Legal Framework for Autonomous AI Agents Deep Dive: When AI Signs Contracts, Makes Purchases, and Files Lawsuits on Your Behalf

In August 2028, over 2,000 companies globally have deployed autonomous AI agents — AI systems capable of independently conducting market research, vendor price comparisons, contract negotiations, and even signing agreements. This trend has sparked intense debate in legal circles: when AI makes commercial decisions and signs legally binding documents on behalf of humans, does the current legal framework still apply?

The complexity lies in the fact that autonomous AI agents' decision-making processes often exceed their deployers' direct control. A German trading company's AI agent, during a raw materials procurement process, independently decided on a non-optimal but "creative" supply chain path, resulting in a 1.2 million euro loss. The company attempted to void the contract on grounds that "the AI's autonomous decision exceeded its authorized scope," but the supplier refused to accept this.

Berlin Free University law professor Hans Mueller analyzed three possible legal approaches. The first is "instrument theory" — treating AI as a human tool, with all responsibility borne by the user, similar to employers being liable for employee actions. The second is "electronic personhood" — granting AI limited legal personality to independently bear partial responsibility. The third is "insurance theory" — not requiring AI to bear legal liability but requiring deployers to purchase mandatory insurance covering losses caused by AI decisions.

The European Commission established an "Autonomous AI Legal Framework" working group in July 2028, expected to propose draft legislation by late 2029. Professor Mueller believes the most likely solution is a combination of instrument theory and mandatory insurance: "We won't give AI legal personhood, but we will require companies using AI to purchase insurance for the consequences of AI decisions."