15 Of The Best Cars For Seniors In 2026







Buying a car can be a challenge, with all sorts of specs and features to sift through and consider. That process may get even more challenging if you’re trying to buy a car for an older driver (or are an older driver yourself); after all, some of the big-ticket selling points that may appeal to younger drivers — performance, handling, cutting-edge looks — are likely far less important than more mundane traits that may not get as much press.

Is the car easy to enter and exit? Is it safe? Does it offer good fuel efficiency? What about driver assists and aids? These are all crucial questions, and were some of the ones we asked when putting together this list of vehicles ideal for senior drivers. Thankfully, many modern cars fulfill these criteria quite handily, meaning that there’s a car out there for almost any older driver out there, no matter their tastes or budget.

Toyota RAV4

Toyota’s RAV4 is the world’s best-selling car, and it makes a lot of sense. The SUV’s combination of efficient engines, great durability, practicality, and excellent value makes it a great choice for new drivers and, to our mind, senior drivers as well.

After all, both want an SUV that just works and nails the basics, and the RAV4 — whether one goes for the newly hybrid-only 2026 Toyota RAV4 or a used model — delivers just that. Taking the latest iteration as an example, the RAV4 has a strong complement of safety tech across all its trims, with aids such as Toyota Safety Sense 4.0 (which includes, among others, pedestrian detection, adaptive cruise control, and lane departure assist) and a blind spot monitor as standard.

Unfortunately, the base LE trim lacks a power driver’s seat and nice-to-haves like rain-sensing wipers. The cheapest trim that comes with both as standard is the $41,300 (plus $1,450 destination) RAV4 XSE. To that end, buying a better-equipped used RAV4 may be a compelling option: 2020 RAV4 XSEs are available for around $30,000 or so.

Genesis GV70

There are many options for the senior who wants to waft around town in a luxurious SUV, but one we think is worth highlighting is the Genesis GV70. Genesis may not have the cachet of European luxury brands like BMW or Mercedes-Benz, but offerings like the GV70 show that the Korean brand knows what it’s doing.

The latest iteration of the GV70 is a refinement of its already numerous strengths, with our review of the 2026 GV70 highlighting its classy interior, great touchscreen (which, thankfully, doesn’t outright replace physical buttons), and classy, comfortable ride. The GV70 is also an IIHS Top Safety Pick+ winner for 2026, so it’s as safe as they come.

The base GV70 2.5T AWD, which starts at $48,985 (plus $1,495 destination), offers most of the features a senior driver would want, including a strong suite of safety and convenience tech, such as power seats, attention warnings, parking distance alerts, and a powered liftgate. Stepping up to a pricier trim like the 2.5T Advanced adds refinements like power lumbar support, leather material, and a 360-degree camera view, and, thus, may be worth the extra outlay to some.

Honda CR-V

The modern CR-V is a perennial best-seller for Honda, topping the brand’s American sales from 2022 to 2025. It’s quite easy to see why, too: our review of a 2025 CR-V Hybrid shows that the CR-V has very strong fundamentals, including a spacious, comfortable interior and great on-road manners. The breadth of trims available also means that there’s likely a CR-V for everyone.

$30,920 (plus $1,450 destination) gets you the entry-level CR-V LX, but that’s not the trim we’d recommend, given its manual seat adjustment, basic climate control, and lack of a blind spot info system and cross-traffic monitoring. Thankfully, the EX addresses all of those issues and is only $33,150. If you want a power tailgate, however, you’ll have to spring for the $35,400 EX-L.

Of course, those seeking fuel savings will want to consider the $35,360 Sport Hybrid at the very least, which claims an appealing 43 mpg combined. That said, we only managed a shade over 30 mpg in our test; it’s not quite as economical as Honda suggests, which could be an issue for some. No matter the trim or powertrain, though, the CR-V will be easy to enter, with roughly hip-height seats and large doors.

