AI Guru, AI Analytics, AI Voice, Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR), all of which were represented to elevate customer interactions and enhance customer engagement and experience,” the filing said.
Using AI agents would offer around-the-clock availability, faster response times and personalized interactions, with a “human-like voice and text-based communication,” the complaint argued. After less than a year using the software, DK Law alleged its experience of the software differed from the claims made by the vendor.
According to the California filing, the telephone system frequently “went down”, with calls often dropped or unanswered. Calls were also consistently misrouted, the customer alleges.
The problems were reported to the vendor’s support team. After the issue was escalated, the filing continues, ConnexAI sent US technical services engineers and the UK-based CTO to troubleshoot. “Sometimes the problem was resolved for the moment, only to recur shortly thereafter, with no permanent fix,” the complaint claimed.
In addition, WhatsApp was unreliable and effectively unusable, DK Law alleges.
While ConnexAI had claimed its ASR “would never miss a word,” DK Law claimed “this too was false.” Per the filing, on checking recordings of calls, the customer claims to have discovered that only a few seconds of a conversation were actually recorded despite evidence of a longer call.
“Connex also represented in pre-contract discussions that its software was able to create real-time call transcripts of customer interactions conducted in English and Spanish. However, in reality, the Connex software only sometimes produced a transcript. When compared to the recorded conversations, DK Law found the transcripts of calls conducted in English to be inaccurate, and the Spanish language transcription did not work at all,” the California law firm alleged.
Given the performance, the filing claims, Brendan Haverlock, DK Law CTO, told the vendor that the contract would not be renewed after it expired in October 2025.
But that was not the end of the matter. The complaint alleges ConnexAI continued to invoice DK Law after the end of the contract term, demanding payment and "harassing its employees" for payment, the customer alleged.
In March 2026, Connex Inc, the US company, launched a legal claim in the New York case against DK Law in which it alleged DK Law had failed to make the required payments and breached its contract.
The filing, which was originally made in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and then moved to a New York District Court, said that in October 2024, the two companies entered into an agreement, which “renewed for a subsequent term commencing on October 8, 2025.”
However, in the separate but related California filing in April, DK Law alleged that ConnexAI had already breached the contract “by failing… to implement and deliver telecommunications and software services in a manner consistent with industry standards.”
It also said in the filing that ConnexAI's claim that the contract had automatically renewed was not in accordance with New York State law, which “required Connex to give written notice of the automatic renewal in advance.” The law covers telecommunications and software. ConnexAI “never provided the requisite notice of automatic renewal,” DK Law alleged.
In the California Court, DK Law seeks restitution and damages.
In a statement to The Register, ConnexAI’s Richardson questioned why Connex One Ltd was included on the California claim, given Connex Inc sued DK Law in New York.
In the California filing, DK Law alleged the UK company “directly participated in the sales process, provided or controlled implementation and support personnel, and directed or ratified the post-notice renewal and retention conduct.”
It said the US company is wholly owned and operated by the UK’s Connex One Limited and acted as a contracting arm or agent.
The case is now waiting to move through the courts. Last week, (August 27) the California court denied DK Law’s claim, but only insofar as it “stayed” the case, pending the New York claim. In effect, that case is put on hold until the New York case is settled.
DK Law is attempting to have the New York case dismissed and has requested the court hear oral arguments. On September 1, in an order and opinion filed by federal magistrate judge Katharine H Parker, the motion to stay the case was denied [PDF].®
Reg note: We are not accepting comments on this article and have closed the forum.