Introduction
The advent of agentic AI, exemplified by Amazon’s Alexa+, introduces significant legal challenges, particularly concerning user liability in transactions facilitated by these autonomous systems. As technology evolves [2], existing legal frameworks [1] [2], such as the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) and the federal E-SIGN Act [2], are being tested to accommodate the complexities of AI-driven interactions.
Description
Amazon has introduced Alexa+ [2], an advanced version of its voice assistant with agentic capabilities [2], enabling it to navigate the internet and perform tasks autonomously on behalf of users. This emerging technology raises significant legal questions regarding user liability for transactions facilitated by agentic AI, particularly in relation to existing legal frameworks [1]. The Amazon Nova Act is an AI model designed for web-based actions [2], and various tech companies [2], including startups like Butterfly Effect in China [2], are also developing similar AI agents [2]. The rise of agentic AI technology poses challenges to current legal standards [2], especially in contract law [2].
The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) [1] [2], adopted by most states [2], is technology-neutral and applies to transactions where parties agree to conduct business electronically [1] [2]. In typical e-commerce scenarios [1] [2], a user’s action [1] [2], such as clicking “I Agree,” can serve as an electronic signature [1], affirming their agreement to the transaction [1], provided that the principles of notice and assent are satisfied [1]. The federal E-SIGN Act supports similar principles regarding electronic signatures in interstate commerce and allows states with UETA to prioritize it over E-SIGN [1]. States that do not adopt UETA may enact alternative laws regarding electronic signatures [1], which can preempt E-SIGN if they align with its requirements [1].
Given the prevalence of UETA [1], it serves as a basis for analyzing contractual questions related to AI agents [1], as both UETA and E-SIGN aim to validate electronic signatures and records [1]. New York’s Electronic Signatures and Records Act (ESRA) aligns with these goals [1], ensuring that electronic signatures and records hold the same legal weight as traditional signatures [1]. Agentic AI tools [1], which can initiate actions and respond to records on behalf of users [1], may qualify as “electronic agents” capable of forming enforceable contracts under current law [1]. If a user instructs an AI tool to make a purchase [1], it is assumed that a binding agreement is formed between the user and the vendor [1], unless disputes arise [1].
Disputes may stem from misunderstandings [1], such as misinterpretations by the AI tool or budget overruns [1], leading to potential conflicts between users and vendors [1]. The user may bear legal responsibility for contracts formed through the AI tool [1], as UETA aims to eliminate barriers to electronic commerce but does not dictate substantive contract law [1]. In disputes [1], the terms of service governing agentic AI tools will likely be the primary reference for courts to determine liability [1]. Early-generation AI devices often include disclaimers of responsibility for their actions [1], which may leave users with the legal risk unless favorable contractual provisions exist [1].
E-SIGN allows actions by “electronic agents” to be legally attributed to the person bound by the contract [1], emphasizing the importance of terms of service and general contract law principles. If terms of service are lacking [1], UETA may provide a framework for courts to assess liability [1]. UETA generally holds users of electronic agents responsible for the actions of those agents [1], reinforcing that contracts can be formed through electronic agents even without user awareness of their actions [1].
However, ambiguities exist regarding the interpretation of programming and user intent [1]. The intention behind programming an AI tool may not align with the user’s intent during its operation [1], potentially leading to unintended transactions [1]. This misalignment may complicate liability issues [1], especially in litigation where the enforceability of an AI vendor’s terms is scrutinized [1]. As AI technology matures [2], the legal landscape may evolve to better accommodate these advancements [2], addressing the complexities introduced by agentic AI and the responsibilities of users versus developers.
Conclusion
The integration of agentic AI into everyday transactions necessitates a reevaluation of existing legal frameworks to address the unique challenges posed by these technologies. As AI systems become more autonomous, the legal responsibilities of users and developers must be clearly defined to ensure accountability and protect consumer interests. The evolution of legal standards will be crucial in managing the implications of AI-driven commerce and maintaining trust in digital transactions.
References
[1] https://natlawreview.com/article/contract-law-age-agentic-ai-whos-really-clicking-accept
[2] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/contract-law-in-the-age-of-agentic-ai-8156957/
