12 Of The Weirdest Gadgets That Serve A Practical Purpose







We may receive a commission on purchases made from links.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that most weird gadgets were confined to the nineties, but the reality is, even today, some gadgets still feel like the result of a drunken bet. You might not know it, but today’s tech has given us knives that don’t rely on being sharp, spoons that season our food, and even headphones that can improve our health. On paper, they shouldn’t really exist, and you’d probably scroll right past them on a normal day. But despite their oddities, some weird gadgets actually do what they claim and, in some cases, serve practical purposes — with some serving them well.

A few of the products on our list look bizarre; some of them serve a purpose you might not even have thought of. But they have all been professionally tested and have good-to-excellent feedback on shopping platforms like Amazon (a place where you’ll find plenty of weird products to buy). Once you get past the initial bewilderment, they make a surprising amount of sense. Some may even change the way you do things forever. So, here are 12 weird gadgets that we believe are genuinely useful and worth your consideration, even if some of them will have you scratching your head at first.

Ultrasonic Kitchen Knife

The chef’s knife hasn’t changed much since someone in the Bronze Age realized sharpened metal could slice through meat. It’s a piece of steel with a handle, and it has never been much more than that — until the recent invention of the ultrasonic knife. The Seattle Ultrasonics C-200 is a gadget that will make you feel like you’re in the future. It’s an 8-inch chef’s knife featuring piezoelectric ceramic crystals in the handle, which expand when electrified. This, in turn, vibrates the blade at over 30,000 times per second.

And don’t be thinking “chainsaw.” On the contrary. There’s no hum, no buzz, and definitely no mess. In fact, there’s nothing to tell you it’s working other than the food effortlessly falling apart underneath. Those vibrations make thousands of invisible micro-cuts with each stroke, and you’ll only need about half the effort you would with a regular knife. The food slides straight off the steel rather than clinging to it, too, and the blade handles fine work like tomatoes and fish with precision, while it’s equally impressive on meats and hard veg. It might sound like something from a late-night infomercial, but it’s the real deal. A reviewer at food experts Delish even said, “It made me reconsider my chef’s knife forever.” So, who are we to argue?

USB Bug Bite Healer

According to the National Library of Medicine, applying concentrated heat to insect bites significantly reduces itch and pain. That’s because the heat overrides the itch signal to your brain, essentially tricking your nerve cells into ignoring the bite. Applying heat works on all kinds of bites and stings, including pesky mosquitoes and even wasps. Which is all very good, but how do you apply concentrated heat to a bite when you’re out in the wilderness or even sitting at home on the porch? With a tiny dongle plugged into your phone, of course.

The Heat It is a weird USB gadget you’ll probably want to own, especially if you’re prone to bites. Simply plug it into your smartphone to heat the tip up, press it against the bite, wait a few seconds, and enjoy soothing relief over the following minutes. There’s even an app to control the temperature, which ranges from 117 to 126°F, across treatment times of 4, 7, or 9 seconds. There are also settings for kids or anyone with sensitive skin, and ZDNET tested it on horsefly, mosquito, and dog flea bites and found it to be more effective than any cream or ointment. The relief lasts for hours before you need to go through the short process again. So there you are, no more suffering the indignity of scratching yourself raw for hours at barbecues.

Electric Salt Spoon

The World Health Organization states that a high sodium diet is one cause of hypertension, which can lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular or kidney disease, among other ailments. If you’re someone who needs to cut back on salt, you’re probably already aware that low-sodium food can taste rather bland. SlashGear didn’t include the Kirin Electric Salt Spoon in its Best of CES 2025 Awards, but it’s a strange and genuinely clever answer to the problem of oversalting food, and CNN called it “one of the wildest and most attention-grabbing gadgets” at the event. 

It was developed by researchers at Meiji University in Tokyo and works by running a mild electrical current through your food as you eat, which boosts all the salty, savory, and umami flavors to give you something that resembles flavorsome. It might be slightly oversized, but nothing that makes you feel like you’re sipping from a ladle. You just switch it on, pick your intensity, and eat. The sensors on the handle and spoon work together to carry the flavor to your tongue, and that’s it. Simple and effective. However, the Kirin Electric Salt Spoon is unfortunately not yet available in the U.S., but Americans are promised that it will arrive soon.

