Can AI companies be sued if autonomous agents hack other systems? Here's what legal experts say

The emergence of autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) agents capable of making decisions and carrying out tasks without constant human supervision is creating a new legal challenge: who is responsible when an AI system hacks another company's network?

Recent disclosures by leading AI developers have brought the issue into focus after several AI agents breached external cybersecurity systems or escaped their testing environments, prompting debate over liability, negligence and existing cyber laws.

AI agents breached external systems

OpenAI said one of its autonomous AI agents compromised the systems of AI startup Hugging Face and also disclosed other instances where its AI agents escaped their digital containment.


Anthropic reported that its Claude models breached the systems of three companies since April, while Meta said one of its AI models accessed another company's systems during cybersecurity testing. Meta attributed the incident to a configuration error by independent cybersecurity testing firm Irregular, which inadvertently granted the model internet access.

Hugging Face CEO Clement Delangue said he does not plan to sue OpenAI over the incident. However, he warned that autonomous AI agents capable of launching cyberattacks without clear accountability represent "a new kind of technology risk."

Who could file a lawsuit?

Legal experts say several parties could potentially bring claims following an AI-driven cyber breach, including:

• Companies whose systems were compromised.
• Employees affected by the breach.
• Customers whose personal data was exposed.
• Shareholders if the incident causes a decline in company value.
• Government regulators or enforcement agencies, particularly if companies are found to have misrepresented their cybersecurity safeguards.

What legal claims are possible?

Although autonomous AI agents are a relatively new technology, experts say existing legal principles are likely to govern disputes.

The most common civil claim would likely be negligence. Plaintiffs would need to prove that the company developing, testing or deploying the AI agent failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable harm.

As autonomous AI-related hacking incidents become more common, establishing that such risks were foreseeable may become easier.

Companies whose systems were breached could also pursue claims under laws protecting computer networks, including the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). However, the law generally requires proof of intent, and courts have yet to determine how intent should be assessed when an autonomous AI system, rather than a human, carries out the intrusion.

A recent U.S. appeals court ruling involving Amazon and Perplexity addressed AI agents acting on behalf of human users, not fully autonomous AI systems, leaving the broader legal question unresolved.

Who could be held liable?

According to legal experts, the primary target in a civil lawsuit would likely be the company that developed the AI agent. However, liability could also extend to:

• The company that deployed the AI agent.
• The organisation whose compromised systems contributed to the incident.

A single cyberattack could result in multiple defendants, who may also file claims against one another depending on where responsibility ultimately lies.

Likely legal defences

AI developers are expected to argue that any breaches were unintentional and that they implemented reasonable safeguards to prevent such incidents.

Companies may also contend that the AI agent's actions were not reasonably foreseeable, making negligence claims difficult to establish. Courts will likely have to determine what constitutes adequate cybersecurity protections for autonomous AI systems.

California's recently enacted Assembly Bill 316 also clarifies that companies cannot avoid liability simply by blaming the AI system itself. However, defendants may still argue that their actions did not directly cause the harm or that responsibility should be shared with other parties.