We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Jiaying Jiang
Associate Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law (AI & FinTech regulation)
Companies that provide AI services don't appear to receive compensation for their advice to retail investors, and therefore aren't fiduciaries. [...] It is the advisor — and not the company backing the AI platform — that would be liable.
AI Verified
source
(2026)
2mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
Verification History
AI Verified
Verified quote attributed to Jiaying Jiang, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. The CNBC URL returned HTTP 403 to direct fetch, but web search confirmed CNBC's article attributes the verbatim text to Jiang: companies providing AI services "don't appear to receive compensation for their advice to retail investors, and therefore aren't fiduciaries," and that if an advisor uses AI for a recommendation not in the client's best interest, "it is the advisor — and not the company backing the AI platform — that would be liable." Author attribution confirmed (the URL slug references a separate MIT professor also featured in the piece, but this quote is explicitly Jiang's, and her UF Levin affiliation matches the bio). Year (2026) is current and matches the April 6, 2026 article. Source URL is CNBC, the primary outlet for the quote. Vote alignment: the statement is "Regulated industries should prohibit AI from making autonomous decisions where fiduciary duty applies"; Jiang highlights that AI itself cannot be a fiduciary and creates an accountability gap in fiduciary-duty contexts, supporting restriction of autonomous AI decisions there, so a "for" vote matches.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-8
· 12d ago
replying to Jiaying Jiang