12 Harbor Freight Tools Under $75 Worth Adding To Your Collection







Harbor Freight is a popular destination for DIYers and hobbyists thanks to its large range of tools and reasonable prices. You can easily pad out a toolbox there or find that one tool you need but don’t necessarily want to pay top dollar for. It’s also an excellent place for niche tools and specialty tools that can be difficult to find at larger hardware stores. 

You might assume $75 won’t go far at Harbor Freight, but a significant percentage of the store’s inventory falls at or below that price. Browsing by price online can be a slog, so we thought we’d help you out.

Bauer 10-amp Variable-Speed Reciprocating Saw

The reciprocating saw — also known as the Sawzall if you buy it from Milwaukee Tools — is one of the most useful power tools money can buy. It can cut basically anything, and you can swap out the blade to cut different types of materials, including metal, wood, and plastic. Harbor Freight has a few reciprocating saws, including the Bauer 10-amp Variable-Speed Reciprocating Saw for $55. It is a corded model, with no batteries required. 

It’s a basic tool with just about everything you need in a reciprocating saw, like a keyless chuck that makes blade switching easier. Reviews note that the saw’s a bit heavy, but cuts quickly and efficiently. There are cordless reciprocating saws from Bauer for under $75. However, they don’t include the battery in that price, which balloons the cost quite a bit if you have to buy one. If you already have Bauer batteries, the cordless option is a little more convenient, but if not, the corded version has plenty of power and functionality for less. 

Pittsburgh Metric and SAE wrench sets

A good set of wrenches is always welcome in a workshop or garage, and Harbor Freight is a good place to buy them. Typically, you can buy a set either in metric or imperial sizes and that should cover most bases. For $75, you can get a set of each measurement type, with the Pittsburgh Combination Wrench Set, which comes in both metric and SAE measurements. That is 28 total wrenches that should cover practically anything you would need a wrench for, and thanks to Harbor Freight’s warranty policy on hand tools, both sets come with limited lifetime warranties for DIYers. 

They are pretty basic wrenches, so there isn’t an exhaustive list of features. Both sets are polished chrome-vanadium with 15-degree offsets on the ends. The metric set comes with 8mm to 25mm sizes, and the SAE set ranges from 1/4-inch to 1-1/8 inch. Each set is $25, so getting both costs $50, and most customer reviews say that the wrenches are of good quality, easy to clean, and good for DIY work. You could step up to the even higher quality Icon wrenches, but those cost $130 per set, so the Pittsburgh wrenches are a much better value overall. 

Pittsburgh Comfort-Grip Screwdriver Set

Like wrenches, a good set of screwdrivers is always a good thing to have at home, even if you’re not big on DIY. They’re commonly used for putting together furniture and other household tasks, but are equally useful in garages and workshops. The Pittsburgh Comfort Grip Screwdriver Set covers just about every base you can think of. It is a 70-piece set that includes a wide selection of screwdrivers, two sets of hex keys, and a screwdriver bit set with a few common socket sizes. It also counts for Harbor Freight’s lifetime warranty for hand tools, which is a nice bonus. 

The set costs $30, which makes it one of the least expensive items on the list. Considering all of the stuff you get, it’s a pretty decent overall value. The metal parts are chrome-vanadium with magnetic tips and rubberized grips on most screwdrivers. Pittsburgh also includes a handy stand that fits all of the pieces, making it much easier to store than a bunch of loose tools. Customer reviews are largely positive, with most enjoying the storage rack and the general functionality of the screwdrivers. 

Bauer 8V Cordless Rotary Tool

A creative mind with enough time can probably come up with a few hundred uses for a rotary tool, but there are 13 uses for a rotary tool to get you started if you don’t know much about them. The best of the best is usually the Dremel, but Harbor Freight has a reasonably good version that can do very nearly all the same stuff for less money. It’s the Bauer 8V Cordless Rotary Tool, and you get quite a lot for the money. It comes with a charging cable and a small pack of bits, including brushes, sanding bits, cutters, and more. It’s mostly everything you need to get started, and costs a cool $50. 

The feature set is basic, but good. It has a variable speed from 5,000 to 30,000 RPM, which is a decent amount of control. The bits, tool, and charger all fit inside the included nylon case, a nice bonus for storage purposes. Otherwise, what you see is what you get, which is a reasonably priced rotary tool. Harbor Freight also sells additional bits for rotary tools, and you can find them at most other online and in-store retailers that sell hardware. 

