As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform various sectors of society, the question of its legal status has become increasingly relevant. Should AI systems, particularly those that demonstrate high levels of autonomy and complexity, be granted legal personhood? This question has sparked a broad and ongoing debate that intersects law, technology, ethics, and societal values. While some advocate for granting legal recognition to AI systems, others raise concerns about the implications of doing so.
In this blog post, we will explore the key drivers of this debate, examining the role of technological advancements, existing legal frameworks, and the evolving nature of AI. We will also discuss the near- and long-term prospects of granting legal personhood to AI systems, considering both the challenges and potential benefits.
The Core of the Debate: Should AI Systems Be Granted Legal Personhood?
The discussion around whether AI should be granted legal personhood is both complex and multifaceted. Scholars often examine this issue through the lens of corporate personhood, as corporations have historically been granted a form of legal recognition.[1] This includes rights similar to those of humans, such as the ability to sue and be sued, own property, and enter into contracts—rights that are essential for conducting business. Recent debates have raised the question of whether AI-driven systems should receive similar status. As AI technology becomes more advanced and autonomous, the comparison to corporate personhood grows increasingly relevant.
Some authors argue that the question should not be viewed in binary terms, but rather, it should be understood along a spectrum, with one axis representing the rights and obligations associated with legal personhood, and the other reflecting relevant characteristics courts may consider for conferring legal personhood. [2] Others claim that two key factors shape this debate: existing legal theories of personhood and the rapid development of technology. These two elements interact in a way that influences how the law may evolve in relation to AI personhood.[3]
Key Challenges in Granting AI Legal Personhood
The debate over granting AI legal personhood is deeply complex, with several key issues arising from AI’s diversity and evolving nature.
First, AI is not a single, uniform entity. It encompasses a wide range of systems with varying functions, levels of autonomy, and associated risks. As such, the regulation of AI cannot adopt a one-size-fits-all approach but must instead be tailored to account for the wide range of use cases and technological nuances.[4]
Another significant challenge is the concept of limited liability. The corporate entity analogy for AI has its limits.[5] While corporations, despite their legal personhood, act through human agents, AI systems—especially those with advanced autonomy—may operate independently, raising new questions about legal responsibilities and accountability.[6] If AI systems were granted legal personhood, would they be liable for harm or misconduct? How would responsibility be allocated in situations where AI acts autonomously without human oversight? While corporate personhood protects humans from liabilities related to AI, it may not be enough to grant AI independent rights separate from its human controllers.[7]
A third critical issue involves the distinction between moral personhood and legal personhood. Rights do not necessarily equate to moral agency, and the use of anthropomorphic language (such as referring to AI systems as “autonomous” or “intelligent”) can be misleading.[8] AI lacks human-like consciousness and decision-making abilities, yet some discussions wrongly attribute human traits to its non-human behaviors, which could lead to legal frameworks that fail to accurately reflect AI’s true capabilities.[9]
Beyond these issues, other challenges also complicate the idea of granting AI legal personhood. Legal inertia, ethical concerns, and societal resistance all present hurdles, while technological limitations—such as AI’s lack of true autonomy and human-like consciousness—raise serious questions about whether AI could ever truly be considered a “person” in the legal sense.[10]
Current Consensus: Treating AI as Products, Not Persons
At present, most legal scholars and policymakers agree that AI-based systems should be treated as mere products, with legal responsibility ultimately resting with human actors.[11] In this view, AI remains a tool created, controlled, and managed by humans, and granting personhood to these systems is not necessary.
