13 Highly Rated Harbor Freight Hand Tools For Your Starter Kit







Building a quality selection of hand tools to help support your repair, DIY renovation, or emergency preparedness needs isn’t always easy. Finding great gear is rarely the problem, though. Starter kits demand an odd blend of cost-effectiveness and value that can be difficult to identify. As a beginner creating your first collection of versatile hand tools, you’ll often want to target sets of equipment (like a bundle deal of screwdrivers or a socket set with a wide range of turning tools) while purchasing the best brand options you can afford at a reasonable price point. There’s no need to focus on premium quality everywhere, and even those with experience seeking to reimagine their existing mechanic’s tool kit will want to save in some areas and splurge in others. In fact, many pros suggest a different route, opting for inexpensive gear that’s unlikely to last a long time. The things you break first are naturally going to be the equipment you use the most, giving you a personalized blueprint for where to upgrade over time.

Harbor Freight tools offer a solid blend of both worlds. Harbor Freight’s catalog of in-house brands features plenty of quality implements at surprisingly bargain-friendly prices. The outlet certainly carries its fair share of expensive equipment, but many of the hand tools offered by the tool and home improvement store are inexpensive without sacrificing quality or key build features that users crave. These 13 tools are cost-friendly options with great reviews in their respective categories, providing reliable coverage for numerous jobs you may be gearing up to tackle.

Pittsburgh Comfort Grip Screwdriver Set (70-Piece)

There’s always room in a garage or workshop for a set of screwdrivers. This is one of the baseline tools that every fixer, builder, or renovator needs to have in their collection. No matter the task you’re squaring up against, three functions remain at the top of any job’s requirements: measuring, cutting, and fastening. You won’t get very far without screwdriving tools, and a set of handheld fastening tools can be a true game changer. The Pittsburgh Comfort Grip Screwdriver Set includes Allen keys, nut drivers, precision screwdrivers, and standard screwdriving tools. It’s all contained within a storage rack that makes organization simple.

Each screwdriver features an oil-resistant TPR cushion grip that makes the set useful in demanding environments while also remaining comfortable for use over long periods of time. The screwdrivers feature chrome vanadium steel construction with magnetized tips and flat-sided handles that offer additional gripping power while reducing the risk of rolling. About 98% of buyers recommend the set, and its price is among the primary reasons. It’s offered at Harbor Freight for $30, but Inside Track Club members can save $10 on their purchase before April 2. The tool has been reviewed by over 1,230 buyers and holds a 4.8-star average rating.

Central Machinery 5-Inch Swivel Vise with Anvil

The Central Machinery 5-Inch Swivel Vise with Anvil is an in-store-only tool offered by Harbor Freight. The vise is available for $50 for Inside Track Club members until April 2, and $60 for other buyers. Both prices are favorable for a quality swiveling vise designed for heavy-duty use in your garage or workshop. The tool features 5-inch, heat-treated replaceable jaws and can produce 6,600 pounds of clamping force. The tool’s body is made of cast iron, resulting in a 21-pound tool that can offer portability when necessary but is dense enough for solid workholding when you need to lock down a component.

The vise features a 2-1/8-inch throat depth, and the swiveling base offers a full 360-degree rotational arc. The tool has received over 270 buyer reviews with a 4.7-star average rating. It has a 96% recommendation rate, and the replaceable jaws and multifunctional capability, underpinned by the addition of a 3-1/2-inch by 3-5/8-inch anvil, have a lot to do with this high praise.

Quinn 1/4, 3/8, and 1/2-Inch Drive SAE and Metric Hi-Vis Socket Set (66-Piece)

There are plenty of great mechanic’s tool sets for every budget, including some that feature no additions beyond the ratchet and sockets. The Quinn 1/4, 3/8, and 1/2-Inch Drive SAE and Metric Hi-Vis Socket Set is a quality choice in this regard. It’s listed at Harbor Freight for $60, offering 66 total pieces for a good price per element and a relatively low cost overall. The set comes with a carrying case featuring individual storage slots, allowing you to find exactly what you’re looking for without hassle. The set is built with chrome vanadium steel, offering scratch and rust resistance for long-term durability. Each ratchet features a 72-tooth quick-release head, and the sockets offer high-visibility markings with color coding to indicate drive size.

Customers overwhelmingly give this high praise, with a 4.8-star average rating from over 1,460 reviewers. 98% of buyers recommend the item to others. In addition to standard fastener-turning tools contained within the set, it includes three extensions and two spark plug sockets, allowing buyers to change their own spark plugs without having to go out and buy a new, specialized tool.

Pittsburgh 3/4-Inch Pipe Clamp with Base

Clamps come in a dizzying array of styles, but they all feature a basic commonality. Clamping tools are used to hold workpieces in place, allowing glue to set or keeping a component held firm while you fasten or cut away excess material. While numerous clamps can be of great value to someone building a starter toolkit, perhaps the most versatile solution you’ll find is the pipe clamp. Unlike other options, this tool comes as a pair of cast ends that fit onto a pipe you’ll add to the mix yourself. This allows you to customize the length to your own needs and provides extreme adaptability.