Robotic Finger Button Pusher

There is no shortage of smart home gadgets designed to make life easier, and the MoesGo FingerBot Plus is a strange-looking one. It’s essentially a small 1.3-inch cube with a mechanical finger on top, and it exists for a single purpose: to physically push buttons and flick switches so you don’t have to. You simply stick it next to whatever button or switch you need it to press, then control it from your smartphone. It works on just about anything with a physical button or rocker switch and is a practical solution for anyone with mobility issues.

There is a range of things you can use it to automate. Wall switches, garage doors, robovacs — if it has a button, the FingerBot can press it. You need to pair it with a Bluetooth hub, and it works through Alexa and Google Assistant. One Amazon reviewer stated that it “responds promptly, executing commands seamlessly.” However, MoesGo says installation takes about five minutes and requires no tools, but that same reviewer mentioned that “the initial setup required some troubleshooting.” Although once it’s up and running, you’ve essentially bought yourself a tiny robotic finger to do your bidding.

Voice-Muting Mask

The Hushme looks weird. In fact, it looks like something Batman’s muzzled nemesis Bane would wear. However, it is the world’s first speech-privacy mask and likely one that will appear on lists several decades from now titled “Gadgets That Actually Existed Back In the 20s.” But it does serve a practical purpose. It’s a decent set of headphones with a padded sound chamber that clamps over your mouth to muffle your voice so people can’t hear your conversation. Additionally, a built-in microphone system blocks out the outside world so the person on the other end can hear you clearly.

The app takes the weirdness even further. It pumps out sounds like wind, rain, or, if you’re feeling quirky, Darth Vader’s breathing. People nearby will hear those sounds instead of your muffled voice, but thankfully, there isn’t a Hannibal Lecter option. It’s designed for use in open-plan offices, noisy commutes (though you will get some startled stares), and anywhere else where privacy is hard to come by. In practice, the voice muffling isn’t always 100% effective, though it does block out ambient noise for the caller. Still, CNET called it “the weirdest, yet most useful, wireless headphone ever created.” 

When you’re not using it, the muzzle can hang around your neck like some kind of weird jewelry, while the headphones double as a regular Bluetooth set for music. It works both wired and wirelessly, and you can stretch the battery life to 10 hours. You’ll probably get a seat on the bus to yourself, too.

Inflatable Air Shim

It’s difficult to believe that a flat bag not much bigger than your hand can actually lift a fully loaded fridge, but that’s what an inflatable air shim does. Also known as an air wedge, it’s one of the weirdest tools to serve a practical purpose, and the Calculated Industries AirSHIM is a popular contractor-grade option. You just slide the shim into a gap (which can be as small as 2.4 mm), squeeze the hand pump to inflate, and watch as whatever sits on top slowly lifts up.

The AirSHIM is a tough rubber wedge with an internal stiffener to stop it from folding under pressure — and it’s strong enough to bear serious weight. The best air wedges can take on around 300 pounds, but according to Wirecutter, one sculptor is known to have used multiple shims to support concrete casts weighing almost a half-ton each. They’re ideal for anyone from DIY enthusiasts to locksmiths to anyone who has ever tried to level a wobbly washing machine on an uneven floor.

When the job is done, a release valve lets the air out slowly to prevent anything from slamming back down. Once deflated, simply fold it flat and tuck it away in a drawer or tool bag. The main gripe, however, is that they can lose their seal over time — but at less than $20, replacing one hardly warrants a crisis.

USB Endoscopic Camera

The Kinpthy 1920P HD Industrial Endoscope looks like a piece of medical equipment that has escaped from a hospital. It’s a long, semi-rigid cable with a tiny camera and adjustable LED lights on the end, and its practicality is evident in the sheer range of problems it can solve. It’s a particularly useful USB gadget for the garage, where you can trace wiring, peer inside engines, or check pipes for blockages. And for the latter, it’s also waterproof.

The practicality doesn’t end there, though. It also comes with a hook for retrieving dropped items, a magnet for fishing out screws, and an angled mirror for seeing around corners. It bends where you need it to without going limp, so it’s easy to guide through awkward gaps without losing control, and it plugs straight into your smartphone, whether you use Android or iOS. Video and stills are sharp, and everything is streamed to your screen in real time.

