In the age of smart cities, urban infrastructures are increasingly driven by algorithms and digital platforms. From traffic management systems to public safety networks, city services are now tightly coupled with code. But what happens when that code doesn’t serve the people it was meant to help? A new and growing phenomenon is emerging: cities holding software — and sometimes their own decisions — legally accountable.
Code as Infrastructure
Cities have always depended on infrastructure to operate: roads, bridges, public utilities. Today, code has joined that list. Automated systems determine when trash is collected, how emergency services are dispatched, or even who gets access to housing subsidies. Yet, unlike physical infrastructure, software is often developed under opaque contracts, managed by private vendors, and deployed with limited oversight.
This raises a pressing question: Can a city sue its own code?
The Legal Gray Zone
Legally, software doesn’t usually stand trial. But the decisions driven by code can — and increasingly do — face legal scrutiny. Several cities across the globe have begun to challenge their own digital tools when they perpetuate inequality, misfire in public safety, or breach privacy.
In one notable case, a city sued a vendor after discovering that an algorithm used to allocate public housing had discriminated against minority applicants. In another, a predictive policing tool was taken offline after a city council determined it unfairly targeted certain neighborhoods, leading to over-policing.
These lawsuits don’t always target the code directly, but rather the outcomes it enables — and the contracts that allowed such code to be embedded in public service in the first place.
Accountability in the Age of AI
As artificial intelligence becomes more embedded in city functions, accountability becomes murkier. Who is responsible when an algorithm makes a bad decision? The developer? The city that implemented it? Or the code itself, as a kind of silent policymaker?
Some cities are starting to treat code like legislation — subject to review, debate, and repeal. Transparency measures now require vendors to disclose how algorithms work and what data they use. There’s also a growing movement toward open-source civic technology, allowing residents to audit and even improve the code that governs them.
Rethinking Civic Tech
“When cities sue their code,” it’s not just a legal battle — it’s a cultural one. It challenges the idea that digital tools are neutral and forces governments to confront the values embedded in their technology.
Instead of blindly adopting tech solutions, cities are learning to ask critical questions:
- Who built this system?
- Who benefits from it?
- Who gets harmed?
These questions don’t just shape courtrooms. They shape policy, governance, and the democratic relationship between citizens and the systems that serve them.
Conclusion
Cities suing their code is more than a headline — it’s a turning point. It signals a shift from passive adoption to active governance of digital infrastructure. In the future, civic code may need to stand up not just to performance metrics, but to the law, ethics, and the people it claims to serve.
