In 2020, I wrote a chapter for the book Multidisciplinary Aspects of Artificial Intelligence titled: ‘Towards Legal Personality for Robots?’
I concluded my chapter with the following reflections:
In the near future, numerous robots will be integrated into our society, and it will not always be easy to determine which person or company is “behind the robot.” This is, of course, an undesirable situation. From a transparency perspective alone, clarity must be provided.
The question also arises: who can bear legal responsibility for the actions (or omissions) of such a robot? This question will be particularly relevant for robots that operate autonomously and perform social and economic functions.
Answering this question is complex and not merely a legal issue, but rather a moral and ethical one.
However, the question remains whether granting legal personality is the only way to address the issue of legal responsibility for a robot’s actions or omissions.
Given the rapid developments in robotics, it is appropriate that the European Union has expressed a desire to quickly identify potential gaps in current safety and liability frameworks. Whether it will also take a position on the desirability of granting legal personality to robots, given the broad complexity of the issue, remains highly uncertain.
Five years later, a report by the British Law Commission—an independent advisory body to the UK legislature—was published: Microsoft Word - 2025-07-29 - Column AI Discussion Paper (v4). According to the report, many legal issues surrounding AI arise because AI lacks legal personality and therefore cannot be held directly liable. At the same time, the report states that current AI systems are not yet advanced enough to justify legal personality. However, given the rapid and potentially accelerating progress in AI technology, the Commission believes it is worthwhile to discuss this option now, considering the possibility that highly advanced systems may soon reach a level of autonomy and adaptability that makes legal personality relevant.
In my chapter in Multidisciplinary Aspects of Artificial Intelligence, I wrote that the urgency shown by Europe was justified. Five years later, we can conclude that, regarding the question of the (un)desirability of legal personality for AI, not much has changed.
For questions, please contact Natascha van Duuren, Partner & Attorney at Law – IT, Privacy & Cybersecurity
Would you like to receive a monthly overview of updates and blog posts in your inbox? Click here to subscribe to our newsletter!