The Kinpthy 1920P HD Industrial Endoscope has found a following among DIYers and amateur mechanics alike, and some customers say it does the same job as much pricier equipment for a fraction of the cost. It’s also surprisingly easy to use, with one Amazon customer writing, “Bought this for my parents to handle kitchen pipe clogs. They’re not tech-savvy, but the app is super straightforward.” When you’ve finished the job, it easily coils up tight and stores away without taking up much space.

Smartphone Thermal Camera

Once upon a time, thermal imaging meant expensive, specialist equipment. Nowadays, smartphone thermal cameras have changed all that. The Topdon TC002C Duo is one such device. It’s a small module that plugs into your device’s USB-C port and turns it into a fully functioning thermal camera. It works on both Android and iPhones, as well as laptops, and everything is controlled via an app, with any photos or videos you take saved straight to your device.

It’s sensitive enough to even pick up on the warmth generated by something as minor as a bend in an electric cable, and you can take readings from around 16-and-a-half feet away. Electricians use it to trace faults, HVAC technicians use it to find heat loss, home inspectors use it to spot problems hidden behind walls, and you can use it to keep an eye out for pets at night, check refrigerator performance, or figure out why one room in the house is always colder than the rest. If none of those work for you, it’ll at least make you unbeatable at hide-and-seek.

Temperature-Controlled Mug

We all do it. Make a coffee, wander off, get distracted, then come back to a stone-cold cup. It doesn’t matter if you’re a tradesperson called to the other end of the site or someone who just wants a useful gadget for the desk at work – the Ember Mug² is a practical solution. It’s a coffee mug with a built-in heating element that you control from your phone via Bluetooth. Yes, it’s a mug with Bluetooth and an app. However, if you’re that person who microwaves their coffee three or four times before lunch, it may be for you.

You use the app to set your preferred temperature, which is anywhere between 120°F and 145°F (you can even adjust it mid-drink), but if you can’t be bothered with that, you can set it to automatically hold 135°F. There’s even an optional lid, which will cut down on your glasses fogging up in the office. The battery only lasts for up to 80 minutes, so it might be best to keep it connected to the charging coaster if you’re one who usually takes much longer to finish a cup. The Ember Mug² comes in 10 and 14-oz sizes, the latter of which is a better choice if you’re the type who needs a bigger caffeine kick in the morning.

Mouse Jiggler

There’s an entire product category dedicated to making your computer think you’re still sat at your desk, and that’s both amusing and completely understandable. Whenever you step away from your desk and your screen goes dark, your active status flips to idle. A mouse jiggler solves this, and they come in many forms. There are software apps, physical platforms that shake the mouse, and even Raspberry Pi DIY builds.

But the simplest option is a USB dongle like the AUEDROT Mouse Jiggler. It’s a small aluminum alloy plug that slots into your USB port and does one simple thing: it moves your cursor and keeps your PC awake. It doesn’t need drivers or software, and you can set it to either “slight,” which nudges it a pixel or two, or “random,” which moves it around more freely.

But can companies detect when one is being used? Well, as far as your computer is concerned, it’s just another mouse, so any IT department is unlikely to notice. Your Slack and Teams status will stay green and available, but it won’t, however, get past serious surveillance tools — and it definitely won’t do your work for you. What it will do is keep your screen alive while you go make a coffee, and that’s something that’s hard to beat in terms of practicality.

Phone Timer Lock Box

Most of us are well aware of the pitfalls of too much screen time, and apps designed to limit this barely put up a fight when you want to override them. A phone lock box takes a different approach. This is a gadget you use to physically lock your smartphone up for a set time. The Mindsight Phone Lock Box was created by a family who had had enough of their dining table being taken over by screens, and it’s a highly recommended must-have gadget for focus and productivity.

You can lock your phone away for as little as a minute or as long as a month, and two out of three of the modes let you unlock early using a code found on the bottom of the box. However, Fortress Mode is a different story altogether. There is no code and no override. The only emergency escape available is emailing the company and hoping they take pity on you. It is kind of absurd that we have reached a point where physically grounding our phones is a good idea, but if you’ve ever lost an entire evening to doom-scrolling, you’ll understand.

The good news is that you can run a charging cable through the bottom to ensure your phone doesn’t die while it’s in solitary. It’s also big enough to hold 3-4 phones, and there’s a plus-size option for bigger families doing a tech detox. But don’t think you can just force your way in there when the cold sweats start; the lock is sturdy and built to resist any jailbreaking attempts.

