AUTHOR- KAJAL PRAJAPATI UNIVERSITY- SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY
Abstract
This article explores the legal implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly in areas such as liability, data protection, algorithmic bias, and intellectual property. With AI’s increasing integration into industries and governance, understanding the legal boundaries becomes critical. The article reviews recent developments, case law, and regulatory trends to suggest a path forward for policymakers and legal practitioners.
To the Point
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors such as healthcare, finance, education, and criminal justice. However, as the technology evolves, legal systems are struggling to catch up. Key concerns have emerged:
Liability: Who is responsible when an AI system causes harm—developers, users, or the AI itself?
Data Privacy: How does AI’s reliance on vast datasets reconcile with data protection laws like GDPR?
Bias and Discrimination: Algorithmic decisions can reflect or amplify societal biases.
Autonomy and Accountability: What happens when AI acts unpredictably?
The law must adapt quickly to balance innovation with the need for regulation and protection of rights.
Use of Legal Jargon
Several legal doctrines and terms apply to the AI context:
Mens rea: Refers to the mental intent of a person committing a crime. Can AI systems possess intent?
Negligence: Failure to exercise appropriate care. Could AI developers be sued for negligent coding?
Strict Liability: Liability without fault. Should AI use be subject to strict liability like hazardous industries?
Legal Personhood: Should AI be granted a limited legal status akin to corporations?
Due Process: Algorithmic decision-making must respect rights to fair procedures, especially in justice systems.
These doctrines help assess AI’s impact through a legal lens, but they also show current limitations in applying traditional frameworks.
The Proof
Relevant developments demonstrate the growing concern:
European Union AI Act (2024): First comprehensive attempt to regulate high-risk AI systems. Mandates transparency, accountability, and oversight.
UNESCO AI Ethics Guidelines: Call for global cooperation in ensuring ethical AI development.
Stanford’s 2023 AI Report: Found that 72% of surveyed companies faced legal or ethical concerns involving AI.
In the U.S., regulatory progress is slower, but agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have issued guidelines on AI fairness and explainability.
Case Laws
United States v. Loomis (2016)
The use of COMPAS, an AI sentencing tool, raised due process concerns when defendants were sentenced based on undisclosed algorithmic scores. The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, leaving unresolved issues about AI transparency.
Ontario v. Pasternak (2023)
A Canadian court examined liability when an AI-based health assistant gave incorrect advice. While AI was not deemed a legal entity, the creators were found liable under negligence.
Conclusion
Artificial Intelligence holds transformative potential, but unregulated AI poses severe risks to privacy, equality, and democracy. The legal fraternity must proactively engage in shaping regulations that are transparent, rights-based, and globally harmonized. As AI systems increasingly make decisions traditionally reserved for humans, there is a dire need for legally binding international frameworks, ethical standards, and robust enforcement mechanisms. Legal doctrines must evolve in tandem with technology to preserve public trust and social justice.
FAQs
- Is AI currently regulated by any international law?
No binding international law exists specifically for AI, though several guidelines (OECD, UNESCO) and national efforts (EU AI Act) have been introduced.
- What are “high-risk” AI systems under the EU AI Act?
These are systems that significantly impact fundamental rights (e.g., biometric ID, employment, critical infrastructure), and they are subject to strict compliance requirements.
- Can AI developers be held liable for decisions made by their systems?
Yes, under emerging doctrines of algorithmic accountability, developers and users may be held responsible for harmful outcomes caused by AI systems.
- What is the “black box” problem in AI law?
It refers to the lack of transparency in AI decision-making, making it difficult for users and regulators to understand or challenge outputs.
- Does India have AI-specific legislation?
As of 2025, India does not have a dedicated AI law, but guidelines on “Responsible AI” and data protection are being considered
