New JerseyDefendants would be barred from blaming harm on AI acting alone
In certain lawsuits and criminal cases, defendants could not argue that artificial intelligence caused a person’s harm on its own.
What it does
People sued for harm allegedly caused by AI they developed, changed, or used could not argue that the AI acted on its own. They could still raise other defenses.
People accused of a crime or other offense could not argue that AI caused the alleged victim’s harm on its own. Other defenses would remain available.
Argument forPeople suing over harm allegedly caused by AI could face one fewer argument from a developer or user: that the AI acted on its own.
Argument againstAccused people might have fewer ways to explain AI’s role in harm, even though they could still raise other defenses.
More detail
A defendant could not argue that AI acted on its own and caused the person’s harm. This applies when someone sues a person or organization that developed, changed, or used AI alleged to have caused harm. Defendants could still raise other defenses, including evidence about what caused the harm, whether it was predictable, or whether someone else shared blame. The rule would take effect immediately if enacted and apply to claims still within the filing deadline on that date.
An accused person could not use AI acting on its own as a defense. This applies to prosecutions for crimes and other offenses under New Jersey’s criminal code. The accused person could still present any other defense. The rule would take effect immediately if enacted and apply to offenses still open to prosecution on that date.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed 1st Chamber
- Passed 2nd Chamber
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- Oct 15Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Judiciary CommitteeIntroduced
AI & PrivacyCriminal JusticeTechnology