H 8052Civil Procedure

Courts and Civil Procedure - Procedure Generally - Causes of Action

This legislation holds developers of Artificial Intelligence strictly liable for injuries or damages caused by their AI systems.

Held for study

Population
Affected

Email Legislator

Introduced Feb 27, 2026Committee House Judiciary

Plain-English Summary

This bill establishes new legal rules for Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems in Rhode Island. It makes the "developers" (creators) of AI systems strictly liable if their AI causes an injury. This applies if the AI does something that would be considered a crime or negligence if a human did it. The developer is responsible even if they were careful, unless the injury was caused by the user or someone else modifying the system. It also allows courts to assume the AI had the necessary "mental state" (intent) to commit a wrongful act, treating the software similarly to a human in legal disputes.

For younger readers

Imagine a computer program that can think and act like a person, which we call Artificial Intelligence or AI. Sometimes, computers make mistakes. This bill says that if the people who build the AI (the developers) make a program that hurts someone or breaks something, those developers are in big trouble. It treats the AI like a grown-up; if the AI does something bad that a human isn't allowed to do, the developer has to pay for the damage. This rule helps make sure computer creators are very careful so their inventions don't hurt people.

Who & Where It Applies

Impacted groups

AI DevelopersSoftware EngineersTechnology CompaniesAI Users and ModifiersVictims of AI-related accidents

Impacted communities

All

Constitutional & Fiscal Check

The bill creates a rebuttable presumption that an AI system satisfies the "mental state" required for a tort if a human doing the same thing would have had that mental state. This could be challenged under Due Process as arbitrary or irrational, as software code cannot biologically or factually possess a mental state (mens rea). Furthermore, imposing strict liability for conduct equating to "crimes" without proving the developer's specific intent may conflict with constitutional protections regarding criminal liability.

Estimated cost

None

Estimated revenue

None

Bill Analysis

Both viewpoints

For Progressives

Holds powerful technology corporations strictly accountable for the harms caused by their automated products, ensuring they cannot evade responsibility through complex legal loopholes or by blaming algorithms.
Protects the community and potential victims by establishing a clear path to financial restitution for injuries caused by AI, strengthening the social safety net against emerging technological threats.
Incentivizes developers to prioritize safety and ethical programming over speed and profit by removing the defense that they exercised "due care," pushing for systemic reform in how tech is built.
May inadvertently harm the open-source community and small independent developers who cannot afford the insurance or legal teams required to manage strict liability risks, essentially handing a monopoly to big tech.
The exclusion of defamation from liability leaves individuals vulnerable to deepfakes and AI-generated harassment, failing to protect victims of digital abuse and misinformation campaigns.
By attributing a "mental state" to machines, the bill creates a confusing legal standard that could complicate genuine justice reform and distract from the human biases often programmed into these systems.

For Conservatives

Enforces personal responsibility on creators, ensuring that those who profit from creating powerful tools are the ones who pay when those tools cause damage to private property or individuals.
Establishes clear legal boundaries for new technologies, supporting the rule of law by defining exactly how existing torts and crimes apply to non-human actors.
Protects citizens from physical injury and property damage caused by automated systems, prioritizing the safety of the individual over corporate experimentation.
Imposes strict liability on businesses regardless of the care they exercised, which creates a massive regulatory burden that could stifle innovation and drive tech companies out of the state.
Undermines the traditional legal concept of intent by attributing "mental states" to software, which is a slippery slope that degrades the seriousness of human criminal intent and culpability.
Opens the door for frivolous lawsuits against developers for unforeseen outcomes, potentially weaponizing the court system against the technology sector.

Votes

Loading votes...

Full Bill Text

Changes to existing Rhode Island law · 49 additions

SECTION 1. Chapter 9-1 of the General Laws entitled "Causes of Action" is hereby amended by adding thereto the following section: 9-1-55. Artiﬁcial intelligence -- Liability for injuries.

(a) When used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:

(1) "Artiﬁcial intelligence system" means an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can inﬂuence physical or virtual environments.

(2) "Developer" means a person that performs the initial training of an artiﬁcial intelligence system either by training a model, or by ﬁne-tuning an existing model.

(3) "Fine-tuning" means adjusting the model weights of a trained covered model or covered model derivative by exposing it to additional data.

(b) Artiﬁcial intelligence; liability for injuries. Except with respect to any causes of action for defamation, developers shall be liable, regardless of the degree of care they exercised, for all injuries that satisfy the following conditions:

(1) Those injuries are factually and proximately caused by an artiﬁcial intelligence system that engages in conduct that, if undertaken by an adult human of sound mind, would satisfy the elements of negligence or any intentional tort or crime; and

(2) That conduct was neither intended nor a consequence of negligence on the part of:

(i) The user of the model; or

(ii) Any intermediary that ﬁne-tuned, scaffolded, or otherwise modiﬁed the artiﬁcial intelligence system. (c)(1) For the purposes of this section, for any torts for which the mental state of the alleged tortfeasor is relevant to the elements of the tort, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the artiﬁcial intelligence system satisﬁes the relevant mental state if the ﬁnder of fact determines by a preponderance of the evidence that, if a natural person under similar circumstances to the artiﬁcial intelligence system took actions similar to those taken by the artiﬁcial intelligence system, that natural person would have acted with the relevant mental state. (2)(i) Unless the court determines that the presumption established in subsection (c)(1) of this section is not applicable, if the party against whom the presumption is invoked presents evidence tending to rebut the presumption established in subsection (c)(1) of this section, the judge in a jury trial shall instruct the jury to find that the presumed facts exist unless the jury is persuaded that the presumed facts do not exist.

(ii) Unless the court determines that the presumption established in subsection (c)(1) of this section is not applicable, if the party against whom the presumption is invoked presents evidence tending to rebut the presumption established in subsection (c)(1) of this section, the judge in a bench trial shall find that the presumed facts exist unless the judge is persuaded that the presumed facts do not exist.

(3) For the purposes of this section, it shall not be a defense that artiﬁcial intelligence systems are incapable of having mental states. (d)(1) It shall be an absolute defense to liability, including liability under the common law or existing statutes, if the developer establishes that the covered model or covered model derivative satisﬁed the standard of care applicable to humans who perform the same function that the covered model or covered model derivative was engaged in performing when its conduct allegedly caused the plaintiff's injury.

(2) It shall be an absolute defense to liability, including liability under the common law or existing statutes, if the developer establishes that the injuries were a result of a capabilities failure, in which a covered model or covered model derivative falls short of performing the intended or reasonably anticipated performance of the user, but the conduct of the system would not satisfy the elements of negligence or any intentional tort or crime if engaged in by an adult human of sound mind.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon passage.