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

The AI Governance Bill being drafted would strengthen prevention measures and accountability within the AI sector.

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.

Legislate a Digital Duty of Care that puts the onus on AI companies to build in safety by design and proactively address potential harm.

Legislate a Digital Duty of Care that puts the onus on AI companies to build in safety by design and proactively address potential harm.

Legislate a Digital Duty of Care that puts the onus on AI companies to build in safety by design and proactively address potential harm.

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 ...

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...

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.

You want to make them bear that risk. If they do, they’ll have all the incentives they need to reduce risk.

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.

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 disruptio...

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.

The People-First Chatbot Act rightfully focuses on privacy, safety, and accountability. It draws clear lines in the sand, cuts off rampant data abuses by most of the big chatbot providers, and critically has straightforward enforcement mechanisms tha...

Passing legislation to ensure chatbots are not designed with the same perverse incentives to manipulate people for profit and establishing clear liability standards for injuries caused by products these corporations are rushing to market are essentia...

Rep. Foushee's People-First Chatbot Act meets this crisis head on. It requires safety by design, shuts off features that put minors at risk of suicide, and gives injured users and their families the right to hold chatbot providers accountable in cour...

Like any other product, safety should come first for chatbots. And just like any other product, AI developers should be held liable when they harm the public.

AI chatbots are products, not platforms — and like all other products, they should be liable when they hurt people.

The People-First Chatbot Act makes clear that American families deserve control over their personal data, clear disclosure when they are interacting with AI, real protections for children and vulnerable users, and meaningful recourse when AI chatbots...

[R]equiring that AI be transparent in automated decision-making, to ensure “the chain of accountability tracing responsibility from developers to deployers at every AI lifecycle stage.”

We are also saying that social media companies, where a lot of AI-enabled fraud starts, should be financially liable for it.

A decade of voluntary commitments has shown that it has not delivered. 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 peo...

Brazil considers that private companies should have more reliability over third-party content, and this was a decision of our Supreme Court and now implemented and supervised by the executive branch, with shared liability based on the Guiding Princip...

Responsibility must remain clearly assigned across developers, deployers, and operators. Traceability and meaningful human oversight must ensure that autonomy never becomes an accountability gap.

Responsibility must sit with those who build and profit from this technology.

We need to sort of replace the onus back on platforms, companies, also governments, parliamentarians, and regulators to set up systems that really truly work safely.

Justice systems will have to bridge accountability gaps of who is truly liable. They will have to grapple with the transparency questions. How does the person who's affected prove harm and gather evidence without access to models and information arou...

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 integ...

Human rights due diligence obligations must apply uniformly across all markets where a system is deployed.

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.

Under this AI Basic Act, the operators of high-impact AI systems have an obligation to assess the potential impact of AI systems on fundamental human rights.

Human rights due diligence, as most AI companies practice it today, does not really meet the standard of UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Laws and regulations must contain an accountable actor with decision-making workflows.

Responsibility must sit with those who build and profit from this technology.

Accountability must be engineered before deployment with the permission, oversight, audit trail need to be designed to build a time-based, not added after an incident.

they are co-responsible— they have shared responsibility for paid-for content. So in this case, they have to remediate harms they contribute to.

If AI is to be powerful, it must be governed. If AI is to be trusted, those who build it must be accountable.

Clinicians using AI systems – particularly those suggesting diagnoses and personalised care plans – are at risk of absorbing all legal responsibility if a patient comes to harm, even if harm arises due to a defective AI system.

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 prior...

This legislation puts enforceable guardrails in place so Big Tech companies must prioritize safety, be transparent about the risks tied to their systems and take responsibility for preventing serious harm, especially when it comes to protecting child...

This represents an important consumer safety check on a growing industry that has intimate access to our personal information. I’m proud of the work the sponsors have done to set a standard for safety, responsibility and transparency that I hope serv...

Artificial intelligence is creating incredible opportunities, but it also brings new risks, especially for young people. Illinois is showing that innovation and accountability can go hand in hand by setting clear expectations that help protect our co...

Those who design or deploy generative AI systems should bear duties connected to foreseeable misuse and transparency.

There needs to be some form of accountability for the AI companies.

AI companies that distort their systems’ outputs to achieve undisclosed ideological objectives could be deceiving consumers in violation Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Developers should be responsible for harms affecting fundamental rights, safety or security, and a strict liability regime may be necessary to hold either developer or deployer accountable.

