AI Compliance for Liability
Liability is addressed by 50 regulatory updates across 8 jurisdictions and 6 frameworks. This page tracks how regulators worldwide are approaching liability in the context of artificial intelligence.
Framework Requirements for Liability
Regulations Covering Liability
US Federal(33)
FTC action against IntelliVision over AI facial-recognition bias claims
The FTC finalized an order against IntelliVision Technologies after allegations that it made false or unsubstantiated claims that its AI facial-recognition software was free of gender or racial bias.
FTC finalizes order against accessiBe over AI accessibility claims
The FTC finalized an order requiring accessiBe to pay $1 million after allegations that it misrepresented its AI web accessibility tool as making any website WCAG-compliant.
FTC final order against Workado requires substantiation for AI content detection claims
The FTC approved a final order barring Workado from advertising the accuracy or efficacy of its AI content detection products unless it has competent and reliable evidence supporting the claims.
Cheng v. Stoler
A Hawaii appellate court affirmed a five-year order of protection after finding substantial evidence of extreme psychological abuse and domestic abuse.
Johnson v. Durrani
An Ohio appellate court affirmed a negligence verdict while reversing an attorney-fee award, holding that the jury’s award stood despite harmless trial errors and that fees were unauthorized on the surviving negligence claim.
California(7)
California AB 2169: Social media platforms: artificial intelligence models
California AB 2169 was read a second time and amended on April 23, 2026, signaling continued legislative attention to AI models on social media platforms and the need to track platform-specific obligations.
State v. Bailey
The 2026-03-30 state court entry contains no substantive excerpt, so the source does not establish any AI, discrimination, or compliance consequence.
Bryan v. Child Support Enforcement Agency
This state court decision dated 2026-03-30 is listed without any substantive excerpt, so no compliance requirement can be extracted from the source material provided.
In the Interest of W.G., Minor Child
This state court ruling dated 2026-04-01 is identified only by caption, with no factual or legal excerpt to indicate any regulatory relevance.
Patrick Hrdlichka v. Samantha Bengston
The source provides only the case name and a 2026-04-01 decision date, with no substantive legal holding to translate into a compliance update.
Colorado(4)
Bryan Dorsey v. Robert T. Jones
The state court listing gives no substantive outcome, so there is no actionable compliance change in the provided record.
State v. Bailey
The state court listing is caption-only and does not identify any operative holding, so no regulatory action is evident from the supplied text.
Bryan v. Child Support Enforcement Agency
The state court listing is caption-only and does not disclose an operative ruling, so there is no compliance delta in the supplied text.
In the Interest of W.G., Minor Child
The minor-child case entry is purely caption-level in the supplied text, with no discernible regulatory or compliance trigger.
European Union(2)
CJEU preliminary reference on whether AI software can be a high-risk AI system
A 2026 CJEU preliminary reference asks whether software using AI elements qualifies as a high-risk AI system, which could materially affect classification, oversight, and traceability expectations under the AI Act.
CJEU preliminary reference on whether AI-assisted expert reporting is high-risk under the AI Act
A 2026 CJEU reference asks whether software generating automated outcomes or using AI elements in an expert report should be treated as a high-risk AI system under the AI Act, creating interpretive uncertainty for litigation-support tools.
New York(1)
Weekly digest
Leave your email to get each issue in your inbox. Free, no account required.
We use your email only for the digest. Privacy policy