header-logo header-logo

How to sue a robot?

23 April 2018
Categories: Legal News , Technology
printer mail-detail

Reforms to liability law to take account of artificial intelligence (AI) may be necessary, a House of Lords committee has said.

The use of robots and algorithms to make decisions poses serious questions about accountability, foreseeability and what is reasonable behaviour, the Peers warn, whether the decision is about ‘receiving a mortgage, in diagnosing illness, or a decision taken by an automated vehicle on the road’. Moreover, the logistics of obtaining answers from designers in another country could make litigation slow, expensive and difficult.

In its report, ‘AI in the UK: ready, willing and able?’, the Select Committee on AI concludes that it is not ‘currently clear whether existing liability law will be sufficient when AI systems malfunction or cause harm to users, and clarity in this area is needed’. The Committee, which heard evidence from law firms and legal experts, recommends that the Law Commission investigate the issue.

The Committee envisages AI giving the UK economy a powerful boost for years to come, and the UK being a world leader in the ethics surrounding the development and use of AI. It recommends the creation of an AI Code for national and international use, providing, for example, that AI be ‘developed for the common good’ and that ‘the autonomous power to hurt, destroy or deceive human beings should never be vested in AI’.

It also recommends a Competition and Markets Authority review of data use by large technology companies in the UK to guard against market monopolisation, as well as giving individuals greater control over the way their personal data can be used.

Lord Clement-Jones, chair of the Committee, said: ‘The UK contains leading AI companies, a dynamic academic research culture, and a vigorous start-up ecosystem as well as a host of legal, ethical, financial and linguistic strengths.

‘We should make the most of this environment, but it is essential that ethics take centre stage in AI’s development and use.’

Categories: Legal News , Technology
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Sian Langer & Gemma Parker

Clyde & Co—Sian Langer & Gemma Parker

Firm strengthens catastrophic injury capability with partner promotions

DWF—Dean Gormley

DWF—Dean Gormley

Finance and restructuring team offering expands in Manchester with partner hire

Taylor Rose—Vicki Maflin

Taylor Rose—Vicki Maflin

Firm announces appointment of head of remortgage

NEWS
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
The UK Supreme Court may be deciding fewer cases, but its impact in 2025 was anything but muted. In this week's NLJ, Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson of Queen’s University Belfast reviews a year marked by historically low output, a striking rise in jointly authored judgments, and a continued decline in dissent. High-profile rulings on biological sex under the Equality Act, public access to Dartmoor, and fairness in sexual offence trials ensured the court’s voice carried far beyond the Strand
Delays at HM Land Registry are no longer a background irritation but a growing source of professional risk. Writing in NLJ this week, Phil Murrin of DAC Beachcroft explores how the ‘registration gap’—now stretching up to two years in complex cases—is fuelling client frustration, priority disputes, and negligence claims
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
back-to-top-scroll