Q&A: When AI Interactions Cause Harm, Who Is Responsible?
Artificial intelligence now sits in the loop of daily decisions-shopping, health, even therapy. As adoption grows, so does the risk profile. The core legal question keeps coming up: when AI leads to harm, who pays?
Who is currently held liable if an AI system causes harm?
There's no settled answer yet. Most disputes end in settlement, so we have limited case law. One thing is clear: the system itself isn't a defendant-liability attaches to the human or legal entity behind it.
Scholars split across three main routes. Strict liability puts the burden on manufacturers or deployers regardless of care. Negligence ties liability to the standard of care and reasonableness under the circumstances. Product liability treats AI like any other product, with design, manufacturing, and warning defects in play.
Strict liability broadens accountability and can incentivize safer releases. Negligence narrows exposure and may protect prudent actors, which appeals to those worried about stifling innovation. Some also argue for statutory safe harbors-if you follow defined practices, you're insulated.
How does AI's "black box" nature stress traditional tort concepts?
Explainability gaps make causation and foreseeability harder to prove. If you can't show why a model behaved a certain way, it's tougher to establish breach and link conduct to harm. That said, tort law adapts; we've seen this with cars, pharma, and software.
Expect courts to pressure-test reasonableness: data governance, evaluation protocols, monitoring, incident response, and documentation. The better your paper trail of care, the stronger your defense in a negligence frame.
How is AI being regulated right now?
Federal action remains limited, so states are moving first. Colorado enacted a comprehensive, consumer-focused statute targeting discriminatory outcomes in high-risk systems. California has pursued targeted bills on transparency, deepfakes, and employment discrimination.
Many states are still debating scope and structure. Some want a light touch to let technology mature. Others argue existing frameworks-tort, consumer protection, civil rights-are sufficient short-term. In the meantime, insurers and industry standards are doing quiet work as de facto governance.
What are we learning from AI copyright lawsuits?
Copyright is a pressure point. Active cases against major model developers are testing fair use, direct and indirect infringement, and what authorship means when machines contribute. It's early, but litigation is already reframing how training data, outputs, and human contribution are assessed.
Practical playbook for in-house counsel and litigators
- Map AI use cases by risk. Prioritize systems affecting health, finance, employment, housing, or safety.
- Lock in governance. Data provenance checks, bias testing, evaluation protocols, and human-in-the-loop for high-risk decisions.
- Document standard of care. Maintain model cards, decision logs, testing reports, and incident records. If you did the work, prove it.
- Tighten contracts. Allocate risk with indemnities, warranties on training data rights, audit rights, and update/patch obligations.
- Prepare for incident response. Triage, contain, notify, and remedy with clear escalation paths and counsel involvement.
- Review insurance. Assess product liability, tech E&O, and cyber for AI-specific exclusions or endorsements.
- Track state statutes. Build a compliance matrix across jurisdictions; don't assume preemption will save you.
Key questions courts are likely to probe
- Who controlled system design, training data, deployment, and monitoring?
- Was the harm foreseeable given known model limits and documented risks?
- Did the defendant meet an emerging standard of care for testing and oversight?
- How were warnings, disclosures, and user instructions handled?
- What role did the user play-misuse, reliance, or failure to follow guidance?
Bottom line
Liability will land on the people and entities behind AI-developers, deployers, and sometimes users. If you build or buy these systems, treat governance like a product-safety function. Good documentation and clear allocation of responsibility aren't just compliance-they're litigation strategy.
If your team needs structured upskilling on AI governance, model risk, and compliance, explore curated programs at Complete AI Training.
Your membership also unlocks:
