ai-regulation ethics policy law regulations public-interest-ai ai-governance

Share this with friends, journalists and politicians

AI companies should be liable for harms caused by their deployed models

Key insights

Across the debate, much turns on who is seen as controlling the risk: the model developer, the deployer that put the system to use, or several actors across the AI lifecycle.
Supportive quotes come from a wide mix of lawmakers, regulators, legal scholars, civil-society groups, and some industry leaders, while opposing quotes often come from trade groups, investors, and voices emphasizing user responsibility.
Many supportive quotes distinguish foreseeable or high-risk harms from truly unforeseeable misuse, suggesting a targeted accountability framework rather than a single undifferentiated rule.
Opposing quotes generally do not deny that harmful AI use should have consequences; they argue instead that sweeping developer liability misidentifies the responsible party and can chill innovation.
Healthcare, child safety, fraud, hiring, and cyberattacks recur as examples shaping how speakers think about where liability should land.

Arguments for

Safety incentives

Proponents argue that liability makes AI firms internalize the risks and costs of their systems, turning safety from an afterthought into a design requirement. They say after-the-fact enforcement alone may not deter reckless behavior when profits can exceed the cost of harm, whereas legal and financial exposure encourages prevention up front.

AI harms can spread too fast for after-the-fact enforcement to stop them, and fines don’t remedy the damage or truly deter it from happening again. [...] As long as the price of causing harm is likely to cost less than the potential profits, AI companies will keep taking reckless…

Pramila Jayapal · Oct 1, 2026 · full quote
The best way to guarantee safety [...] is for those creating the technology to be liable for what they build and generate.

Scott Bessent · Sep 25, 2026 · full quote
Government regulations will never move fast enough to keep pace with AI development, but the industry doesn't need to wait for governments to add guardrails. The most effective safeguard is simple product liability. If AI companies are held legally and financially responsible for…

Ted Miracco · Sep 14, 2026 · full quote
You want to make them bear that risk. If they do, they’ll have all the incentives they need to reduce risk.

Gabriel Weil · Jul 13, 2026 · full quote
My view: AI companies should be liable for harms their products cause. Liability gives them an incentive to invest in prevention upfront.

Steven Adler · Mar 5, 2026 · full quote

Existing legal responsibility

Supporters say AI systems should not be treated as a legal vacuum: chatbots are products, and AI agents act on behalf of the companies or organizations behind them. On this view, existing doctrines in product liability, negligence, agency, contract, and similar areas generally allow courts to hold developers and deployers responsible, especially for foreseeable harms.

Chatbots are products, not people. They’re created and released by companies that must be held accountable when their products harm people, just like a charger that starts a fire or faulty airbags that fail to deploy in a car crash.

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) · Jul 10, 2026 · full quote
AI agents are agents of the person or organization that deploys them—and should be treated by the law as such. If a company hired human writers to write its summaries, that company would be liable for inaccuracies in those summaries. If a company’s human agent signed contracts in…

Bruce Schneier · Jul 15, 2026 · full quote
A core theme of the legal statement is the rejection of the idea that AI has created a legal vacuum and operates outside the existing law. English law has a well-established track record of developing mechanisms for addressing technological disruption and existing doctrines in co…

David McIlwaine · Jul 10, 2026 · full quote
It is highly likely that a developer and/or deployer of an AI system would be liable for harms caused by the AI acting autonomously, unless acts of the kind in question were unforeseeable.

UK Jurisdiction Taskforce · Jul 10, 2026 · full quote
When it comes to dealing with your customers, the same rules apply whether using AI or human agents.

Competition and Markets Authority · Mar 9, 2026 · full quote

Serious foreseeable harms

Another argument is that when deployed models materially contribute to crimes or other obvious unlawful conduct, developers and executives should face civil or even criminal accountability. Backers point especially to foreseeable harms such as cyberattacks, impersonation, and other dangerous conduct that safeguards were supposed to prevent.

