The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) – an industry-led initiative created by LawtechUK – has this week published a Legal Statement on Liability for AI Harms, which finds that professionals may be liable for negligent use of AI and also for failing to use it when a competent member of their profession would have done so. The Taskforce also finds that English law is already capable of resolving most AI liability disputes without the need for AI-specific legislation; and that businesses cannot avoid legal responsibility simply because a chatbot produced false information – the developers of general-purpose AI models will not usually be liable for unforeseeable downstream harms.
The Statement, prepared following a public consultation between 14 January and 13 February 2026, is the first comprehensive analysis of how the private law of England and Wales applies to non-deliberate harms caused by AI systems. While it is not law, previous UKJT statements on cryptoassets and smart contracts have been adopted by English judges and are relied upon by international investors choosing English law as the governing framework for emerging technology transactions.
Professionals may be negligent
The Taskforce has said that professionals may be found negligent for using AI inappropriately, selecting an unsuitable model, failing to carry out appropriate due diligence, or failing to validate AI-generated outputs, including checking for hallucinations. However, Statement also highlights that professionals may also be liable for failing to use AI in circumstances where a competent member of their profession would have done so.
English Law provides AI framework
In terms of English law, the Statement says that rather than requiring additional legislation, the laws around contract, negligence, product liability and other established doctrines are already sufficient to resolve most AI liability disputes. At a time when other jurisdictions are still debating how to regulate AI liability, the Statement concludes that English law already provides the legal certainty businesses need. It is suggested that this could make England and Wales a more attractive jurisdiction for AI-related contracts and disputes.
Chatbot false information/liability
The Statement concludes that organisations cannot automatically avoid responsibility for information produced by AI chatbots. Where an organisation presents a chatbot as communicating on its behalf, adopts AI-generated statements as its own, or negligently designs or deploys an AI system, liability may remain with the organisation rather than the technology itself.
Application developers may owe duties where they know their AI will be used in a specific context; however, Foundation Model Developers are, in most circumstances, unlikely to be held liable for harm resulting from unforeseeable uses of their general-purpose models. In the event of misuse of AI by independent bad actors, the chain of causation is broken, with neither the professional nor the developer bearing liability. While this statement is directed at foundation model developers, it could be significant for vendors generally.
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice in England and Wales, said: “Generative AI is now used by a vast number of individuals, businesses and professional services providers. Since the advent of generative AI in 2022, lawyers and other users of AI have expressed concern about when and whether Large Language Model developers and others involved in the AI supply chain might be liable for harms caused by AI. This Legal Statement attempts to provide much needed legal certainty and legal predictability in an area where few cases have yet reached the courts. I believe the Legal Statement will be of inestimable value to the legal community, the technological community, and users in a time of rapid development in both the capability and usage of generative AI.”
Matthew Lavy KC, Chair of the drafting committee, added: “The core question we set out to answer was how established principles of English law can be applied when AI systems cause harm. We have sought to reduce perceived legal uncertainty by providing an analytical framework that lawyers and businesses can use to assist with their understanding of liability risk and legal responsibility for AI harms. We have reached the view that providing remedies for AI harms does not require a new liability regime, and that English law’s existing approach to legal liability already provides a coherent framework for analysing where responsibility should fall. While some factual scenarios may throw up difficulties, English law has long been capable of rising to the challenges of novel technologies, and we consider that it will be able to do so in relation to AI.”
