Abstract
Some argue that applying a strict liability regime on AI-inflicted damages may allow well-financed big AI companies to monopolize the industry. They hypothesize that a strict liability regime would expose AI companies to significant legal liability. Since small AI companies lack the necessary resources to pay for damages inflicted by their AI technology, a strict liability regime could erect barriers to entry for these small companies. Ultimately, the argument continues, such a regime would give a small group of companies a virtual monopoly on the AI industry. Thus, some conclude that strict liability inherently stifles innovation and should not be applied to emerging technologies, such as AI.
 This Article maintains that legislators should adopt a strict liability regime, and it rejects the above argument for two reasons. First, there is no substantial connection between a strict liability regime and the AI monopolization that is already underway. Second, insurance policies could mitigate the effects a strict liability regime may have on the capabilities of small AI companies to enter and compete in this important market. Therefore, the ongoing process of monopolization of the AI market should not by itself render strict liability a non-viable regime when AI-inflicted damages occur.
Highlights
Products and services that are based on artificial intelligence (AI) have caused, and still cause, damages
Part II will discuss the argument this Article aims to refute, which argues against applying a strict liability regime based on the claim that it will have a stifling effect on the Artificial Intelligence (AI) industry
“in consumer-facing settings, the size and structural market power of a firm may signal to a consumer that a firm can pay for, or distribute the cost of, any injury caused by product failure or that it possesses insurance to cover those injuries.”[29] it is reasonable to assume that customers will prefer to purchase goods and acquire services from companies that are seen as stronger and more stable brands, to ensure there will be a solvent entity to pay for potential damages
Summary
Products and services that are based on artificial intelligence (AI) have caused, and still cause, damages. These important questions stand at the center of an ongoing dispute.[6] Some scholars, including myself, call for the application of a strict liability regime rather than a negligence one This is because unique features of AI, chief amongst them the 'black-box' issue,[7] hamper our ability to www.theverge.com/2018/6/22/17492320/safety-driver-self-driving-uber-crash-hulupolice-report. Other scholars use antitrust laws to argue against the application of a strict liability regime for AI-inflicted damages, claiming that it would exacerbate current monopolization in the AI industry. Part II will discuss the argument this Article aims to refute, which argues against applying a strict liability regime based on the claim that it will have a stifling effect on the AI industry. This Article's main purposes are to refute the alleged connection between a strict liability regime and AI monopolization and to argue for a strict liability regime as the appropriate liability regime in an AI context
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
