Skip to main content
Back to Blog

Agentic AI Compliance: Liability, Legal Frameworks, and Risk Management

A framework for navigating AI agent liability—who's responsible when agents act autonomously, emerging legal precedents, compliance strategies, and risk management for agentic systems.

7 min read
Share:

The Liability Gap

AI agents can now autonomously browse the web, make purchases, send communications, and execute multi-step workflows. But the legal frameworks governing liability haven't caught up.

Why agentic AI creates new liability questions: Traditional software liability is straightforward: if software has a bug, the developer may be liable; if you misuse software, you're liable. But AI agents blur these lines. When an agent autonomously decides to take an action that wasn't explicitly programmed—based on learned patterns from training data and runtime reasoning—who's responsible? The developer who trained it? The company that deployed it? The user who set it loose? The answer often isn't clear.

The autonomy problem: The more autonomous the agent, the harder liability becomes. A simple "if-then" automation is predictable—you can trace cause and effect. But an LLM-powered agent that browses the web, synthesizes information, and decides to send an email making commitments on your behalf? That decision emerged from billions of parameters interacting in ways no one can fully predict. Courts are only beginning to grapple with how to assign responsibility for emergent autonomous behavior.

From Stanford Law: "AI agents are rewriting the rules of engagement. When an autonomous system enters a contract or makes a decision that causes harm, traditional principal-agent law provides uncertain answers."

This post provides a practical framework for understanding and managing liability in agentic AI systems.

A fundamental principle: AI agents cannot be held liable because they are not legal entities.

From legal research: "AI agents are not (yet) legal 'persons' in any jurisdiction—they remain tools whose actions are legally attributed to humans or companies."

Who bears liability:

Code
Potential Liable Parties:
├── Developer/Provider
│   └── Product liability, negligence, warranty
├── Deployer/Operator
│   └── Vicarious liability, duty of care
├── User/Principal
│   └── Agency relationship, contractual obligations
└── Third-party integrators
    └── Integration negligence, failure to warn

The Liability Attribution Challenge

When an agent causes harm, courts must determine responsibility:

ScenarioPrimary Liable PartyTheory
Agent makes discriminatory hiring decisionDeployer + ProviderDisparate impact, product defect
Agent executes unauthorized transactionUser (principal)Agency law
Agent sends defamatory contentDeployer + UserNegligent supervision
Agent causes data breachProvider + DeployerNegligence, product liability
Agent hallucinates harmful medical adviceProviderProduct defect, failure to warn

Landmark Cases and Precedents

Mobley v. Workday (2024-2025)

The first major AI agent liability case:

From court records: "In July 2024, Judge Rita Lin allowed a discrimination lawsuit to proceed against Workday as an 'agent' of companies using its automated screening tools—marking the first time a federal court applied agency theory to hold an AI vendor directly liable."

Key developments:

  • May 2025: Achieved nationwide class action certification
  • Covers all applicants over 40 rejected by Workday's AI screening
  • Establishes that AI vendors can be liable as "agents" under civil rights law

Implications for AI providers:

  1. Providing AI tools may create agency relationship
  2. Vendors cannot hide behind "we just provide the technology" defense
  3. Disparate impact liability extends to AI decision-makers

Emerging Strict Liability Theories

Legal scholars are proposing strict product liability for advanced AI:

From research: "For AI systems that can autonomously enter contracts, make financial decisions, or take actions on behalf of users, a single 'hallucination' or erroneous decision could constitute a product defect with potentially unlimited liability."