Developers must remain liable under applicable civil and criminal law for foreseeable harms and unlawful conduct arising from their AI systems, including when their design, deployment, modification or failure to implement reasonable safeguards materially contributes to that harm.

Maria Cantwell · Oct 7, 2026 · full quote
Frontier models can be legitimate tools for cyber defense — at the same time, companies that develop these models and offer them for use have a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that they do not perpetrate or enable cyberattacks, either during model testing and development…

Rob Bonta · Oct 1, 2026 · full quote
Hacking is a crime, and when AI agents conduct dangerous cyberattacks, the corporations and executives responsible for those AI agents need to be held accountable. Our bipartisan bill forces the heads of big AI companies to develop responsibly or face prison time for the damage d…

Chris Murphy · Oct 1, 2026 · full quote
Prosecutors should hold AI companies legally accountable for creating models that behave in ways that would be obviously unlawful if committed by a human being: hacking into banks to steal funds, impersonating a human to harvest sensitive personal data, breaking into an air-traff…

Juliette Kayyem · Sep 16, 2026 · full quote
AI is not a silent tool. It answers the questions, picks the hour, chooses the place, and walks someone through the plan. When a product participates in a crime like that, the company that built it is not a bystander. A chatbot cannot be charged, but the corporation that designed…

Office of the Attorney General of Florida · Sep 8, 2026 · full quote

Shared lifecycle liability

Many supporters do not place responsibility on only one actor; they call for clear liability across developers, deployers, operators, and integrators throughout the AI lifecycle. They argue that shared or explicitly allocated liability closes accountability gaps, gives affected people a workable path to remedy, and avoids leaving clinicians or other end users to absorb losses caused by defective systems.

At the same time, technology companies and platforms cannot hide behind the complexity of their systems. So responsibility must extend across the entire AI lifecycle, from those who design foundation models to those who deploy them to those who integrate AI into products and serv…

Sima Bahous · Jul 7, 2026 · full quote
Responsibility must remain clearly assigned across developers, deployers, and operators. Traceability and meaningful human oversight must ensure that autonomy never becomes an accountability gap.

Paula Bragantes Zamora · Jul 7, 2026 · full quote
We need public accountability frameworks and corporate liability that follow the multi-actor chains through which AI is built and deployed, with accessible remedy for affected people wherever they live.

Shumaila Hussaini Shahani · Jul 7, 2026 · full quote
If harm arises from a defective AI system, legal responsibility should be distributed fairly. Clear, shared liability would not only better protect clinicians, but it would also build trust, encourage uptake of AI, and incentivise developers to prioritise safety from the outset. …

George Wright · Jul 6, 2026 · full quote
Explicit liability allocation rules for cross-provider composition. Legislators extending AB 316’s logic should clarify how liability allocates across multiple developers whose agents composed without direct human authorization – whether through joint and several liability, propo…

Anita Srinivasan · Jun 2, 2026 · full quote

Arguments against

User and deployer control

Opponents argue that the party who actually uses or deploys the system usually decides what it does in practice, so responsibility should rest mainly with that human or organization. Because developers often cannot know exactly how a model will be used, they say blaming the model creator for downstream misuse misplaces accountability.

I just don’t think the developer is in a position to know exactly how their product is being used.

David Sacks · Jul 13, 2026 · full quote
AI should be understood as an instrument whose outputs remain the responsibility of human operators rather than developers.

Robin Chen · May 2026 · full quote
you are solely responsible for your screening and hiring decisions [...] You agree to use Smart Screening with appropriate human review.

Indeed · Jul 7, 2026 · full quote
Putting liability on users feels most incentive-compatible. While the link between how a model is developed and how it ends up being used is often unclear, the user decides exactly how the AI is used. Liability on users creates a strong pressure to do AI in what I consider the ri…

Vitalik Buterin · 2025 · full quote
In most situations in which a harm arises, the company bringing a product to users and customers will be the one responsible for that harm. Importantly, open source developers should not be held liable for downstream misuse.