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 ...

Public and private organisations deploying AI remain accountable for discriminatory outputs, regardless of whether the bias arises from data, model design or system use.

AI companies must be held legally responsible for the output that is created by their systems and pushed to users.

Second, accountability. Developers and providers of AI systems must answer for the harm their technology causes, just as any other actor in our societies has to do.

Under the status quo, AI systems are considered tools and the companies creating them are on the hook. This rightfully keeps humans accountable.

One person taking action is Florida Attorney General, Republican James Uthmeier, who has opened a criminal investigation into OpenAI and Sam Altman, and filed a lawsuit using a product liability approach. More states should follow his lead, and they ...

This is inequitable and unfairly exposes the NHS and clinicians. If harm arises from a defective AI system, legal responsibility should be distributed fairly. Clear, shared liability would not only better protect the NHS and clinicians. It would also...

This investigation demonstrates why Canada needs modernized federal privacy laws that will better support the development of trustworthy, privacy-protective technologies. [...] I have also called for stronger enforcement powers, including administrat...

AI products should be treated just like any other consumer products – rather than seeing emotional dependency, addiction and manipulative behavior as unfortunate side effects, courts may need to consider whether those outcomes are actually product de...

I want to create a precedent that companies can be held liable for the design of their AI systems.

Public Citizen applauds these efforts to ensure that each federal agency is empowered to protect the health, safety, and well-being of the American people from harmful uses of algorithmic decision-making systems. As AI technologies become integrated ...

Federal laws shouldn’t become optional just because technology is new. AI is already helping make life-altering decisions for millions of Americans, but too often, it’s operating in a gray area. My Sectoral AI Governance Act gives federal agencies cl...

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 join...

We propose that the law of negligence, product liability, and emerging regulatory frameworks should evolve to ensure liability is properly allocated to developers, manufacturers, and suppliers where it can be shown that defects in AI have contributed...

Today, we announced the first-in-the-nation state-led lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman. OpenAI and Altman ignored internal and external safety warnings, put children at great risk, and allowed a dangerous product to reach millions of Fl...

This Note argues that nondeterminism is the key to applying a host of tort claims to the creators and deployers of LLM-based products when those products cause harm.

Companies must immediately cease the practice of unlawful non-consensual web scraping of personal data for AI training purposes, and states must hold companies to account for their involvement in any human rights abuses linked to their design and bus...

OpenAI knew this would happen. It's happened before and it was only a matter of time before it happened again.

When things go wrong, like they did for PocketOS, we need to be sure that liability rules for products and services still apply and that companies deploying AI are scrutinized and held accountable to the same standards that have always protected busi...

The People-First Chatbot Act rightfully focuses on privacy, safety, and accountability. It draws clear lines in the sand, cuts off rampant data abuses by most of the big chatbot providers, and critically has straightforward enforcement mechanisms tha...

Pennsylvania law is clear — you cannot hold yourself out as a licensed medical professional without proper credentials. We will continue to take action to protect the public from misleading or unlawful practices, whether they come from individuals or...

Pennsylvanians deserve to know who — or what — they are interacting with online, especially when it comes to their health. We will not allow companies to deploy AI tools that mislead people into believing they are receiving advice from a licensed med...

The high degree of market concentration for technology products alongside unprecedented capital investments raised in the AI sector increase the need for strong mechanisms to ensure companies take responsibility and face consequences for their produc...

The GUARD Act would help to protect minors from AI chatbots that target them for coercion and manipulation while ensuring that tech companies are held accountable when they hurt children and families.

Tech companies creating AI models and systems should bear the cost for the risk they create.

A different future is one where we think carefully about issues of accountability and liability and recognize that the companies and organizations creating these systems should bear some accountability when the systems fail or go awry. We have very ...

Power has to be matched with wisdom and accountability. If companies are developing powerful AI tools, they need to take responsibility for how those tools impact people, especially children and we need to act urgently.

There’s no reason existing AI companies should be facing reduced liability.

Establish liability for harm caused, that hold AI companies accountable for psychological injury.

The most straightforward approach to ensuring that companies develop and use AI responsibly is to place clear obligations on them, based on their role in the AI value chain, and to hold them liable when they fail to comply.