Product liability elements:

  1. Manufacturing defect: Training data errors, model bugs
  2. Design defect: Architectural choices enabling harm
  3. Failure to warn: Inadequate disclosure of limitations

Global Regulatory Landscape

European Union: AI Act

The EU's comprehensive AI regulation (effective 2025):

Risk-based classification:

Risk LevelExamplesRequirements
UnacceptableSocial scoring, real-time biometric IDProhibited
High-riskEmployment, credit, healthcare decisionsConformity assessment, documentation, human oversight
Limited riskChatbots, emotion recognitionTransparency obligations
Minimal riskSpam filters, gamesNo requirements

Agentic AI considerations:

  • Autonomous agents likely fall under "high-risk" if making consequential decisions
  • Requires human oversight mechanisms (HITL)
  • Mandatory documentation of training data, testing, and limitations

United States: Sectoral Approach

No comprehensive federal AI law, but sector-specific enforcement:

Applicable frameworks:

  • FTC Act: Unfair/deceptive practices, algorithmic accountability
  • Civil Rights Laws: Discrimination in employment, housing, credit
  • State Laws: California CCPA/CPRA, Illinois BIPA, state AI laws
  • SEC: Disclosure requirements for AI risks in public companies

Enforcement trends:

  • FTC focusing on AI claims and automated decision harms
  • EEOC scrutinizing AI in hiring
  • State AGs investigating AI consumer harms

UK: Autonomy-Based Model

From UK research: "At the heart of the UK framework lies a fundamental principle: liability should follow control. As autonomous systems reduce human influence, legal responsibility shifts toward developers and manufacturers."

Autonomy levels determine liability:

Autonomy LevelHuman ControlPrimary Liability
L1: AssistedHighUser
L2: PartialMediumShared
L3: ConditionalLowProvider
L4: HighMinimalProvider
L5: FullNoneProvider (strict)

China: Strict Oversight

  • Mandatory algorithmic registration
  • Content moderation requirements
  • Real-name verification for AI services
  • Government access to algorithms and training data

Contractual Frameworks

Agent Contracts and Terms of Service

When your agent interacts with third-party services:

Problem: From research: "Transactional Agents cannot be held liable nor enter agreements themselves because they're not legal entities—they're software."

Solution approaches:

Code
Contract Structure Options:

1. Principal-Agent Model:
   User ─(authorizes)─→ Agent ─(acts for)─→ Third Party
   └─ User bound by agent's actions within scope

2. Provider-as-Agent Model:
   User ─(contracts with)─→ Provider ─(operates)─→ Agent
   └─ Provider liable as agent of user

3. Multi-Party Agreement:
   User ─────────────→ Third Party
     ↓                    ↓
   Provider ←─────────→ Third Party
   └─ Explicit allocation of responsibilities

Key Contractual Provisions

For AI providers (in your ToS):

Code
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR AUTONOMOUS ACTIONS

1. Scope of Agent Authority
   The AI agent is authorized to perform only those actions
   explicitly configured by User in the agent settings.
   Provider is not liable for actions outside configured scope.

2. User Responsibility
   User acknowledges that AI agents may produce errors,
   hallucinations, or unexpected outputs. User is responsible
   for reviewing agent actions before external consequences.

3. Indemnification
   User agrees to indemnify Provider against claims arising
   from User's deployment of AI agents, except where claims
   result from Provider's gross negligence or willful misconduct.

4. Limitation of Damages
   Provider's total liability shall not exceed fees paid
   in the 12 months preceding the claim.

5. No Warranty of Accuracy
   Provider does not warrant that agent outputs will be
   accurate, complete, or suitable for any particular purpose.

For enterprises deploying agents:

Code
AGENT DEPLOYMENT POLICY

1. Scope Limitations
   - Agents shall not execute transactions exceeding $[X]
   - Agents shall not send external communications without
     human approval for first use with each recipient
   - Agents shall not access systems containing PII without
     explicit authorization

2. Monitoring Requirements
   - All agent actions shall be logged with full audit trail
   - Human review required for [high-risk action list]
   - Anomaly detection must alert within [X] minutes

3. Incident Response
   - Kill switch accessible to designated personnel
   - Rollback capability for reversible actions
   - Escalation path for autonomous decision disputes

Risk Management Framework

Risk Assessment Matrix

Evaluate each agent capability:

Action TypeReversibilityImpact ScopeLiability RiskControl Required
Read filesN/AInternalLowLogging
Web searchN/AInternalLowLogging
Write filesReversibleInternalMediumApproval for sensitive
API callsVariesExternalMedium-HighRate limits, approval
Send emailDifficultExternalHighAlways approve
Financial txnIrreversibleExternalVery HighMulti-party approval
Delete dataIrreversibleVariesVery HighStrict approval

Control Implementation

Python
class ComplianceController:
    def __init__(self, risk_policy):
        self.policy = risk_policy

    async def evaluate_action(self, action: AgentAction) -> ComplianceResult:
        # 1. Check against prohibited actions
        if action.type in self.policy.prohibited:
            return ComplianceResult(
                allowed=False,
                reason="Action type prohibited by policy"
            )

        # 2. Check value thresholds
        if action.estimated_value > self.policy.value_threshold:
            return ComplianceResult(
                allowed=False,
                reason=f"Value ${action.estimated_value} exceeds threshold",
                requires="multi_party_approval"
            )

        # 3. Check recipient restrictions
        if action.recipient and not self.is_approved_recipient(action.recipient):
            return ComplianceResult(
                allowed=False,
                reason="Recipient not in approved list",
                requires="recipient_approval"
            )

        # 4. Check rate limits
        if self.exceeds_rate_limit(action):
            return ComplianceResult(
                allowed=False,
                reason="Rate limit exceeded",
                requires="cooldown"
            )

        # 5. Log and allow
        await self.audit_log(action)
        return ComplianceResult(allowed=True)

    async def audit_log(self, action):
        """Create immutable audit record"""
        record = {
            "timestamp": datetime.utcnow().isoformat(),
            "action_type": action.type,
            "agent_id": action.agent_id,
            "user_id": action.user_id,
            "parameters": action.parameters,
            "context": action.context,
            "hash": self.compute_hash(action)
        }
        await self.audit_store.append(record)

Audit Trail Requirements

Maintain comprehensive logs for liability defense:

Python
@dataclass
class AuditRecord:
    # Identification
    record_id: str
    timestamp: datetime
    agent_id: str
    session_id: str

    # Action details
    action_type: str
    action_parameters: dict
    target_system: str
    target_entity: str

    # Context
    user_instruction: str
    agent_reasoning: str
    confidence_score: float

    # Authorization
    approval_status: str
    approver_id: Optional[str]
    approval_timestamp: Optional[datetime]

    # Outcome
    result_status: str
    result_details: dict
    error_message: Optional[str]

    # Integrity
    previous_hash: str
    record_hash: str

class AuditSystem:
    def create_audit_trail(self, agent_session):
        """Generate complete audit trail for legal discovery"""
        return {
            "session_metadata": {
                "session_id": agent_session.id,
                "start_time": agent_session.start,
                "end_time": agent_session.end,
                "user_id": agent_session.user_id,
                "agent_version": agent_session.agent_version,
            },
            "user_instructions": agent_session.original_instructions,
            "agent_interpretation": agent_session.task_understanding,
            "action_sequence": [
                self.format_action(a) for a in agent_session.actions
            ],
            "human_interventions": agent_session.human_touchpoints,
            "final_outcome": agent_session.outcome,
            "integrity_verification": self.verify_chain(agent_session)
        }

Insurance and Risk Transfer

AI-Specific Insurance Products

Emerging coverage options:

Coverage TypeProtects AgainstTypical Limits
AI E&OProfessional liability for AI services1M1M-10M
Cyber + AIAI-related data breaches, system failures5M5M-50M
AI Product LiabilityDefective AI causing harm1M1M-25M
Algorithmic LiabilityDiscrimination, bias claims1M1M-10M

Insurance Considerations

What insurers evaluate:

  1. AI governance framework
  2. Testing and validation processes
  3. Human oversight mechanisms
  4. Incident response capabilities
  5. Data handling practices
  6. Vendor management

Documentation to maintain:

  • Model cards and system documentation
  • Testing results and validation reports
  • HITL policies and approval records
  • Incident logs and remediation actions
  • Training data provenance