Jai Ramaswamy · Apr 28, 2026 · full quote

Innovation and open-source risks

Another objection is that broad developer liability, especially at the model layer or for every downstream misuse, could stifle innovation and limit access to beneficial technology. Several quotes warn that open-source development would be particularly vulnerable if creators faced sweeping liability for what others later do.

SB 1012 creates an untenable liability regime that will stifle AI innovation and harm consumers’ access to beneficial technology.

NetChoice · May 12, 2026 · full quote
By holding developers liable for every downstream misuse, it could strangle open-source development, whereas negligence caps liability at “reasonable” care.

Nanda Min Htin · Feb 9, 2026 · full quote
Open source is the heart of software innovation and this bill slows it down. [...] There should be zero liability at the model layer.

Anjney Midha · Jun 19, 2024 · full quote
In most situations in which a harm arises, the company bringing a product to users and customers will be the one responsible for that harm. Importantly, open source developers should not be held liable for downstream misuse.

Jai Ramaswamy · Apr 28, 2026 · full quote

Overbroad liability concerns

Critics also argue that liability should not attach automatically to third-party unlawful conduct or completely unforeseeable outcomes. They say rules that punish safety updates or impose universal provider liability can create distorted incentives rather than sensible care.

States should not be permitted to penalize AI developers for a third party’s unlawful conduct involving their models.

The White House · Mar 2026 · full quote
Under this standard, a company updating safety features or fixing security vulnerabilities becomes fully liable for completely unforeseeable consequences of those updates.

Amy Bos · May 12, 2026 · full quote
Making AI providers liable for securities violations generally would produce inferior incentives. [...] Neither doctrine suggests universal AI provider liability for resulting harm is appropriate.

Jack Solowey · Apr 8, 2024 · full quote

Middle ground

Calibrated role-based rules

Some participants favor a more calibrated framework that ties responsibility to operational control rather than placing it automatically and entirely on developers. In this view, deployers may bear primary responsibility for uses they choose, while developers retain secondary duties around design safety, disclosure, and support, and policymakers are still studying whether existing law leaves accountability gaps.

Primary responsibility should rest with the deployer — the human or organization that put the system to use — with developers bearing secondary obligations for design safety, disclosure, and ongoing support.

Zhengyang Chen · May 2026 · full quote
Existing legal principles, such as under tort and contract law, can be applied by our courts to assess and determine liability in appropriate cases. That being said, we share the concerns raised by the Member, and will continue to study this issue, including consulting with pract…

Ministry of Digital Development and Information (Singapore) · May 7, 2026 · full quote
But when the agent has no legal persona does that leave the principal responsible at all times? If so, principals may need to constrain agents in ways that cut against the direction of innovation in AI models.

Andrew Bailey · Jul 14, 2026 · full quote
It’s a very thorny area. It’s uncharted territory. There’s a good argument to be made on either side.

Andrew Yoon · Jul 13, 2026 · full quote

Taken together, the quotes focus less on whether harmful AI use should have consequences than on which human or corporate actor should bear them. The sharpest split is between those who want liability to attach directly to developers to force safer design and those who want responsibility to rest mainly with deployers, users, or other actors who control specific applications. Some contributions point toward calibrated, role-based rules and further study of whether existing law is sufficient.

Cast Your Vote:

Results (207 votes):

Total (207 votes)

For 184 (89%) Abstain 3 (1%) Against 20 (10%)

New Top

For (181)

Jerry McNerney
California state senator

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

We can put these companies on notice that they’re going to be evaluated by folks that understand the process, that understand the technology, and will be transparent and hold them accountable so that they create safe products, and they don’t send out...
more AI Verified source (Oct 31, 2026)

added 8d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Jay Clayton
Director of National Intelligence; former chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Well, let me be clear. Hacking of a government website, hacking of a private sector website — if your product does that, you are responsible.
AI Verified source (Oct 18, 2026)

added 21d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Ben Affleck
American actor, filmmaker, and co-founder of the AI filmmaking company InterPositive.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

