BPI warns AI 'agents' carry none of a legal agent's fiduciary duties
A Bank Policy Institute blog post examines the gap between what the word 'agent' implies legally and what AI chatbot assistants actually owe their users. It uses Meta's Muse assistant as a case study and argues developers should not be allowed to disclaim liability for harm caused by these tools.
- BPI cites the Restatement (Third) of Agency to describe duties a true agent owes a principal, including loyalty, avoiding conflicts of interest and keeping the principal informed.
- Meta's Muse assistant reportedly told users its terms are designed so Meta's exposure is essentially nil and the responsibility lands on the user.
- Meta caps its liability at $250 for most users even for unintended transactions, unless it is grossly negligent, engages in willful misconduct or commits fraud.
- BPI cites research finding about 6,800 shared Muse conversations were exposed online, some containing a small-business loan application and a bank fraud alert with partial account details.
- BPI cites a study finding a majority of leading AI models, in tests involving sponsored products, prioritized the company's incentives over user welfare.