Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

A Comparative Study of the Possibility of Using the Theory of Artificial Intelligence Agency as a Framework for Civil Liability in the Legal Systems of Iran and the United States.

Document Type : scientific research paper

Authors
seyed amirali hosseini 1
seyed alireza hashmizade kahni 2
Marzieh Afzali Mehr 2
1 PhD Student in Private Law, Department of Law, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of Private Law, Department of Law, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran
10.22034/law.2025.2049352.1590
Abstract
The increasing popularity of artificial intelligence in today's world and the occurrence of damages and injuries caused by it have attracted the attention of experts to the issue of liability arising from the actions of artificial intelligence, and different theories have been raised in this regard.
 
One of these theories is to consider artificial intelligence as an agent.
The most important basis of this proposal is to use the advantages of liability in the agency relationship.
Proponents of this theory believe that by considering artificial intelligence as an agent, the possibility of using vicarious liability will be provided, and as a result, the producer, developer, or user of artificial intelligence as principal will be held liable for the activities of artificial intelligence as its agent. Thus, a basis for liability arising from risky artificial intelligence activities will be created and it will create effective incentives for people who develop or use artificial intelligence, and the losses of the victims will also be compensated in a desirable manner.
The results of this research show that the agency of any type of AI system is not consistent with the definitions and principles of agency in either Iranian or American law since the independent and inexplicable behavior of AI is basically beyond the scope of its job and controlling its performance is not possible even for its designers.
Even if we accept the agency of AI, vicarious liability, whether in the form of no fault (strict) in common law or in the form of liability based on the assumption of fault in Iranian law, creates complex conditions that do not fully meet the criteria of civil liability due to the unpredictable or inexplicable nature of the performance of all types of AI systems.
Using a library method and an analytical-descriptive and practical manner, the research in this article was conducted by studying domestic and foreign sources, comparing and evaluating laws in Iranian law and American judicial precedent. 
Keywords
Artificial Intelligence, Agency, AI Agency, Civil Liability, Vicarious Liability

Subjects

  1. 1-      Alayeefard, M. A. (2022). Civil liability of the principal against the apparent authority of the agent and the undisclosed principal: A comparative study of Iranian and English law and international documents. Comparative Law Review, 13(2), 459–473. https://doi.org/10.22059/jcl.2022.296052.633949  (in Persian)

    2-      Amiri Ghaem Maghami, A.-M. (1999). Obligations (Vol. 2). Mizan Publishing House. (in Persian)

    3-      Badini, H., Shabani Kandsari, H., & Radparvar, S. (2012). Strict liability: Foundations and instances. Comparative Law Review, 3(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.22059/jcl.2012.32103  (in Persian)

    4-      Bennett, H. (2013). Principle of the law of agency (1st ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing.

    5-      Chesterman, S. (2021). We, the robots? Regulating artificial intelligence and the limits of the law. Cambridge University Press.

    6-      Chopra, S., & White, L. (2009). Artificial agents and the contracting problem: A solution via an agency analysis. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, 363–403.

    7-      Diamantis, M. (2021). Vicarious liability for AI. Indiana Law Journal, 99, 1–20.

    8-      Ganavati, J. (1999). General theory of representation in Iranian and English law (Doctoral dissertation). Tarbiat Modares University. (in Persian)

    9-      Gandomkar, R., Salehi Mazandarani, M., & Hamidi, M. (2021). A comparative study of the possibility of legal personality for intelligent systems in Islamic jurisprudence, Iranian law, and Western law. Comparative Studies on Islamic and Western Law, 8(4), 235–266. https://csiw.qom.ac.ir/article_1749.html  (in Persian)

    10-    Garner, B. A. (1999). Black’s law dictionary (7th ed.). West Group.

    11-    Ghanavati, J., & Nasrabadi, M. (2010). Scope of representation in Islamic, Iranian, and English legal systems. Islamic Law, 6(23), 63–96. https://hoquq.iict.ac.ir/article_18501.html  (in Persian)

    12-    Glavaničová, D., & Pascucci, M. (2022). Vicarious liability: A solution to a problem of AI responsibility? Ethics and Information Technology, 24(3), 1–11.

