Artificial intelligence systems present unprecedented challenges to product liability law. When a traditional product fails, we can examine physical components and manufacturing processes to determine what went wrong. When an AI system causes harm, the “defect” might exist in training data, algorithmic architecture, or emergent behaviors that even the developers didn’t anticipate. This article examines how courts are adapting product liability frameworks to address these novel questions.
The Traditional Product Liability Framework#
Before exploring AI-specific issues, let’s establish the baseline. Product liability law in the United States generally provides three theories of recovery.
Manufacturing Defects#
A manufacturing defect occurs when a specific unit deviates from the manufacturer’s intended design. The product that injured the plaintiff is different—and more dangerous—than identical products produced according to specifications.
Proving manufacturing defects typically involves comparing the defective unit to the design specifications and to other units from the same production run. Physical examination often reveals the deviation: a cracked weld, contaminated material, or incorrectly installed component.
Design Defects#
Design defect claims argue that the entire product line is unreasonably dangerous, not just the specific unit involved. Even products manufactured exactly as intended can be defective if the design itself creates unreasonable risks.
Courts use two primary tests for design defects:
Consumer Expectations Test: Would the product fail in a way that an ordinary consumer wouldn’t expect? This test works well for simple products but struggles with complex technologies where consumers have no baseline expectations.
Risk-Utility Test: Do the risks of the design outweigh its benefits? This involves considering whether a reasonable alternative design would have reduced risk without significantly impairing the product’s utility or increasing its cost.
Failure to Warn#
Even well-designed, properly manufactured products can be defective if they lack adequate warnings about known risks. Manufacturers have a duty to warn users about dangers that aren’t obvious and to provide instructions for safe use.
Failure to warn claims focus on what the manufacturer knew (or should have known) about risks, and whether the warnings provided were adequate to alert users to those risks.
Applying Traditional Frameworks to AI#
How do these established doctrines apply when the “product” is an algorithm that makes autonomous decisions?
Manufacturing Defects in Software#
Pure software generally doesn’t have manufacturing defects in the traditional sense. Every copy of a program is identical; there’s no “defective unit” that deviated from specifications. This has led some courts to conclude that software cannot have manufacturing defects.
However, AI systems blur this line. Consider:
Training Data Defects: An AI trained on corrupted, biased, or insufficient data may behave very differently than the same architecture trained on proper data. Is this analogous to contaminated materials in physical manufacturing?
Deployment Configuration: The same AI model deployed with different parameters or in different environments can produce vastly different results. When deployment choices cause harm, is that a manufacturing issue?
Version Control: If a buggy software version was deployed when a corrected version existed, some courts have treated this as analogous to a manufacturing defect.
The legal landscape remains unsettled, but attorneys increasingly argue that AI-specific “manufacturing” processes—training, validation, and deployment—can be sources of defects comparable to traditional manufacturing.
Design Defects in Algorithmic Architecture#
Design defect analysis fits AI systems more naturally. Questions about algorithmic design parallel traditional design defect inquiries:
Was the AI architecture appropriate for its use case? A neural network optimized for speed over accuracy might be defective when used in safety-critical applications.
Were known failure modes addressed? If the developers knew the AI performed poorly under certain conditions but didn’t implement safeguards, that’s classic design defect territory.
Did the training methodology create systematic biases? Training choices that predictably lead to discriminatory or dangerous outputs can constitute design defects.
The risk-utility test adapts well to AI:
- What risks does the AI’s design create?
- What benefits does it provide?
- Were there feasible alternative designs with better risk-benefit profiles?
Expert testimony becomes crucial here. Computer scientists, machine learning researchers, and AI safety specialists can explain to courts and juries what design choices created risk and what alternatives existed.
The Black Box Problem#
One unique challenge with AI systems is the “black box” problem. Complex neural networks make decisions through processes that even their creators cannot fully explain. When an AI causes harm, we may not be able to say precisely why it made the decision it did.
This creates evidentiary challenges:
- How do you prove a design defect when you can’t explain the design’s decision process?
