Scholarly debates over liability for harm caused be AI

Relevance. The paper is devoted to the analysis of doctrinal views on the legal nature of artificial intelligence and the choice of the optimal algorithm for liability for harm caused by artificial intelligence in both contractual and non-contractual relations, which is due to the objective need to develop a mechanism for legal regulation of public relations concerning the use of artificial intelligence.

The purpose of the study is to provide a scientific analysis of the existing approaches in the doctrine to defining the legal nature of artificial intelligence, to substantiate the approach to understanding artificial intelligence as an object of civil law, and to determine the mechanism of compensation for harm caused by any technical device operating on the basis of artificial intelligence.

Objectives: to study of the existing scientific views on liability for harm caused by the use of various artificial intelligence systems has revealed gaps in legislative regulation, as well as theoretical problems in civil law that have arisen due to the use of artificial intelligence in economic activities. The objective of the study is to find solutions to these problems.

Methodology. The desired result is achieved through the use of a complex of methods: general scientific (such as analysis, synthesis, induction and deduction) and specific scientific methods, among which system analysis and the formal legal (dogmatic) method occupy a key position.

Results. After analyzing the points of view on the concept and characteristics of a source of increased danger, the authors agreed with those researchers who suggested considering harmful activities rather than the object being exploited by the harm-doer as the source of increased danger. Under this approach, the activities of any technical device operating on the basis of artificial intelligence meets all the criteria of such harmful activities. It is associated with a high probability of causing harm to the victim and is difficult to manage due to the lack of human control over computer technology, especially when using artificial intelligence.

Conclusion. Concluded that in the case of harm caused to the victim as a result of the use of artificial intelligence, the user of artificial intelligence should be held liable for the harm caused, following the model of liability for causing harm by a source of increased danger, even in the absence of fault.

1. Vasilevskaya L.Yu. Compensation for damage caused by artificial intelligence: problems and directions for developing legislation. Khozyaistvo i pravo = Economy and Law. 2025;(7):3- 14. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18572/0134-2398-2025-7-3-14.

2. Vinogorov A.V., Pushkarev S.V. Liability for damage caused by artificial intelligence: approaches, prospects, and legal regulation. Vestnik Mezhregional'nogo otkrytogo sotsial'nogo instituta = Bulletin of the Interregional Open Social Institute. 2025;(1):21-28. (In Russ.)

3. Nikitenko S.V. Civil liability for damage caused by artificial intelligence. Evraziiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal = Eurasian Law Journal. 2021;(4):22-25. (In Russ.)

4. Korchagin M.A. Tort liability for damage caused by artificial intelligence. Voprosy rossiiskoi yustitsii = Issues of Russian Justice. 2021;(14):224-232. (In Russ.)

5. Zhaglina M.E., Zhaglin A.V. Liability for damage caused by artificial intelligence: reality and prospects. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta MVD Rossii = Bulletin of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2022;(2):75-78. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24412/2073-0454-2022-2-75-78.

6. Berezina E.A. The use of software agents in legal practice. Aktual'nye problemy rossiiskogo prava = Current Issues in Russian Law. 2023;18(7):71-85. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2023.152.7.071-085.

7. Mel'nikova E.N. The problem of "breaking the responsibility" for harm caused by the use of AI systems and applications. Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal = Russian Legal Journal. 2024;(4):80-92. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.34076/20713797_2024_4_80.

8. Mattias A. The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and information texnology. 2004;(6):175-183.

9. Shitkina I.S., Biryukov D.O. Artificial intelligence: legal aspects. Part 1. Pravo i ekonomika = Law and Economics. 2023;(11):5-14. (In Russ.)

10. Shitkina I.S., Biryukov D.O. Artificial intelligence: legal aspects. Part 2. Pravo i ekonomika = Law and Economics. 2023;(12):5-15. (In Russ.)

11. Li Ch., Meng S. Non-contractual liability for damage caused by unmanned vehicles. Zakon = Laws. 2020;(3):49-56. (In Russ.)

12. Ananenko A.O. Legal responsibility in the field of unmanned vehicle use. Vestnik universiteta imeni O.E. Kutafina (MGYuA) = Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL). 2021;(6):155-161. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2021.82.6.155-161.

13. Vavilin E.V. Liability for damage caused by an unmanned vehicle. Khozyaistvo i pravo = Economy and Law. 2023;(10):3-11. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18572/0134-2398-2023-10-3-12.

14. Fedorov D.V. Innocent liability for causing harm when operating a highly automated and fully automated vehicle as a source of increased danger. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava = Bulletin of Civil Law. 2020;(6):191-211. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2020-20-6-191-211.

15. Rozhkova M.A. On the source of increased danger. Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii = Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. 2002;(2):88-100. (In Russ.)