The Pittsburgh 3/4-Inch Pipe Clamp with Base is a great option, listed at Harbor Freight for $12. It’s an in-store-only tool. The clamp features a four-plate clutch to deliver intense clamping pressure, along with a quick-release lever to back it off when the job is finished. It’s built with cast steel and a heavy-duty ACME lead screw. It doesn’t come with a pipe but fits 3/4-inch-diameter pipes and includes pre-drilled holes to attach additional jaws if necessary. 98% of buyers recommend it, and more than 420 reviewers give it a 4.7-star average rating.

Doyle 12-Inch Professional Rafter Square

The Doyle 12-Inch Professional Rafter Square is a layout tool with huge functionality built into its subtle frame. Also known as a speed square, this tool makes measuring and marking boards significantly faster. The tool is built with an anodized aluminum body with high-visibility, laser-etched markings across its face. One end of the triangular tool features a lip that allows you to quickly square it up against the edge of a board, with the 90-degree angle delivering a perfect marking edge to scribe measurements or cut lines onto a workpiece with ease. It also features notches along its edge that allow users to drag a line horizontally across a board for rip cuts.

The tool is essential for getting the angles and markings correct when building roof trusses and other angular constructions on a job site or in your own backyard, but it also serves as a key asset for many other projects. It’s available from Harbor Freight for $17 and has received over 500 reviews with a 4.9-star average rating. Among buyers, about 98% recommend it to others.

Central Forge 15-Pound Rugged Cast Iron Anvil

The anvil is often thought of as a tool that’s only required in metalworking shops. Forging hand tools, bladed instruments, and other cast decorative elements is specialized work, so it’s easy to overlook the tool. However, this addition, which acts in opposition to your hammer or other workpiece manipulation assets, can add significant value to many aspiring home improvers’ collections and workshops of all sorts.

The Central Forge 15-Pound Rugged Cast Iron Anvil is a relatively lightweight solution. It also won’t break the bank. The tool’s $20 price tag and 15-pound weight make it a small-scale investment that can pay huge dividends for users long into the future. In the same way that a vise can provide massively versatile workholding capabilities, the anvil offers a smooth striking surface to work with across many different job requirements.

This tool features a cast iron construction with a milled face. It offers an 8-1/4-inch by 3-inch work surface with a hardy hole that supports punching through material, bending components, or accessory installations. It also offers a rounded horn for shaping and smooth bending. The tool also includes extra-large feet that help keep it firmly planted while in use. The anvil has a 4.6-star average rating from more than 470 buyers, with a 93% recommendation rate.

Pittsburgh 16 oz. Fiberglass Rip Claw Hammer

Another critically important tool: Virtually everyone who uses hand implements, even sparingly, will need a hammer to support striking functions and basic fastener removal tasks. The Pittsburgh 16 oz. Fiberglass Rip Claw Hammer is a $7 purchase at Harbor Freight, offering a fiberglass handle for effective shock absorption. It features a non-slip rubber grip as well, pairing with a drop-forged steel head. The tool features a rip claw construction rather than the more commonly observed curved claw, delivering a straighter swing path and improved striking control. The hammer features a smooth face for a classic finish.

Nearly all customers (99%) recommend the hammer to others, and across 2,460 reviews it has received a 4.8-star average rating. The 16 oz. head weight is an ideal middle-ground solution that delivers more than enough force to drive heavy nails while remaining light enough for lengthy use. The handle is 11 inches long and features a tapered shaft layout to allow users to grip up on the tool when setting a nail and move their hand to the rubberized bottom for more striking force.

Doyle 13-Inch Heavy Duty Professional Hand Riveter

The Doyle 13-Inch Heavy Duty Professional Hand Riveter features a double compound hinge that offers added leverage over the standard riveting tool. This makes it an upgraded option for driving fasteners in even the most demanding applications. It includes five interchangeable nose pieces that are color-coded for easy identification and don’t require additional tools to install or remove. It also utilizes a collection bottle that’s built into the back end of the tool, collecting used mandrels rather than dropping them all over your workshop.

The riveter also features an ergonomic PVC grip construction that helps to reduce fatigue as you work on fastening tasks. The tool is available for $25 at Harbor Freight, making it a cost-effective option for securing all manner of material as you work to complete renovation or construction jobs. Buyers give it high praise as well, delivering a 4.8-star average rating across more than 530 reviews. It also has a 97% recommendation rate from those who have purchased the tool.

Icon 1/2-Inch Drive 18-Inch Professional Breaker Bar

The breaker bar is a tool mechanics and many others lean on in a pinch, both literally and figuratively. The breaker bar is an elongated ratchet-type tool that offers more leverage to create additional torque on a stubborn fastener. It’s a tool that’s all about muscling through a tough turning task, and so a heavy-duty option is always going to be a priority. The Icon 1/2-Inch Drive 18-Inch Professional Breaker Bar delivers a critically important crossover between strength and durability, and an approachable price point. It features more than enough length and strength to tackle seized fasteners, while being listed at Harbor Freight for $30.

