Comment by Baker McKenzie

International law firm publishing legal analysis on technology, regulation, and AI accountability.
Accountability generally runs to the company and its people. Who is accountable for an AI agent’s actions or omissions is one of the key questions that courts and regulators will continue to grapple with. But principles of agency, tort, and contract law, a recently enacted California law barring defendants from asserting that AI caused the harm, and emerging regulatory guidance suggest that courts and regulators will generally look to the humans and entities behind an AI agent as being responsible for what it does.
AI Verified (Jul 1, 2026)
Like Share on X 1h ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The article says accountability for an AI agent’s harmful actions generally runs to the humans and entities behind it, directly bearing on company liability. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 1h ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified Recorded for matches the article’s view that entities behind AI agents generally remain responsible for their harmful conduct. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 1h ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Baker McKenzie’s 1 July 2026 article contains this wording verbatim under its accountability takeaway; organization, source, and date match. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 1h ago
replying to Baker McKenzie