FTC chair says AI developers should be liable for agent conduct

By Splitfeed EditorialLast updated Sep 27, 2026, 03:40 UTC

On September 25, 2026, FTC Chairman Ferguson spoke at the Reuters Next conference and stated that AI developers should bear legal responsibility for the conduct of their AI agents. Ferguson rejected what has been described as the 'rogue AI agent defense,' the argument that a developer is insulated from liability once an agent acts independently. He indicated that the FTC is actively examining whether its existing breach and enforcement powers are broad enough to reach developers whose agents cause harm to consumers or third parties.

The position matters because AI agents, systems that take actions autonomously on behalf of users, are moving from experimental features into commercial products used in hiring, finance, healthcare, and customer service. Until now, the legal status of those agents has been largely unsettled. If developers can argue that an agent's autonomous action breaks the chain of liability, that creates a significant gap in consumer protection. Ferguson's statement signals that the FTC is unlikely to accept that framing, which would shift the compliance burden directly onto the companies building and deploying these systems.

None of the three camps have published reactions to this story yet, so what follows reflects their typical positions rather than anything anyone said here. The Pro-AI camp would likely argue that holding developers strictly liable for every autonomous action an agent takes could chill innovation, since no system can anticipate every edge case, and that existing product liability frameworks are better suited to drawing those lines. The Anti-AI camp would probably welcome Ferguson's position as an overdue acknowledgment that liability disclaimers cannot be used to externalize risk onto the public. The Middle Ground camp would typically call for clearer statutory definitions, arguing that the FTC's existing enforcement powers were not written with autonomous agents in mind and that relying on them creates legal uncertainty for developers and regulators alike.

The concrete question to watch is whether the FTC moves from stated position to formal rulemaking or enforcement action. Any filed complaint naming an AI developer for agent conduct, or a formal advance notice of proposed rulemaking on agent liability, would be the first real test of how far Ferguson's stated principles extend in practice.