Kia Soul

The Kia Soul is one of the Korean brand’s best SUVs and one that we think will suit older drivers very well — provided they’re okay with the Soul’s quirky looks. The main draw of the Soul is how nice it is to live with: reviewers have praised its roomy interior, practicality, the ease of entry and exit, and the great visibility all around — all big positives for senior drivers.

Unfortunately, Kia discontinued the Soul after the 2025 model year, so buyers may have to turn to the used market. Regardless of the model year, our suggestion is to avoid the entry-level model. The 2025 Soul LX, for example, didn’t come with collision avoidance assists for lane changes and rear cross-traffic as standard, nor did it have a power-adjustable driver’s seat.

Thus, we’d recommend seeking out a Kia Soul S or GT-Line at the very least. Even the top-tier LX is still eminently affordable, though: the 2025 Soul LX started at $24,790, and used examples can be had for well below $20,000.

Toyota Crown

The modern Toyota Crown is quite quirky by Toyota’s standards, occupying the middle ground between a sedan and an SUV. It sits higher than the former — it has 5.8 inches of ground clearance and is 60.6 inches tall — but doesn’t ride as high as the latter, so it could appeal to a senior who wants something in between the two.

Of course, there’s more to the Crown than its stance. Befitting the previous generations of the storied Crown nameplate, it’s also an impressively luxurious vehicle that will suit older drivers who want comfort and class and don’t mind paying for it.

It has a great interior with comfortable seats and, in its top-of-the-line Platinum trim, has a 340-hp hybrid system that our reviewer enjoyed when we tested one back in 2023. All trims come with a boatload of safety features and assists, including all the essentials one needs in a modern-day vehicle. The Crown XLE should be enough for most, with the $40,000 model only really missing features like seat memory, auto-braking parking assist, and a 360-degree camera.

Honda Accord

Seniors seeking a sensible vehicle will likely find few better options than the Honda Accord. While it will never thrill, there’s a lot to like about the modern Accord. It has a great interior, rides very well, is available with a hybrid powertrain, and is an IIHS Top Safety Pick-award winner.

The icing on the cake is that it can be had for a shade under $30,000, although we’d recommend senior drivers stay away from that entry-level version. While the price might be tempting, our 2023 first drive of the then-new Accord suggested that the Sport Hybrid trim was the one to go for, and that still applies.

The Accord Sport — which starts at $33,795 plus $1,195 destination — offers an EPA-estimated 44 mpg combined and has features not available on the base trim, like a blind spot information system, rear cross-traffic alert, and a power driver’s seat with power lumbar support. That said, it still lacks niceties like rain-sensing wipers and an auto-dimming rear-view mirror; those who want both will have to pony up for the $39,495 Accord Touring.

Subaru Forester

To be clear, the Forester is far from the only AWD SUV out there these days. However, Subaru’s reputation for reliability (even if it was dethroned by Toyota in Consumer Reports’ 2025 report) and the Forester’s IIHS Top Safety Pick+-winning design make it our favored option for seniors who want the reassurance of AWD.

Beyond its four-wheel drive, the Forester has great visibility, a spacious (if somewhat old-fashioned) interior, Subaru’s EyeSight driver aid tech, and, since the 2025 model year, a hybrid model. The hybrid isn’t necessarily economical, as our review of a 2025 Forester Hybrid discovered, but it’s still the better choice overall.

Yes, the $36,595 you’ll pay for the Forester Premium Hybrid is quite a bit more than the $29,995 of the base gasoline Forester, but that’s not the model you want anyway. The Premium is the one to start with, and that’s already $33,385 (all prices plus $1,450 destination). Even then, it’s still missing some standard Premium Hybrid features like a hands-free rear tailgate and blind spot detection. Thus, the hybrid looks like the best deal.

Toyota Sienna

Minivans may be most associated with younger families and soccer moms, but the design choices that make them great for those users also generally make them compelling options for older drivers. Case in point: the Toyota Sienna.