The tool runs with a 1/2-inch drive size and features a 180-degree pivot in the head to deliver access to your workpiece from a range of angles. The tool is made from chrome vanadium steel and weighs a little over 2 pounds. It’s also chrome-plated to resist corrosion and rust. Nearly 170 reviewers have given it a 4.9-star average rating, with 99% of them recommending it to others.

Pittsburgh Metric or SAE Ball End Hex Key Set (13-Piece)

Allen wrenches come in many formats, but anyone who has used the standard straight-end devices for long enough will know that the typical unit comes with a notable disadvantage. One of the most useful changes that has taken place in these fastener-driving tools is the ball end. The short side of the L-shaped Pittsburgh Metric or SAE Ball End Hex Key Set features the standard square end for a firm connection with your fastener and plenty of driving force as you turn the tool. The longer side of the hex key features a ball-shaped tip that allows users to turn fasteners while the tool is positioned at an angle.

This enhances the reach you experience while trying to tighten a screw, with the ability to engage a screw head from a 25-degree offset. This set comes with all of the standard sizes you’d expect in either SAE or metric measurements. Both options are listed as in-store-only tools, and both are available for $6. The tool set has been reviewed by nearly 1,800 Harbor Freight buyers and holds a 4.7-star average rating with a 96% recommendation rate. There are other Allen wrench sets out there for cheaper, but there’s really no reason to settle for a standard model when the enhanced variant can be found for such a low price.

Fasten-Pro Hammer Tacker

The Fasten-Pro Hammer Tacker is an update to the classic staple gun. Hammer tackers are designed for faster installation with less physical effort than their alternatives. They fire the same staples that a staple gun can accommodate but achieve that result with significantly less hullabaloo, allowing you to work quicker without nearly as much fatigue. This Fasten-Pro model is available from Harbor Freight for $15 and features a 4.4-star average rating across over 510 reviews. Similarly, 90% of customers recommend it to others, with its price coming in as a key strength.

The tool features a spring-loaded strip magazine that continuously pushes the next staple down into the ready position. The tool is 13-1/2 inches long and weighs a hair over two pounds, making it a mobile solution that’s easy to carry and even easier to deploy. It utilizes a non-slip comfort grip with additional oil-resistant features that make it usable in a wide range of situations.

Pittsburgh Precision Electrical Screwdriver Set (6-Piece)

The precision screwdriver is essential for tackling electrical repair and handling access to small parts within all manner of objects you might be working to service or repair. Everything from battery changes in smoke detectors or children’s toys to delicate work under the hood of your project vehicle can benefit from the addition of a precision screwdriver set. The Pittsburgh Precision Electrical Screwdriver Set is a 6-piece solution that’s available from Harbor Freight for $8. This option features electrical insulation with a protection rating up to 1000V. Failing to use insulated tools while working on the wiring in your home or other electrical projects is an easy mistake to make since the consequences aren’t immediately apparent.

The insulated, soft-grip handles make it more comfortable to use the screwdrivers, and they feature GS and VDE-certified protection that can minimize or even negate the risk of electrical shock. The kit also comes with a storage case, and each screwdriver features a color-coded element to help make identification easier. The set features three flathead screwdrivers and three Phillips models, all in small sizes that are essential for tackling delicate tasks like jewelry or watch repair and much more. The low price tag combines perfectly with a 4.8-star average rating and a 99% recommendation rate across more than 520 reviews.

Pittsburgh Ratcheting Screwdriver Set (26-Piece)

There are a wide range of great multibit screwdrivers that can make a difference in your workflow, and the multibit screwdriver is among the most valuable and useful hand tools you’ll encounter. Therefore, it can feel like a big decision when selecting one. Fortunately, Harbor Freight offers a solid choice in the Pittsburgh Ratcheting Screwdriver Set. It features a $14 price tag and a 4.5-star average rating across over 1,560 reviews. It also has a 93% recommendation rate, underpinning a cost-effective and highly rated solution that can help users tackle a wide range of jobs. The tool comes with 24 driver bits as well as a nylon carrying case to keep everything contained and organized as an on-the-go solution or for effective storage in your workshop between jobs. It includes six nut-driving bits as well as a range of Phillips, Pozidrive, TORX, and slotted bits.

Each bit is constructed from chrome vanadium steel to deliver long-lasting performance across numerous jobs, regardless of how demanding each use might become. The screwdriving head also features a ratcheting function with left and right directional shifts as well as a stationary center position that locks the mechanism for standard use.

Methodology

All of these tools have been reviewed by at least 150 buyers. Most have near-perfect average ratings, with the lowest of the bunch scoring a 4.4-star average. They represent a quality cross-section of hand tool options that can provide plenty of versatility throughout the typical installation, repair, or fabrication tasks you might face. They’re also all inexpensive options that won’t break the bank as you search for good value at fair prices.





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