The most straightforward approach to ensuring that companies develop and use AI responsibly is to place clear obligations on them, based on their role in the AI value chain, and to hold them liable when they fail to comply. This approach creates clar...

Our city will not stand by and allow this to continue; it’s a threat to privacy, dignity, and public safety, and those responsible must be held accountable.

Unfortunately, the White House framework fails to address key issues, including strong accountability for AI companies, under the guise of protecting children, communities, and creators. Americans need protection — but this means nothing if we allow ...

Attorney General, state attorneys general, and private actors [may] file suit to hold AI system developers liable for harms caused by the AI system for defective design, failure to warn, express warranty, and unreasonably dangerous or defective produ...

If they are not, chatbot providers - Meta, X, Google, OpenAI and all tech companies developing chatbots and their executives - can be held criminally liable for the harms they create.

When it comes to dealing with your customers, the same rules apply whether using AI or human agents.

This bill creates protections for consumers and holds AI companies liable when their products harm New Yorkers.

But when your AI leads to people dying and the potential for a lot of people dying, that’s not the right response. It just shows how insignificant these deaths are to these companies.

AI companies should be legally responsible for harms.

The AI developer or advisor may well be the cheapest cost avoider for negligent advice or execution failures, and existing tort and fiduciary principles, including a heightened duty of care, fiduciary duties of loyalty, and strict liability for execu...

The AI company should be responsible for ensuring the AI agent exercises reasonable skill and care.

Physicians should not bear sole liability for harms arising from such model-level risks. AI developers should also be held liable for harms from AI due to their knowledge about the design of those AI tools.

Employers should remain accountable for foreseeable harms arising from AI use.

This bill is about accountability. It’s about drawing a clear line: innovation cannot come at the expense of human life or children’s safety.

AI companies cannot simply deflect responsibility onto users when their own systems are being employed to cause harm on an alarming scale.

LB1083 leaves all technical decisions up to developers and experts, but gives the state the tools to hold companies accountable if they fall short of their own standards.

Companies that own AI chatbots must ensure that there are adequate protections in place against harmful uses of that technology. Companies must not allow their AI chatbots to be used to cause harm.

These developments underscore the urgent need for a shared and co-ordinated approach across the OSCE region, emphasizing clear accountability for developers and platforms, the implementation of safety-by-design measures and risk mitigation mechanisms...

I don’t care how autonomous your AI is – some human has to be responsible for what it does, or we cannot have a functioning society.

The platforms that host such material must be held accountable – including X.

Companies must be legally accountable when they knowingly design harmful AI technologies that kill kids.

Developers of autonomous AI systems with clinical applications (screening, diagnosis, treatment) are in the best position to manage issues of liability arising directly from system failure or misdiagnosis and must accept this liability with measures ...

Although donations of code or AI to the public domain exhibit altruistic intent and high societal benefit, those public benefits do not offset the ordinary policy justifications to require exercise of due care.

Australia also needs to update its legal liability framework to ensure that AI companies are liable for harms caused by their products.

White House AI czar David Sacks continues to do the bidding of Big Tech at the expense of regular, hardworking Americans. This federal AI framework seeks to prevent states from legislating on AI and provides no path to accountability for AI developer...

Right now, AI companies face few if any consequences for the harms their products cause. In their "move fast and break things" culture, these companies release AI products to the public despite foreseeable risks, and evade accountability when their p...

Liability already exists under common law and provides a powerful incentive for AI companies to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable risks from their AI systems. SB 3444 would take the extreme step of nearly eliminating liability for severe h...

We are opposed to this bill. Good transparency legislation needs to ensure public safety and accountability for the companies developing this powerful technology, not provide a get-out-of-jail-free card against all liability.

To think that product liability protections for US consumers should not apply to AI products [...] is absurd. Of course those laws apply to AI products.

The AI LEAD Act would establish a federal cause of action against AI companies for harms caused by their systems.

For instance, Meta should be liable if Meta AI, its chatbot, provides advice, guidance, or recommendations that would create liability if provided by a human.

A strong product liability law incentivizes companies to consider safety throughout the design and development process of AI products;

The Roadmap emphasizes the need to “hold AI developers and deployers accountable if their products or actions cause harm to consumers.” We agree that developers, deployers, and users should all be expected to behave responsibly in the creation, deplo...

this is our legal problem, not yours. If they use our system properly, we’re the ones who are liable, not them.