A busy parent likely doesn’t want to deal with a vehicle that’s hard to enter or exit; thus, the Sienna offers large door openings and low door sills front and rear, making hopping in a breeze. It’s also fuel-efficient — with an EPA-estimated 36 mpg combined with FWD — and comfortable, barring the possible exception of the Platinum trim and its 20-inch wheels. That’s not a big issue, though: unless you want the Platinum’s fridge and vacuum, the lesser trims will be adequate.

Even the base LE trim has an auto-dimming rearview mirror, power-adjustable front seats, and Toyota’s Safety System 2.0 and Star Safety System. The latter provides essentials like traction control, automatic high beams, pre-collision detection, and radar cruise control; pretty solid for its $41,915 (including $1,495 destination) MSRP.

Toyota Camry

Some seniors will want a sensible sedan, and it’d be criminal not to include the Top Safety Pick+-winning Toyota Camry here. The modern-day Camry is a solid car overall, with quite a few positives going for it. Its all-hybrid lineup boasts excellent fuel efficiency — EPA estimates suggest anywhere between 44 and 51 mpg combined — and smooth power delivery, while its interior is quite roomy and a nice place to spend time in. You even get physical buttons for the air-conditioning, which is a nice senior-friendly touch.

The base Camry LE starts at $29,100 (all prices plus $1,195) and has Toyota’s basic safety suites as standard, but lacks tech like lane change assist and parking assist, and only has a manual driver’s seat. The $31,600 SE fixes the latter and should be fine for most, but it is still missing niceties like rain-sensing wipers and those safety features. If you want it all, you’ll need an XLE ($34,300) or XSE ($35,500) and tack on an extra $4,800 for the Premium Plus package. If that feels a bit much, you can turn to the used market, where Premium Plus-optioned 2025 Camrys can be had for $35,000 or so.

Honda Odyssey

If getting in and out of the front passenger compartment is a top priority, the Honda Odyssey may be ideal. The 2025 Odyssey had the best front access of all the vehicles Consumer Reports had tested up to March 2025, thanks to its low doorsill, accessible seats, and high roof.

Not only are the seats easy to get into, but they’re also pretty loaded: All trim levels, from the $42,795 EX-L to the $51,695 (all prices plus $1,495 destination) Elite, have 12-way power-adjustable driver’s seats and four-way power lumbar support, with two memory positions. The passenger seat isn’t bad, either, with eight- and four-way adjustment, respectively, albeit with no memory. You get leather across all trims, too, which is nice.

Other features available across the board include tri-zone climate control, an auto-dimming rear-view mirror, active noise cancellation, a power tailgate, and a full suite of Honda’s safety features and assists. The only safety feature missing on the two cheapest trims is parking sensors. On top of that, it’s very comfortable and surprisingly fun to drive, too, as we found out when we took a 2026 Odyssey for a spin.

Subaru Legacy

Subaru may have discontinued the Legacy in 2025, but the long-running sedan is still a great option for senior drivers. While the Legacy is far from perfect, with weaknesses including its weedy standard engine and lack of excitement, Subaru’s sedan looks like it nails most of the essentials for an older driver.

For one, it’s very comfortable, with reviews praising how well it rides over bumps and other imperfections in the road surface. Consumer Reports also considered the Legacy to be one of the easiest traditional sedans to enter and exit. Like most Subarus, it has all-wheel drive as standard for better road-holding in inclement weather, and comes with EyeSight and a healthy range of assists.

Seniors will likely want to consider the Legacy Premium at the very least, as it adds a driver’s power seat and a larger 11.6-inch screen. It may still be possible to find new units at dealerships as of mid-2026, but buying used gets you the best deals: top-tier Touring XT models from 2023 should be available for well under $30,000.

Hyundai Santa Fe

Yes, the Hyundai Santa Fe is divisive to look at. No matter how you feel about it, though, it’s a design with purpose, reflecting one of the SUV’s strengths: its interior-first ethos. Ever since the fifth-gen Santa Fe debuted in 2023, automotive journalists — including our Stephen Edelstein, who reviewed a 2024 Santa Fe and loved it — have praised the three-row SUV’s great interior. It’s stylish, well-appointed, and spacious, with lots of room in the first two rows and ample space for luggage.