Air-Purifying Headphones

Dyson has made a pair of wacky air-purifying headphones, and yes, you read that right. The Dyson Zone is, in fact, the only pair of headphones on the market that actively cleans the air you breathe while you listen to tunes. Like the Hushme, the Dyson Zone will also give you a Bane-like appearance with its detachable shield. It clips directly over your mouth and nose, and Dyson’s smallest-ever motor found in each earcup draws air through filters that capture 99% of pollution particles and harmful gases before directing the flow onto your face.

On top of the health benefits, they are actually a decent set of cans. The sound quality is good, or you might say decent enough at least, given the high price. But Wired notes that they also feature “superb active noise-canceling.” You’ll get up to 50 hours of battery time on a single charge, although using the air purification does bring this down sharply. You’ll get anywhere between 90 minutes and four hours depending on the filtration setting. So if you need your tunes while battling city pollution, seasonal allergies, or wildfire smoke, those bewildered stares may well be worth it.

Methodology

We trawled through CES articles looking for weird and practical gadgets, on top of browsing the web and SlashGear archives to find oddities worth including. Websites like ZDNET and CNET helped us to discover some interesting gadgets, too, while others like Bored Panda and Mashable threw up some genuine contenders. When searching for weird and practical gadgets, we also tried to include those that are accessible to buy.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


In May 2024, we released Part I of this series, in which we discussed agentic AI as an emerging technology enabling a new generation of AI-based hardware devices and software tools that can take actions on behalf of users. It turned out we were early – very early – to the discussion, with several months elapsing before agentic AI became as widely known and discussed as it is today. In this Part II, we return to the topic to explore legal issues concerning user liability for agentic AI-assisted transactions and open questions about existing legal frameworks’ applicability to the new generation of AI-assisted transactions.

Background: Snapshot of the Current State of “Agents”[1]

“Intelligent” electronic assistants are not new—the original generation, such as Amazon’s Alexa, have been offering narrow capabilities for specific tasks for more than a decade. However, as OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman commented in May 2024, an advanced AI assistant or “super-competent colleague” could be the killer app of the future. Later, Altman noted during a Reddit AMA session: “We will have better and better models. But I think the thing that will feel like the next giant breakthrough will be agents.” A McKinsey report on AI agents echoes this sentiment: “The technology is moving from thought to action.” Agentic AI represents not only a technological evolution, but also a potential means to further spread (and monetize) AI technology beyond its current uses by consumers and businesses. Major AI developers and others have already embraced this shift, announcing initiatives in the agentic AI space. For example:  

  • Anthropic announced an updated frontier AI model in public beta capable of interacting with and using computers like human users;
  • Google unveiled Gemini 2.0, its new AI model for the agentic era, alongside Project Mariner, a prototype leveraging Gemini 2.0 to perform tasks via an experimental Chrome browser extension (while keeping a “human in the loop”);
  • OpenAI launched a “research preview” of Operator, an AI tool that can interface with computers on users’ behalf, and launched beta feature “Tasks” in ChatGPT to facilitate ongoing or future task management beyond merely responding to real time prompts;
  • LexisNexis announced the availability of “Protégé,” a personalized AI assistant with agentic AI capabilities;
  • Perplexity recently rolled out “Shop Like a Pro,” an AI-powered shopping recommendation and buying feature that allows Perplexity Pro users to research products and, for those merchants whose sites are integrated with the tool, purchase items directly on Perplexity; and
  • Amazon announced Alexa+, a new generation of Alexa that has agentic capabilities, including enabling Alexa to navigate the internet and execute tasks, as well as Amazon Nova Act, an AI model designed to perform actions within a web browser.

Beyond these examples, other startups and established tech companies are also developing AI “agents” in this country and overseas (including the invite-only release of Manus AI by Butterfly Effect, an AI developer in China). As a recent Microsoft piece speculates, the generative AI future may involve a “new ecosystem or marketplace of agents,” akin to the current smartphone app ecosystem.  Although early agentic AI device releases have received mixed reviews and seem to still have much unrealized potential, they demonstrate the capability of such devices to execute multistep actions in response to natural language instructions.