- How do you compare the actual AI behavior to what was intended when the behavior emerges from training rather than explicit programming?
Courts are developing approaches:
Input-Output Analysis: Even if we can’t explain the internal process, we can demonstrate that certain inputs produced harmful outputs. Systematic testing can reveal patterns of dangerous behavior.
Training Data Review: Examining what data the AI learned from can reveal sources of problematic behavior without requiring full algorithmic transparency.
Comparative Testing: Showing that alternative AI systems or earlier versions handled similar scenarios safely suggests the deployed system was defectively designed.
Expert Statistical Analysis: Statistical methods can identify correlations between AI decisions and harmful outcomes, supporting inference of design problems.
Failure to Warn for AI Systems#
AI systems present unique warning challenges:
Unknown Unknowns: Traditional failure to warn doctrine focuses on risks the manufacturer knew or should have known about. But AI systems can develop unexpected behaviors through their interaction with real-world data. When should a manufacturer be liable for failing to warn about emergent risks they didn’t anticipate?
Dynamic Systems: A product warning is typically fixed at the time of sale. AI systems that learn and update continuously present moving targets. What ongoing warning obligations exist?
User Understanding: Effective warnings require that users understand them. How do you warn consumers about the limitations of machine learning when most don’t understand how AI works?
Courts are beginning to hold that AI manufacturers have heightened duties:
- To conduct ongoing monitoring for emergent risks
- To push warnings through software updates, not just manuals
- To explain AI limitations in accessible terms
- To warn about categories of scenarios where the AI may fail
Emerging Legal Theories#
Beyond traditional product liability, several emerging theories apply specifically to AI systems.
Negligent Algorithm Development#
This theory focuses on the development process rather than the final product. Did the manufacturer exercise reasonable care in:
- Selecting and curating training data?
- Validating the AI’s performance before deployment?
- Testing for edge cases and failure modes?
- Implementing safety boundaries?
Unlike strict product liability, negligence requires proving the manufacturer failed to meet a reasonable standard of care. But it allows broader discovery into development practices.
Negligent Deployment#
Even a well-designed AI can be negligently deployed:
- Using an AI in contexts beyond its validated capabilities
- Failing to implement appropriate human oversight
- Ignoring warning signs from early deployments
- Not providing adequate training to users
This theory recognizes that AI safety depends not just on the technology but on how it’s implemented.
Post-Sale Duty to Update#
Traditional products don’t update themselves. AI systems can and do. This creates novel obligations:
- When must a manufacturer push safety updates?
- Can they be liable for not updating systems they’ve already sold?
- What if users decline or can’t receive updates?
Some courts have recognized that software manufacturers have ongoing duties to address known defects, analogous to product recalls for physical goods.
Practical Implications#
For victims of AI-caused injuries, this evolving legal landscape offers several practical takeaways.
Preserve All Data#
AI cases often turn on technical evidence:
- Device logs and sensor data
- Software version information
- Training data and model parameters (if obtainable through discovery)
- Communications about known issues
Preserving this evidence immediately is crucial.
Engage Technical Experts Early#
AI litigation requires expert testimony to explain technical concepts to judges and juries. Engaging computer scientists, machine learning specialists, and AI safety researchers early in case development is essential.
Consider Multiple Theories#
Given the unsettled state of law, pursuing multiple legal theories—traditional product liability, negligence, and emerging AI-specific claims—provides the best chance of recovery.
Document the Human Impact#
Technical arguments about AI defects must connect to human harm. Thorough documentation of injuries, damages, and life impact remains as important as ever.
Conclusion#
Product liability law is adapting to address artificial intelligence, but the process is ongoing. Courts are finding ways to apply traditional frameworks while developing new approaches for AI-specific challenges. For victims of AI-caused harm, success requires understanding both established doctrine and emerging theories—and working with attorneys who can navigate this complex, evolving landscape.
Questions About AI Liability?
Our network attorneys stay current on emerging AI legal issues and can evaluate your case.
Speak with an Attorney