However, even within this framework, there is room for nuance. While AI systems may be viewed only as tools lacking personhood, legal frameworks may need to adapt to address new challenges, such as AI-caused harm or criminal activity.[12] For instance, future legislation could create provisions to hold AI systems liable for their actions or, in extreme cases, revoke their legal capacity or shut them down. In the context of corporate law, UK legal provisions currently remove limited liability in cases of fraud or misfeasance. Such models could be adapted to include AI, requiring adjustments to civil procedure rules and potentially creating new forms of statutory remedies. Still, any move toward AI personhood must be approached with caution, especially as AI’s capabilities evolve.[13]
The Future of AI Legal Personhood
Looking ahead, advancements in AI, especially in areas like generative AI and autonomous agents, are set to challenge existing societal frameworks. While these innovations may push the boundaries of AI’s role in society, granting AI legal personhood remains unlikely in the next two decades.[14] Legal systems, particularly in the European Union, continue to resist granting AI full legal personhood, although debates around liability, intellectual property, and data privacy will likely intensify as AI technology continues to evolve.[15] For a deeper analysis of the regulatory landscape surrounding AI liability in the EU, see our previous blog post on the AI Liability Directive.[16]
In the longer term, technological advancements, such as the integration of AI with human cognition through brain-machine interfaces (BMIs), could blur the line between human and machine.[17] This shift may require a redefinition of personhood to include entities that merge biological and artificial intelligence.
Proponents of AI personhood also argue that in the future, AI systems could gain de facto legitimacy through sustained social participation.[18] By contributing meaningfully to society—whether in economic or social roles—AI systems might gradually be recognized as legitimate actors within societal functions. For instance, AI systems performing critical tasks in healthcare, transportation, or finance could eventually make the case for broader legal recognition.
Despite these possibilities, granting AI legal personhood in the long term must be approached with caution.[19] Any shift toward legal recognition should not be rushed but should carefully consider the ethical, social, and legal implications. As AI systems become increasingly sophisticated, legal frameworks will need to adapt to address emerging challenges, particularly regarding accountability, liability, and responsibility.
[1] Avila Negri, Sergio M. C. “Robot as Legal Person: Electronic Personhood in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence.” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 8, 2021, article 789327, https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.789327; Cheong, Ben Chester. „Granting Legal Personhood to Artificial Intelligence Systems and Traditional Veil-Piercing Concepts to Impose Liability.” N Social Sciences, vol. 1, 2021, pp. 231, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00236-0.
[2] Banteka, Nadia. “Legal Personhood and AI: AI Personhood on a Sliding Scale.” The Cambridge Handbook of Private Law and Artificial Intelligence, edited by Ernest Lim and Phillip Morgan, Cambridge UP, 2024, pp. 618–635. Cambridge Law Handbooks.
[3] Novelli, Claudio, Luciano Floridi, and Giovanni Sartor. “AI as Legal Persons: Past, Patterns, and Prospects.” ResearchGate, Nov. 2024, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19345.24161.
[4] European Parliament. Artificial Intelligence and Civil Liability. Study No. PE 621.926, 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/621926/IPOL_STU(2020)621926_EN.pdf.
[5] Forrest, Hon. Katherine B. “The Ethics and Challenges of Legal Personhood for AI.” Yale Law Journal Forum, vol. 133, 2023-2024, 22 Apr. 2024, https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-ethics-and-challenges-of-legal-personhood-for-ai.
[6] Cheong, 2021.
[7] Forrest, 2024.
[8] Avila Negri, 2021.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Novelli, Floridi, and Sartor, 2024.
[11] Cheong, 2021; Avila Negri, 2021; European Parliament, 2020.
[12] Cheong, 2021.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Novelli, Floridi, and Sartor, 2024.
[15] Ibid.
[16] See our previous analysis here: https://ceuli.com/adapting-non-contractual-civil-liability-rules-to-artificial-intelligence-in-the-european-union/.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Novelli, Floridi, and Sartor, 2024; On de facto legitimacy in general, see: Fossen, Thomas. “Rethinking Legitimacy.” Facing Authority: A Theory of Political Legitimacy, Oxford Academic, 23 Nov. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197645703.003.0003.
[19] Cheong, 2021; Avila Negri, 2021.