Like prior technological revolutions—personal computers in the 1980s, e-commerce in the 1990s and smartphones in the 2000s—the emergence of agentic AI technology challenges existing legal frameworks. Let’s take a look at some of those issues – starting with basic questions about contract law.

Note: This discussion addresses general legal issues with respect to hypothetical agentic AI devices or software tools/apps that have significant autonomy. The examples provided are illustrative and do not reflect any specific AI tool’s capabilities.

Automated Transactions and Electronic Agents

Electronic Signatures Statutory Law Overview

A foundational legal question is whether transactions initiated and executed by an AI tool on behalf of a user are enforceable.  Despite the newness of agentic AI, the legal underpinnings of electronic transactions are well-established. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”), which has been adopted by every state and the District of Columbia (except New York, as noted below), the federal E-SIGN Act, and the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), serve as the legal framework for the use of electronic signatures and records, ensuring their validity and enforceability in interstate commerce. The fundamental provisions of UETA are Sections 7(a)-(b), which provide: “(a) A record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form; (b) A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.” 

UETA is technology-neutral and “applies only to transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means” (allowing the parties to choose the technology they desire). In the typical e-commerce transaction, a human user selects products or services for purchase and proceeds to checkout, which culminates in the user clicking “I Agree” or “Purchase.”  This click—while not a “signature” in the traditional sense of the word—may be effective as an electronic signature, affirming the user’s agreement to the transaction and to any accompanying terms, assuming the requisite contractual principles of notice and assent have been met.

At the federal level, the E-SIGN Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 7001-7031) (“E-SIGN”) establishes the same basic tenets regarding electronic signatures in interstate commerce and contains a reverse preemption provision, generally allowing states that have passed UETA to have UETA take precedence over E-SIGN.  If a state does not adopt UETA but enacts another law regarding electronic signatures, its alternative law will preempt E-SIGN only if the alternative law specifies procedures or requirements consistent with E-SIGN, among other things.

However, while UETA has been adopted by 49 states and the District of Columbia, it has not been enacted in New York. Instead, New York has its own electronic signature law, the Electronic Signature Records Act (“ESRA”) (N.Y. State Tech. Law § 301 et seq.). ESRA generally provides that “An electronic record shall have the same force and effect as those records not produced by electronic means.” According to New York’s Office of Information Technology Services, which oversees ESRA, “the definition of ‘electronic signature’ in ESRA § 302(3) conforms to the definition found in the E-SIGN Act.” Thus, as one New York state appellate court stated, “E-SIGN’s requirement that an electronically memorialized and subscribed contract be given the same legal effect as a contract memorialized and subscribed on paper…is part of New York law, whether or not the transaction at issue is a matter ‘in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.’”[2] 

Given US states’ wide adoption of UETA model statute, with minor variations, this post will principally rely on its provisions in analyzing certain contractual questions with respect to AI agents, particularly given that E-SIGN and UETA work toward similar aims in establishing the legal validity of electronic signatures and records and because E-SIGN expressly permits states to supersede the federal act by enacting UETA.  As for New York’s ESRA, courts have already noted that the New York legislature incorporated the substantive terms of E-SIGN into New York law, thus suggesting that ESRA is generally harmonious with the other laws’ purpose to ensure that electronic signatures and records have the same force and effect as traditional signatures.  

Electronic “Agents” under the Law

Beyond affirming the enforceability of electronic signatures and transactions where the parties have agreed to transact with one another electronically, Section 2(2) of UETA also contemplates “automated transactions,” defined as those “conducted or performed, in whole or in part, by electronic means or electronic records, in which the acts or records of one or both parties are not reviewed by an individual.” Central to such a transaction is an “electronic agent,” which Section 2(6) of UETA defines as “a computer program or an electronic or other automated means used independently to initiate an action or respond to electronic records or performances in whole or in part, without review or action by an individual.” Under UETA, in an automated transaction, a contract may be formed by the interaction of “electronic agents” of the parties or by an “electronic agent” and an individual. E-SIGN similarly contemplates “electronic agents,” and states: “A contract or other record relating to a transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because its formation, creation, or delivery involved the action of one or more electronic agents so long as the action of any such electronic agent is legally attributable to the person to be bound.”[3] Under both of these definitions, agentic AI tools—which are increasingly able to initiate actions and respond to records and performances on behalf of users—arguably qualify as “electronic agents” and thus can form enforceable contracts under existing law.[4]