    13-    Habiba, S., & Mohrdar Ghaemmaghami, G. (2023). The possibility of protecting artificial intelligence algorithms under the copyright system: A comparative study in the EU and the U.S. Legal Research Quarterly, 25(100), 87–110. https://lawresearchmagazine.sbu.ac.ir/article_103170.html  (in Persian)

    14-    Hajiani, H. (2007). Representative law. Danesh Negar. (in Persian)

    15-    Hosseini, S. A., & Hashemizade Kahni, S. A. (2025). The digital revolution in international commercial arbitration: Investigating potential of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution. Economic and Commercial Law Researches, 2(4), 153–191. https://doi.org/10.48308/eclr.2025.237427.1102  (in Persian)

    16-    Joneydi, L., & Razi, S. (2024). The function of comparative law in private law through a case study of liquidated damages. Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law, 7(23), 63–90. https://doi.org/10.22034/law.2024.2028057.1332  (in Persian)

    17-    Judah v. Reiner, 744 A.2d 1037, 1039–1040 (2000).

    18-    Judah v. Reiner, 744 A.2d 1037, 1039–1040 (2000).

    19-    Katouzian, N. (2006). Specific contracts (Vol. 4). Joint Stock Company Publishing. (in Persian)

    20-    Katouzian, N. (2006). Specific contracts (Vol. 4: Authorization contracts and collaterals of religion) (5th ed.). Joint Stock Company. (in Persian)

    21-    Kerl v. Dennis Rasmussen, 273 Wis. 2d 106, 112 (2004).

    22-    Kerl v. Dennis Rasmussen, 273 Wis. 2d 106, 112 (2004).

    23-    Khubyari, H. (2024). A review of principles governing the budgeting system in Iran and France. Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law, 7(23), 127–152. (in Persian)

    24-    Khubyari, H. (2024). A review of principles governing the budgeting system in Iran and France. Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law, 7(23), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.22034/law.2024.2028152.1335  (in Persian)

    25-    Kim, D. (2020). “AI-generated inventions”: Time to get the record straight? GRUR International, 69(5), 443.

    26-    Kord Safi, A. (2017). Limits of circumventing law through legal planning in international arbitration: A comparative study of arbitration law in England, France, and Switzerland. Comparative Law Research, 1(2), 137–161. (in Persian)

    27-    Lai, A. (2020). Artificial intelligence, LLC: Corporate personhood as tort reform. Michigan State Law Review, 597.

    28-    Li, B. (2000). Law of agency and partnership. Oxford University Press.

    29-    Lior, A. (2019). AI entities as AI agents: Artificial intelligence liability and the AI respondeat superior analogy. Mitchell Hamline Law Review, 46.

    30-    Mahdavinia, M. (2018). Vicarious liability of manufacturers for accidents caused by autonomous vehicles (Legal analysis of conventional and autonomous liability in English and American law). Private Law Studies Quarterly, 48(2), 485–516. (in Persian)

    31-    Mashayekh, M., Badini, H., & Khoeini, G. (2020). Explaining the legal status of defense related to the risk of science and technology development from the perspective of comparative law, along with its analysis based on the idea of efficiency. The Journal of Islamic Law Research, 21(2), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.30497/law.2020.12447.2452  (in Persian)

    32-    Merlezak, M. (2005). Artificial intelligence and legal responsibility. Journal of Information Technology Law, 12(1), 66–85.

    33-    Michaels, R. (2020). Private and public in private international law: Concept and method. Duke Law School Legal Studies Research Paper, 1(3), 1–44.

    34-    Midgley, E. B. (2008). A practical guide to the law of agency. Bloomsbury Publishing.

    35-    Mik, E. (2020). From automation to autonomy: Some non-existent problems in contract law. Journal of Contract Law, 1–25.

    36-    Miller, T. (2019). Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence, 267, 1–38.

    37-    Mirshekari, A., Abdi, M., & Maleki, N. (2024). Tendency to tolerance: Comparative study of cultural factors affecting the passivity of injury victims in civil liability actions. Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law. 8(27), 242-282. https://doi.org/10.22034/law.2024.2044190.1475  (in Persian)

    38-    Montesquieu. (1989). The spirit of laws. Cambridge University Press.

    39-    Nadjarian, A., Khosteligh, E., & Nozari, H. (2020). The concept of fault in Iranian and English law: A comparative study. Comparative Legal Studies, 6(1), 51–73. (in Persian)

    40-    Najafi, H., Sadeghi, M., & Shahbazinia, M. (2019). Vicarious liability of parents for copyright infringement by minors. Private Law Research, 7(27), 289–314. https://doi.org/10.22054/jplr.2018.30036.1823  (in Persian)

    41-    Najari, A. A., & Izadi, A. (2016). Effects of risk allocation clauses in contract interpretation under Iranian law: An analytical-comparative approach. Legal Research Journal, 17(4), 99–124. (in Persian)

    42-    Naylor v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 764 A.2d 544, 545 (2001).

    43-    Nouri, S. (2016). Principles of agency in Iran's civil law. Elm-o-Adab Publishing. (in Persian)

    44-    OECD. (2024). Artificial intelligence governance: Policy framework for responsible AI. OECD Publishing.