Best Practices for Compliance

1. Implement Principle of Least Authority

Python
class AgentPermissions:
    """Grant minimum necessary permissions"""

    def configure_agent(self, task_type):
        base_permissions = {
            "research": ["web_search", "read_files"],
            "writing": ["web_search", "read_files", "write_files"],
            "communication": ["read_files", "draft_email"],  # Not send
            "transaction": ["read_files", "prepare_transaction"],  # Not execute
        }

        return AgentConfig(
            permissions=base_permissions.get(task_type, []),
            requires_approval=["send_email", "execute_transaction", "delete"],
            prohibited=["access_credentials", "modify_permissions"]
        )

2. Maintain Human Accountability Chain

Code
Every agent action should trace to a human decision:

User Request → Agent Plan → [Human Approval] → Execution → Audit

Never allow:
- Agent self-authorization
- Agent modifying its own permissions
- Chains of agent-to-agent delegation without human checkpoints

3. Implement Graduated Response

Python
class GraduatedCompliance:
    """Increase controls with risk level"""

    def get_controls(self, action):
        risk_score = self.assess_risk(action)

        if risk_score < 0.3:
            return Controls(
                approval=None,
                logging="standard",
                notification=None
            )
        elif risk_score < 0.6:
            return Controls(
                approval="async",  # User notified, can cancel
                logging="detailed",
                notification="email"
            )
        elif risk_score < 0.8:
            return Controls(
                approval="sync",  # Must approve before execution
                logging="comprehensive",
                notification="push"
            )
        else:
            return Controls(
                approval="multi_party",  # Multiple approvers required
                logging="comprehensive",
                notification="immediate",
                legal_review=True
            )

4. Document Everything

For each agent deployment:

Markdown
## Agent Compliance Documentation

### System Overview
- Agent purpose and capabilities
- Intended use cases
- Prohibited uses

### Risk Assessment
- Identified risks and likelihood
- Potential harm severity
- Mitigation measures

### Control Framework
- Permission boundaries
- Approval requirements
- Monitoring mechanisms

### Testing and Validation
- Test scenarios and results
- Bias testing outcomes
- Adversarial testing results

### Incident Response
- Escalation procedures
- Rollback capabilities
- Communication plan

### Review Schedule
- Periodic review dates
- Trigger events for re-assessment
- Responsible parties

Future Outlook

Near-Term (2025-2027)

  • Increased enforcement of existing laws against AI harms
  • New compliance requirements for "high-risk" AI (EU AI Act)
  • Insurance market maturation for AI-specific coverage
  • More litigation establishing precedent

Medium-Term (2027-2030)

From research: "Policymakers debate if ultra-autonomous AI might need limited legal capacity (akin to corporate entities) to shoulder liability or enter contracts—though most experts reject full personhood for AI."

Likely developments:

  • Autonomy-based liability frameworks
  • Mandatory AI insurance for certain use cases
  • Standardized audit requirements
  • International harmonization efforts

What Won't Change

  • Humans remain ultimately accountable
  • Documentation and audit trails essential
  • Risk-based controls remain fundamental
  • Insurance and contractual risk transfer necessary

Conclusion

Agentic AI creates novel liability challenges, but the response is practical risk management:

  1. Understand current liability flows to developers, deployers, and users
  2. Implement appropriate controls based on action risk
  3. Maintain comprehensive audit trails for legal defense
  4. Use contracts to allocate risk appropriately
  5. Secure insurance coverage for residual risk
  6. Stay informed on evolving regulations and precedent

The goal isn't to avoid all liability—it's to manage risk appropriately while capturing the value of agentic systems.

Frequently Asked Questions

Enrico Piovano, PhD

Co-founder & CTO at Goji AI. Former Applied Scientist at Amazon (Alexa & AGI), focused on Agentic AI and LLMs. PhD in Electrical Engineering from Imperial College London. Gold Medalist at the National Mathematical Olympiad.

Related Articles