AI Tools and E-Commerce Transactions

Given this existing body of statutory law enabling electronic signatures, from a practical perspective this may be the end of the analysis for most e-commerce transactions. If I tell an AI tool to buy me a certain product and it does so, then the product’s vendor, the tool’s provider and I might assume—with the support of UETA, E-SIGN, the UCC, and New York’s ESRA—that the vendor and I (via the tool) have formed a binding agreement for the sale and purchase of the good, and that will be the end of it unless a dispute arises about the good or the payment (e.g., the product is damaged or defective, or my credit card is declined), in which case the AI tool isn’t really relevant.

But what if the transaction does not go as planned for reasons related to the AI tool? Consider the following scenarios:

  • Misunderstood Prompts: The tool misinterprets a prompt that would be clear to a human but is confusing to its model (e.g., the user’s prompt states, “Buy two boxes of 101 Dalmatians Premium dog food,” and the AI tool orders 101 two-packs of dog food marketed for Dalmatians).
  • AI Hallucinations: The user asks for something the tool cannot provide or does not understand, triggering a hallucination in the model with unintended consequences (e.g., the user asks the model to buy stock in a company that is not public, so the model hallucinates a ticker symbol and buys stock in whatever real company that symbol corresponds to).
  • Violation of Limits: The tool exceeds a pre-determined budget or financial parameter set by the user (e.g., the user’s prompt states, “Buy a pair of running shoes under $100” and the AI tool purchases shoes from the UK for £250, exceeding the user’s limit).
  • Misinterpretation of User Preference: The tool misinterprets a prompt due to lack of context or misunderstanding of user preferences (e.g., the user’s prompt states, “Book a hotel room in New York City for my conference,” intending to stay near the event location in lower Manhattan, and the AI tool books a room in Queens because it prioritizes price over proximity without clarifying the user’s preference).

Disputes like these begin with a conflict between the user and a vendor—the AI tool may have been effective to create a contract between the user and the vendor, and the user may then have legal responsibility for that contract.  But the user may then seek indemnity or similar rights against the developer of the AI tool.

Of course, most developers will try to avoid these situations by requiring user approvals before purchases are finalized (i.e., “human in the loop”). But as desire for efficiency and speed increases (and AI tools become more autonomous and familiar with their users), these inbuilt protections could start to wither away, and users that grow accustomed to their tool might find themselves approving transactions without vetting them carefully. This could lead to scenarios like the above, where the user might seek to void a transaction or, if that fails, even try to avoid liability for it by seeking to shift his or her responsibility to the AI tool’s developer.[5] Could this ever work? Who is responsible for unintended liabilities related to transactions completed by an agentic AI tool?

Sources of Law Governing AI Transactions

AI Developer Terms of Service

As stated in UETA’s Prefatory Note, the purpose of UETA is “to remove barriers to electronic commerce by validating and effectuating electronic records and signatures.” Yet, the Note cautions, “It is NOT a general contracting statute – the substantive rules of contracts remain unaffected by UETA.”  E-SIGN contains a similar disclaimer in the statute, limiting its reach to statutes that require contracts or other records be written, signed, or in non-electronic form (15 U.S.C. §7001(b)(2)). In short, UETA, E-SIGN, and the similar UCC provisions do not provide contract law rules on how to form an agreement or the enforceability of the terms of any agreement that has been formed.

Thus, in the event of a dispute, terms of service governing agentic AI tools will likely be the primary source to which courts will look to assess how liability might be allocated. As we noted in Part I of this post, early-generation agentic AI hardware devices generally include terms that not only disclaim responsibility for the actions of their products or the accuracy of their outputs, but also seek indemnification against claims arising from their use. Thus, absent any express customer-favorable indemnities, warranties or other contractual provisions, users might generally bear the legal risk, barring specific legal doctrines or consumer protection laws prohibiting disclaimers or restrictions of certain claims.[6]

But what if the terms of service are nonexistent, don’t cover the scenario, or—more likely—are unenforceable? Unenforceable terms for online products and services are not uncommon, for reasons ranging from “browsewrap” being too hidden, to specific provisions being unconscionable. What legal doctrines would control during such a scenario?