It also keeps occupants safe and is easy to get into, thanks to its squared-off shape and a floor that’s lower than the average SUV. Those who want minivan-style entry and space but a bit more character may appreciate what the Santa Fe offers. It’s affordable, too, starting at $35,050 for the SE, although we’d recommend the $37,590 (both prices plus $1,600 freight fee) SEL instead. It’s the cheapest trim with a forward attention warning system and an 8-way power driver’s seat, the latter of which is definitely worth the extra outlay.

Lexus NX

Like the idea of the Toyota RAV4 but want something a bit more upscale? Consider the Lexus NX. Lexus’ compact luxury SUV is built on the same platform as the RAV4, so it should offer the same core strengths, just with a bit of that Lexus luxury — and a comfortable, refined ride — sprinkled on top.

Lexus’ NX is available in several variants, but the sweet spot is the standard NX 350h we reviewed in late 2025. While it’s down on power compared to the gasoline NX 350, the $47,620 (including $1,295 destination) NX 350h AWD’s solid EPA-estimated 39 mpg combined offers a significant improvement on the NX 350’s 24 mpg (per the EPA) for a very reasonable $900 premium.

Default equipment is solid, too: Lexus Safety System 3.0, parking assist (with auto braking), and blind-spot monitoring are all standard. Power rear doors, wiper de-icers, and eight-way power driver and passenger seats are also present.

Buick Enclave

Buick has long had something of a reputation for making old people’s cars. But while that has a lot of negative connotations, the modern Enclave is an example of that being a good thing. Is it exciting? No, not really. Is it as economical as some rivals? Sadly, no. But what it does well, it broadly excels at.

We drove a 2025 Buick Enclave at the end of 2024 and found that it was a very comfortable, impressively equipped take on the Chevy Traverse and GMC Acadia foundations. Its seat height is bang-on for easy entry, and even those sticking to the base Enclave Preferred will still get power-adjustable seats (eight- and six-way for the driver and passenger, respectively), active noise cancelling, IIHS Top Safety Pick-tier protection, and a bunch of aids and assists.

GM’s impressive Super Cruise is an added-cost extra, of course, but almost everything else an average driver might want is available as standard on all trims. You know the drill: surround camera views, forward crash alerts, adaptive cruise control, cyclist and pedestrian alerts, and rear parking assists, to name a few.

Honda Passport

At first, the fourth-gen Honda Passport might not appear to be marketed toward seniors. After all, it has serious off-road stylings and a supposedly Toyota 4Runner-rivaling Trailsport trim, but underneath that exterior is a compelling, versatile SUV.

For one, it’s actually comfortable, with its unibody construction and relatively quiet interior making it fine to live with even if one never takes it off-road. Speaking of the interior, it’s decidedly senior-friendly, with plenty of room and physical controls for the stereo and HVAC — not something to take for granted these days. It also received the IIHS’ Top Safety Pick+ award for 2026, so it should keep occupants protected very well, although the lack of a hybrid may be an issue for some.

Most buyers will be pleased to know that the base RTL, which starts at $44,950 (plus $1,495 destination), is very well equipped. Power front seats, tri-zone climate control, and a full suite of safety aids and assists are present, with the higher trims mostly adding non-essential features like a heated steering wheel, fancier sound systems, or external camera washers.

Our methodology

Choosing good cars for senior drivers requires different set of criteria than usual. For example, straight-line performance is almost entirely out of the equation; as long as a car isn’t achingly slow, it’s fine. Instead, we prioritized criteria such as safety, fuel efficiency, good safety equipment, and quality-of-life amenities like powered seats and tailgates. Whether a vehicle was easy to get in and out of also played a big role in our selections. To select cars that satisfied these criteria, we drew on a wide range of sources, including data from impartial organizations such as the IIHS and the EPA, professional reviews (including our own), and manufacturer spec sheets.





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