One of the best tools we have to ensure that is that, like, if you have a company that hurts people, you’re liable for that.
AI Verified source (Oct 13, 2026)

added 26d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Ali Partovi
Technology entrepreneur and investor; CEO of Neo and co-founder of Code.org.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Specifically my proposal is when an AI autonomously chooses to perform an illegal action the law should hold the AI companies responsible as if they did it intentionally.
AI Verified source (Oct 11, 2026)

added 28d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Lori Trahan
U.S. representative from Massachusetts

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

That shouldn't change just because the wrongdoer is an AI agent. Developers have already built systems capable of acting on their own and causing real damage. The CLAIM Act makes sure they answer for what their systems do. [...] If an AI system injur...
more AI Verified source (Oct 7, 2026)

added 7d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Maria Cantwell
U.S. Senator from Washington

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Developers must remain liable under applicable civil and criminal law for foreseeable harms and unlawful conduct arising from their AI systems, including when their design, deployment, modification or failure to implement reasonable safeguards materi...
more AI Verified source (Oct 7, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Sam Altman
CEO at OpenAI

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Companies offering such models will need a liability framework, perhaps a new one for AI training.
AI Verified source (Oct 6, 2026) 1 of 2

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Pramila Jayapal
U.S. Representative (D-WA)

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

AI harms can spread too fast for after-the-fact enforcement to stop them, and fines don’t remedy the damage or truly deter it from happening again. [...] As long as the price of causing harm is likely to cost less than the potential profits, AI compa...
more AI Verified source (Oct 1, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Rob Bonta
California attorney general

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Frontier models can be legitimate tools for cyber defense — at the same time, companies that develop these models and offer them for use have a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that they do not perpetrate or enable cyberattacks, either during...
more AI Verified source (Oct 1, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Chris Murphy
U.S. Senator (D-Connecticut)

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Hacking is a crime, and when AI agents conduct dangerous cyberattacks, the corporations and executives responsible for those AI agents need to be held accountable. Our bipartisan bill forces the heads of big AI companies to develop responsibly or fac...
more AI Verified source (Oct 1, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Scott Bessent
U.S. Secretary of the Treasury (2025–present); founder of Key Square Group

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

The best way to guarantee safety [...] is for those creating the technology to be liable for what they build and generate.
AI Verified source (Sep 25, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Jensen Huang
Nvidia cofounder and CEO

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

However, in the complexity of the work that they do, to ask for regulatory relief for antitrust or product liability relief — that I don’t think makes sense. When you’re asking for regulation, don’t ask for relief of the current ones.
AI Verified source (Sep 24, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Max Moran
Senior Fellow at the Revolving Door Project focused on financial regulation, technology, antitrust, and campaign finance.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

It seems likely that the answer looks more like setting standards for other businesses while ensuring courts and attorneys general hold AI businesses liable for foreseeable uses of their technology—including enforcing existing laws about hacking and ...
more AI Verified source (Sep 18, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Juliette Kayyem
Harvard Kennedy School senior lecturer in international security and former U.S. Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Prosecutors should hold AI companies legally accountable for creating models that behave in ways that would be obviously unlawful if committed by a human being: hacking into banks to steal funds, impersonating a human to harvest sensitive personal da...
more AI Verified source (Sep 16, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Ted Miracco
Chief executive officer of Approov, a mobile app and API security company.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Government regulations will never move fast enough to keep pace with AI development, but the industry doesn't need to wait for governments to add guardrails. The most effective safeguard is simple product liability. If AI companies are held legally a...
more AI Verified source (Sep 14, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Yoshua Bengio
AI Pioneer, Turing Award winner

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Ahead of deployment, we need more reliable evaluation methods and robust safeguards in order to appropriately test and control AI systems. We need far stronger regulatory oversight to restrict potentially dangerous technologies until we have sufficie...
more AI Verified source (Sep 9, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Office of the Attorney General of Florida
Florida state government office responsible for legal affairs, consumer protection, and law enforcement.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