The Backstop: User Liability under UETA and E-SIGN

Where would the parties stand without the developer’s terms? E-SIGN allows for the effectiveness of actions by “electronic agents” “so long as the action of any such electronic agent is legally attributable to the person to be bound.” This provision seems to bring the issue back to the terms of service governing a transaction or general principles of contract law. But again, what if the terms of service are nonexistent or don’t cover a particular scenario, such as those listed above. As it did with the threshold question of whether AI tools could form contracts in the first place, UETA appears to offer a position here that could be an attractive starting place for a court. Moreover, in the absence of express language under New York’s ESRA, a New York court might apply E-SIGN (which contains an “electronic agent” provision) or else find insight as well by looking at UETA and its commentary and body of precedent if the court isn’t able to find on-point binding authority, which wouldn’t be a surprise, considering that we are talking about technology-driven scenarios that haven’t been possible until very recently.

UETA generally attributes responsibility to users of “electronic agents”, with the prefatory note explicitly stating that the actions of electronic agents “programmed and used by people will bind the user of the machine.” Section 14 of UETA (titled “Automated Transaction”) reinforces this principle, noting that a contract can be formed through the interaction of “electronic agents” “even if no individual was aware of or reviewed the electronic agents’ actions or the resulting terms and agreements.” Accordingly, when automated tools such as agentic AI systems facilitate transactions between parties who knowingly consent to conduct business electronically, UETA seems to suggest that responsibility defaults to the users—the persons who most immediately directed or initiated their AI tool’s actions. This reasoning treats the AI as a user’s tool, consistent with the other UETA Comments (e.g., “contracts can be formed by machines functioning as electronic agents for parties to a transaction”).

However, different facts or technologies could lead to alternative interpretations, and ambiguities remain. For example, Comment 1 to UETA Section 14 asserts that the lack of human intent at the time of contract formation does not negate enforceability in contracts “formed by machines functioning as electronic agents for parties to a transaction” and that “when machines are involved, the requisite intention flows from the programming and use of the machine” (emphasis added).

This explanatory text has a couple of issues. First, it is unclear about what constitutes “programming” and seems to presume that the human intention at the programming step (whatever that may be) is more-or-less the same as the human intention at the use step[7], but this may not always be the case with AI tools. For example, it is conceivable that an AI tool could be programmed by its developer to put the developer’s interests above the users’, for example by making purchases from a particular preferred e-commerce partner even if that vendor’s offerings are not the best value for the end user. This concept may not be so far-fetched, as existing GenAI developers have entered into content licensing deals with online publishers to obtain the right for their chatbots to generate outputs or feature licensed content, with links to such sources. Of course, there is a difference between a chatbot offering links to relevant licensed news sources that are accurate (but not displaying appropriate content from other publishers) versus an agentic chatbot entering into unintended transactions or spending the user’s funds in unwanted ways. This discrepancy in intention alignment might not be enough to allow the user to shift liability for a transaction from a user to a programmer, but it is not hard to see how larger misalignments might lead to thornier questions, particularly in the event of litigation when a court might scrutinize the enforceability of an AI vendor’s terms (under the unconscionability doctrine, for example). 

Second, UETA does not contemplate the possibility that the AI tool might have enough autonomy and capability that some of its actions might be properly characterized as the result of its own intent. Looking at UETA’s definition of “electronic agent,” the commentary notes that “As a general rule, the employer of a tool is responsible for the results obtained by the use of that tool since the tool has no independent volition of its own.” But as we know, technology has advanced in the last few decades and depending on the tool, an autonomous AI tool might one day have much independent volition (and further UETA commentary admits the possibility of a future with more autonomous electronic agents). Indeed, modern AI researchers have been contemplating this possibility even before rapid technological progress began with ChatGPT.

Still, Section 10 of UETA may be relevant to some of the scenarios from our bulleted selection of AI tool mishaps listed above, including misunderstood prompts or AI hallucinations. UETA Section 10 (titled “Effect of Change or Error”) outlines the possible actions a party may take when discovering human or machine errors or when “a change or error in an electronic record occurs in a transmission between parties to a transaction.” The remedies outlined in UETA depend on the circumstances of the transaction and whether the parties have agreed to certain security procedures to catch errors (e.g., a “human in the loop” confirming an AI-completed transaction) or whether the transaction involves an individual and a machine.[8]  In this way, the guardrails integrated into a particular AI tool or by the parties themselves play a role in the liability calculus. The section concludes by stating that if none of UETA’s error provisions apply, then applicable law governs, which might include the terms of the parties’ contract and the law of mistake, unconscionability and good faith and fair dealing.