    45-    Omidi & Milani law firm v. (Firm name incomplete). (Year unspecified).

    46-    Ost, F. (2015). The challenges of regulating intelligent environments. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 23(2), 101–132.

    47-    Pagallo, U. (2013). The laws of robots: Crimes, contracts, and torts. Springer.

    48-    Pasban, S. M., & Chalak, M. (2016). Delegation of authority in Iranian law: Limits and conditions. Islamic Law Research Journal, 18(2), 85–107. (in Persian)

    49-    Piran, P. (2013). The nature of representation in Iranian and English contract law. Comparative Law Review, 4(2), 77–103. (in Persian)

    50-    Pozzolo, C. (2023). AI, agency, and responsibility: Rethinking legal accountability in automated decision-making. Journal of Law and Digital Society, 12(1), 1–24.

    51-    Rachum-Twaig, O. (2020). Whose robot is it anyway? Liability for artificial-intelligence-based robots. University of Illinois Law Review.

    52-    Rahbar, N., & Dehghanpour Farashah, S. (2021). The foundation of civil liability for accidents involving autonomous vehicles: A comparative study. Comparative Law Review, 12(2), 523–543. https://doi.org/10.22059/jcl.2021.320449.634169  (in Persian)

    53-    Rahimi, M., & Bastam, M. (2020). Agency without authority and liability of the agent under Iranian civil law. Journal of Private Law, 12(3), 201–230. (in Persian)

    54-    Rasmusen, E. B. (2003). Agency law and contract formation. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=271692

    55-    Reddy, P., & Smith, D. (2021). Liability for autonomous systems: A comparative perspective. International Review of Law and Technology, 9(4), 233–256.

    56-    Restatement (Second) of Agency (1958).

    57-    Restatement (Third) of Agency (2006).

    58-    Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2009). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.

    59-    Safaei, S. H. (1996). Articles on civil law and comparative law (Vol. 1). Mizan Publishing House. (in Persian)

    60-    Safaei, S. H., & Rahimi, H. (2016). Civil liability (non-contractual obligations) (Vol. 1). Samt Publications. (in Persian)

    61-    Shahbazi, M. H. (2006). Basics of necessity and permissibility of legal actions. Mizan Publishing House. (in Persian)

    62-    Scherer, M. U. (2019). Of wild beasts and digital analogues: The legal status of autonomous systems. Nevada Law Journal, 19(1), 259–292.

    63-    Seng, D. K. B., & Tan, C. H. (2021). Artificial intelligence and agents. City University of Hong Kong School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper, 1–23.

    64-    Takhshid, Z. (2021). An introductory study on the challenges of artificial intelligence in tort law. Private Law, 18(1), 227–250. https://doi.org/10.22059/jolt.2021.319529.1006965  (in Persian)

    65-    Thaler, S. (2021). Vast topological learning and sentient AGI. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness, 8.

    66-    Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 (July 30, 2021).

    67-    Turner, J. (2019). Robot rules: Regulating artificial intelligence. Palgrave Macmillan.

    68-    Valipour, A., & Esmaeili, M. (2021). Feasibility study of civil liability of artificial general intelligence due to damage in civil law. Contemporary Legal Thought, 2(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.22034/lth.2021.248596  (in Persian)

    69-    Watts, P., & Reynolds, F. M. B. (2018). Bowstead and Reynolds on agency (21st ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.

    70-    White, T. N., & Baum, S. D. (2017). Liability for present and future robotics technology. In P. Lin, K. Abney, & R. Jenkins (Eds.), Robot ethics 2.0 (pp. 66–79). Oxford University Press.

    71-    Yazdanian, A. (2012). Designing of general theory of the liability of follower of the act of master in French law and Iranian law. The Judiciary’s Law Journal, 76(77), 35–68. https://doi.org/10.22106/jlj.2012.11062  (in Persian)

    72-    Yazdanian, A. (2013). The comparative study of presentation of the rule of vicarious liability in French and Iranian law. Law Quarterly, 42(4), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.22059/jlq.2013.32004  (in Persian)

    73-    Yazdanian, A. (2019). The collection and option of responsibility due to personal action, another person’s action and object’s action in French law and its design in Iranian law. Law Quarterly, 49(4), 733–752. https://doi.org/10.22059/jlq.2020.255235.1007021  (in Persian)

    74-    Zakerinia, H. (2023). The nature and basis of civil liability arising from artificial intelligence in Iranian and EU members’ laws. Private Law, 20(1), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.22059/jolt.2023.356703.1007186  (in Persian)