As AI agents become capable of planning and carrying out cyberattacks, existing hacking laws still target the humans behind them. This article examines liability for attackers, AI developers, businesses, and rogue autonomous agents.
When AI systems cause harm, responsibility does not disappear—it moves upstream to the people and organisations that design, deploy, configure, supervise and profit from them. This article examines AI liability through cases such as Moffatt v. Air Canada, Mobley v. Workday and Mata v. Avianca, while exploring the Responsibility Chain and the Accountability Gap.
A junior advocate may receive a file with 200 pages, a client’s broad complaint, and an instruction such as, “Find some case law on this.” That instruction sounds simple until the research produces thirty judgments, three potentially relevant statutory provisions, and no clear answer to the question the senior actually needs answered. Good legal research is not a pile of citations. It is a disciplined process that connects facts, legal issues, authorities, and a practical conclusion. This guid