* * *

Thus, along an uncertain path we circle back to where we started: the terms of the transaction and general contract law principles and protections. However, not all roads lead to contract law. In our next installment in this series, we will explore the next logical source of potential guidance on AI tool liability questions: agency law.  Decades of established law may now be challenged by a new sort of “agent” in the form of agentic AI…and a new AI-related lawsuit foreshadows the issues to come.


[1] In keeping with common practice in the artificial intelligence industry, this article refers to AI tools that are capable of taking actions on behalf of users as “agents” (in contrast to more traditional AI tools that can produce content but not take actions). However, note that the use of this term is not intended to imply that these tools are “agents” under agency law.

[2] In addition, the UCC has provisions consistent with UETA and E-SIGN providing for the use of electronic records and electronic signatures for transactions subject to the UCC. The UCC does not require the agreement of the parties to use electronic records and electronic signatures, as UETA and E-SIGN do.

[3] Under E-SIGN, “electronic agent” means “a computer program or an electronic or other automated means used independently to initiate an action or respond to electronic records or performances in whole or in part without review or action by an individual at the time of the action or response.”

[4] It should be noted that New York’s ESRA does not expressly provide for the use of “electronic agents,” yet does not prohibit them either.  Reading through ESRA and the ESRA regulation, the spirit of the law could be construed as forward-looking and seems to suggest that it supports the use of automated systems and electronic means to create legally binding agreements between willing parties. Looking to New York precedent, one could also argue that E-SIGN, which contains provisions about the use of “electronic agents”, might also be applicable in certain circumstances to fill the “electronic agent” gap in ESRA. For example, the ESRA regulations (9 CRR-NY § 540.1) state: “New technologies are frequently being introduced. The intent of this Part is to be flexible enough to embrace future technologies that comply with ESRA and all other applicable statutes and regulations.”  On the other side, one could argue that certain issues surrounding “electronic agents” are perhaps more unsettled in New York.  Still, New York courts have found ESRA consistent with E-SIGN.  

[5] Since AI tools are not legal persons, they could not be liable themselves (unlike, for example, a rogue human agent could be in some situations). We will explore agency law questions in Part III.

[6] Once agentic AI technology matures, it is possible that certain user-friendly contractual standards might emerge as market participants compete in the space. For example, as we wrote about in a prior post, in 2023 major GenAI providers rolled out indemnifications to protect their users from third-party claims of intellectual property infringement arising from GenAI outputs, subject to certain carve-outs.

[7] The electronic “agents” in place at the time of UETA’s passage might have included basic e-commerce tools or EDI (Electronic Data Interchange), which is used by businesses to exchange standardized documents, such as purchase orders, electronically between trading partners, replacing traditional methods like paper, fax, mail or telephone. Electronic tools are generally designed to explicitly perform according to the user’s intentions (e.g., clicking on an icon will add this item to a website shopping cart or send this invoice to the customer) and UETA, Section 10, contains provisions governing when an inadvertent or electronic error occurs (as opposed to an abrogation of the user’s wishes).

[8] For example, UETA Section 10 states that if a change or error occurs in an electronic record during transmission between parties to a transaction, the party who followed an agreed-upon security procedure to detect such changes can avoid the effect of the error, if the other party who didn’t follow the procedure would have detected the change had they complied with the security measure; this essentially places responsibility on the party who failed to use the agreed-upon security protocol to verify the electronic record’s integrity.

Comments to UETA Section 10 further explain the context of this section: “The section covers both changes and errors. For example, if Buyer sends a message to Seller ordering 100 widgets, but Buyer’s information processing system changes the order to 1000 widgets, a “change” has occurred between what Buyer transmitted and what Seller received. If on the other hand, Buyer typed in 1000 intending to order only 100, but sent the message before noting the mistake, an error would have occurred which would also be covered by this section.”  In the situation where a human makes a mistake when dealing with an electronic agent, the commentary explains that “when an individual makes an error while dealing with the electronic agent of the other party, it may not be possible to correct the error before the other party has shipped or taken other action in reliance on the erroneous record.”



Source link