AI Agents Move Money Without Legal Accountability in U.S.

Risk becomes concrete when wallets move money. An AI told to reduce transaction costs could route a payment through an intermediary that creates regulatory exposure. A wallet told to maximize investment yield could pick a strategy that delivers gains and creates legal exposure. In each case, Gamma Law said, the AI reaches its stated objective. The method it chose is where liability settles.

Traditional agency law offers one framework. A principal authorizes an agent to act on its behalf and generally assumes responsibility for authorized conduct. That model assumes human agents with intent and judgment. Autonomous systems process inputs and pursue objectives. Gamma Law expects courts to rely mainly on functional attribution instead: if a wallet executes a transaction under delegated authority, the law treats it as though the user had done the deal directly.

The contract question follows. Commercial law has long accepted automated systems acting for human parties. Agentic AI pushes that precedent further because a wallet could accept terms and commit an organization to obligations without anyone reviewing the deal. Gamma Law expects courts to be slow to invalidate agreements just because no human checked every step. An AI-entered contract could bind a company even if no individual specifically approved it. 'Broad instructions create broad exposure,' the analysis warned. Commercial law's preference for transactional certainty also favors counterparties relying on such agreements, according to Gamma Law.

Liability gets more complicated when a transaction causes harm. A compromised wallet could send payments to fraudulent addresses. An investment agent could inadvertently engage in market manipulation, and a treasury system might generate losses neither its user nor developer anticipated. Existing doctrines including negligence and product liability give courts avenues to assign responsibility; regulatory enforcement adds another. Autonomous decision making complicates tests of causation and fault. Gamma Law expects judges to weigh who had control and what safeguards were in place, including transaction controls, approval requirements, audit logs, monitoring and emergency shutdown mechanisms. The practical question becomes which party was best positioned to prevent the harm.

For businesses, governance becomes part of the legal architecture. Spending limits and approval thresholds define a wallet's authority. Audit logs and monitoring systems create a record of actions. User agreements and indemnification clauses allocate losses when autonomous conduct produces a dispute. Without such safeguards, functional attribution leaves the user holding the risk.

Until lawmakers create a different framework, the principle stays simple. AI may control the movement of money. Legal accountability remains with the humans and organizations behind it.