People and Companies Should Be Legally Liable for Their AI Agents
At his blog, Schneier on Security, public-interest technologist Bruce Schneier writes:
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 the company’s name, that company would be bound by those contracts. And if a doctor gave dangerously wrong medical advice, they would be liable for malpractice.
To allow businesses to hide behind the excuse of faulty AI in those same circumstances would be a massive handout to companies, and would introduce disastrous incentives for corporate misbehavior. Why hire human writers, lawyers or doctors when AIs are not only cheaper, but also absolve employers whenever they make a mistake?
Schneier’s point reinforces—from a legal liability angle—my apprehension about AI agents (see “Why AI Agents Fill Me with Dread,” 24 June 2026). Although I see plenty of room for ambiguity when it comes to AI-generated content, when AI agents are actively engaged in tasks that could have harmful results, I believe whoever deployed the agent should bear legal responsibility for its actions. We, as a society, cannot create a situation in which agentic misbehavior has no legal or financial consequences.
The corollary to that is that those of us who use the agents to do something for us are liable for the results.
I would guess (not much of a guess) that the licensing agreement puts all of the responsibility on the end user.
Caveat Emptor!
David
… unless the agent does something you didn’t ask him to do.