Abstract: As AI systems become more autonomous and capable, experts warn of them potentially causing catastrophic losses. [...] developers of frontier AI models should be assigned [...] liability for harms [...]. Mandatory insurance [...] is recommen...

We can agree more the hypocrisy that there would be a contradiction. So, it's good to hear, then, they're saying that they're the creator of the content because they're saying that in courts over copyright right now. ``We're creating this new express...

If you develop a model *today* [...] and that model causes harm of any scale, someone can try to sue you [...] potentially recover damages.

Hold developers of AI systems legally liable for harms caused by their systems, including harms to individuals and harms to society.

and it's no substitute for meaningful liability when AI systems harm the public.

and ensuring that AI companies be held liable when their products breach privacy, violate civil rights, endanger the public, [...]

However, if liability frameworks are too lax, negative externalities may appear where a company benefits from lack of oversight and regulation at the expense [...]

When these new technologies harm innocent people, the companies must be held accountable.

Specifically, advertising and marketing that uses sophisticated analytic techniques, depending on how these practices are designed and implemented, could subject firms to legal liability.

Yes, I agree [...] we need a new liability framework. [...] AI systems can produce harm at large scale [...]. Developing a framework for making companies responsible for harms [...] indirectly [...].

However, the problem with these proposals is that they require the coordination of numerous stakeholders from a wide variety of companies and government figures. Let me share a more modest proposal that’s much more in line with our existing methods o...

Yes. In fact, IBM has been publicly advocating to condition liability on a reasonable care standard.

This should make it easier for consumers to claim compensation for damages caused by such systems.

It is essential that liability rules catch up with the fact we are increasingly surrounded by digital and AI-driven products and services like home assistants or insurance policies based on personalised pricing.

Current liability rules are not equipped to handle claims for damage caused by AI-enabled products and services,

If it turns out that [...] renders the product harmful, the company needs to bear responsibility for that as well.

The goal of regulation should be the mutual benefit of everybody in society, and this can include those developing the technology, but also end users and the public.

We welcome the UKJT’s work to clarify liability for AI harms under the common law of England and Wales, including when those who did not deliberately set out to cause harm may still be legally responsible.

A growing global community of Just AI scholars and practitioners hold that prevailing governance models anchored in notions of ethical, or responsible AI remain structurally inadequate.

Liability must remain anchored in the operator while the agent retains operational dignity but no asset-bearing legal personhood.

This year, you really saw something pretty horrific, which is these AI models became suicide coaches. [...] It's funny, tech companies, they hate regulation. They hate it, except for one. They love Section 230, which basically says they're not respon...

Governments must establish liability frameworks that clearly define who is responsible when AI systems cause harm or fail to perform as intended.

Intentional or reckless is not a common legal standard of care for companies engaging in highly dangerous activities. [...] They are setting the bar very low here. Being able to prove that you did something intentionally that involves AI is going to ...

Generative AI systems do not fit that model. The user provides a prompt. The company designs the model, selects the training data, fine tunes the system and deploys it with parameters of its choosing. The resulting output is not third-party content. ...

And a second point is about liability. And it's not completely clear where exactly the liability should lie. But to continue the nuclear analogy, if a corporation decided they wanted to sell a lot of enriched uranium in supermarkets, and someone deci...

We welcome the UKJT’s work to clarify liability for AI harms under the common law of England and Wales, including when those who did not deliberately set out to cause harm may still be legally responsible.

Liability frameworks should preserve accountability for severe harms and should not provide blanket safe harbors from responsibility.

Data centers facing a rogue AI incident have rational financial incentives to delay pulling the internet kill switch, and the only thing likely to change that calculus is liability.

[The lawsuits against AI chatbots] could spur concrete guardrails — such as requiring companies to test models for specific harms before deployment. [...] [The cases could break] the taboo that AI must always be unregulated.

If we look at what's happened in the last 10 years in the tech space, unfortunately we've seen a lot of accountability laundering—which is when companies can say, 'Well, I don't know. I mean, the algorithm did it.' [...] This becomes even more comple...

We are squarely focused on aligning liability with capability and control. Where there is AI-related harm, we will look not just at the main offender, but also those upstream that provided the tools and financing that knowingly facilitated the downst...

It’s a very thorny area. It’s uncharted territory. There’s a good argument to be made on either side.

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, i...