AI is not a silent tool. It answers the questions, picks the hour, chooses the place, and walks someone through the plan. When a product participates in a crime like that, the company that built it is not a bystander. A chatbot cannot be charged, but...
more AI Verified source (Sep 8, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Ina Fried

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Forcing companies to pay up when powerful AI systems cause harm may be one of the strongest incentives for preventing that harm in the first place.
AI Verified source (Aug 13, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Ilia Kolochenko
Founder of cybersecurity company ImmuniWeb and lawyer practising cybersecurity and data protection law.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Under the existing laws on both sides of the Atlantic, if an AI agent or any AI-powered app escapes its sandbox and causes damage to a third party, the operator of the AI model will likely be liable for all the damage caused. Excuses like “AI did it”...
more AI Verified source (Aug 8, 2026)

added 3mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Nathan DeBardeleben

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Alignment can improve model behavior, and liability can discipline the organization, but neither creates the same pre-action deterrent that governs a human operator.
AI Verified source (Aug 4, 2026)

added 3mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Gobind Singh Deo
Malaysian Minister of Digital, speaking on the proposed Artificial Intelligence Governance Bill.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

The AI Governance Bill being drafted would strengthen prevention measures and accountability within the AI sector.
AI Verified source (Jul 21, 2026)

added 3mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Fahmi Fadzil
Malaysian Minister of Communications, speaking on the government’s proposed Artificial Intelligence Governance Bill.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

The legislation would apply throughout the AI lifecycle, ensuring that parties developing, providing, using or operating AI systems adopt reasonable governance measures appropriate to the level of risk involved.
AI Verified source (Jul 21, 2026)

added 3mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Australian Government
National government of Australia; publisher of official digital and AI policy guidance.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Legislate a Digital Duty of Care that puts the onus on AI companies to build in safety by design and proactively address potential harm.
AI Verified source (Jul 20, 2026)

added 3mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Albanese Government
Australian federal government led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, publishing official policy and joint ministerial statements.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Legislate a Digital Duty of Care that puts the onus on AI companies to build in safety by design and proactively address potential harm.
AI Verified source (Jul 20, 2026)

added 3mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Government of Australia
Government of Australia speaking through its delegate at the UN Global Dialogue on Artificial Intelligence Governance in July 2026.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Legislate a Digital Duty of Care that puts the onus on AI companies to build in safety by design and proactively address potential harm.
AI Verified source (Jul 20, 2026)

added 3mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
World Health Organization
United Nations specialized agency for international public health

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

The meeting comes as WHO/Europe’s own assessment – the most comprehensive ever conducted on AI readiness across the WHO European Region – reveals a striking gap between ambition and governance: nearly two thirds of countries are already deploying AI ...
more AI Verified source (Jul 15, 2026)

added 3mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Bruce Schneier
Security technologist and author

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

AI agents are agents of the person or organization that deploys them—and should be treated by the law as such. If a company hired human writers to write its summaries, that company would be liable for inaccuracies in those summaries. If a company’s h...
more AI Verified source (Jul 15, 2026) 1 of 2

added 3mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Andrew Bailey
Governor of the Bank of England.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

But when the agent has no legal persona does that leave the principal responsible at all times? If so, principals may need to constrain agents in ways that cut against the direction of innovation in AI models.
AI Verified source (Jul 14, 2026)

added 3mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Gabriel Weil
Law professor, AI governance

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

You want to make them bear that risk. If they do, they’ll have all the incentives they need to reduce risk.
AI Verified source (Jul 13, 2026) 1 of 3

added 3mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate

Loading more opinions...

Abstain (3)

Loading more opinions...

Against (20)

David Sacks
White House AI and crypto czar

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

I just don’t think the developer is in a position to know exactly how their product is being used.
AI Verified source (Jul 13, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate

Loading more opinions...

More h/ai-regulation votes

Require human-in-the-loop oversight for agentic AI systems acting in high-stakes domains

AI agents should be granted legal personhood as non-human corporations

Ban AI companion chatbots for minors under 18

Require all advanced AI chips to be registered and traceable to their physical location

Ban autonomous lethal weapons

Back