Viking 2/8/15 amp Battery Charger

Every household has batteries, and sometimes, those batteries need charging. This is especially true if you own a reliable riding mower, since those batteries sit unused in the off-season and may need a bit of a charge before getting up and going in the spring. In any case, Harbor Freight sells the Viking 2/8/15 Amp Battery Charger, which can handle anything from mower batteries to boat and car batteries. The brand says that the charger can handle any 12-volt lead-acid battery, regardless of its makeup or application. It also comes with protections from overcharging, overheating, and reverse polarity for when the clamps are on the wrong terminals. 

What’s nice about the Viking charger is that it has plenty of modes, making it usable for all sorts of battery charging and maintenance tasks. For example, there’s a winter mode that keeps batteries charged and maintained in cold conditions and a recondition mode for weaker batteries to try and breathe some new life into them. It’ll even drop to maintenance mode automatically once batteries are charged. The former seems to work pretty well, as it’s mentioned several times by customer reviews. For $70, it’s a nice addition, especially if you have several battery-powered vehicles.

Quinn Hi-Vis Socket Set

There are many great socket sets on the market, but the best tool is the one you have with you. The best socket sets can cost well over $100, but there are some at Harbor Freight that cost much less. Enter the Quinn Hi-Vis Socket Set, a selection of sockets that should work for just about any DIY project around the house. It has 1/4-inch, 3/8-inch, and 1/2-inch socket wrenches and a variety of shallow and deep sockets, making it good for regular household tasks or automotive use. There are 66 pieces, and since they are hand tools, they benefit from Harbor Freight’s lifetime warranty. 

The tools are made from chrome-vanadium steel, which is the industry standard, and come with three ratchets, three extension bars (one for each size), 26 1/4-inch sockets, 27 3/8-inch sockets, and six 1/2-inch sockets. It’s all wrapped up in a black storage case with easily readable size markers so you can find the one you need quickly. The sizes also cover both SAE and metric measurements, which just increases the number of bases that this set covers. Reviews are exceptionally positive, with reviewers stating that these stack up against bigger brands like Craftsman. 

Icon Pliers Wrench

The Knipex Pliers Wrench is an excellent tool, but it’s also quite expensive. You can get something similar from Harbor Freight for much less money, and from Harbor Freight’s top-tier brand, Icon. The Icon 10-inch Pliers Wrench performs the same job as the Knipex variants at roughly two-thirds of the cost. The tool costs $40, which seems like a lot, but you’re getting a pair of pliers with wrench capabilities, which means it’s a bit more versatile than a single-use hand tool. It also comes with Harbor Freight’s lifetime warranty since it is a hand tool. 

Most of Harbor Freight’s tools are made of chrome-vanadium, an industry-standard steel, and the Icon Pliers Wrench is no different. It comes with a cushioned grip, 21 locking positions, and little markings on the tool to show you how big your adjustments are. It actually has two more locking positions than the Knipex Pliers Wrench, so there is a benefit to buying one over the other. User reviews are almost universally positive, with only 10 people out of 413 giving it three stars or less. It’s worth having one of these around.  

Icon Needle Nose Pliers

A good pair of needle-nose pliers goes a long way, especially if you do a lot of automotive or electrical stuff. You can get a pretty nice pair at Harbor Freight for around $30 if you pick up the Icon Needle Nose Pliers. This is a high price for a pair of needle-nose pliers, but there are clear benefits. It’s from Icon, which competes favorably with more expensive brands like Span-on, so you’re getting one of the highest quality brands from Harbor Freight. Plus, it’s a hand tool, so the lifetime warranty is in effect. 

The pliers themselves are pretty simple. You get a red, nonslip grip that is also cushioned. It wraps around an unnamed forged alloy steel that is probably the same chrome-vanadium as Harbor Freight’s other tools. That metal comes with a clear finish to help prevent corrosion over the long term. The slip joint has three positions, which is about on par with most needle-nose pliers, as are the precision-ground teeth. Despite its high price, customers are quite fond of this little guy, noting that they’re out of stock consistently at many locations because of their popularity.

First Alert 2.5-pound Fire Extinguisher

Every home should have at least one fire extinguisher. It’s even recommended to consider putting one in your car. Harbor Freight sells the First Alert 2.5-pound Fire Extinguisher for just $25, so if you do have $75 in your pocket, you can get three of these. It comes with a 90-day warranty. 

It’s a fire extinguisher, so what you see is largely what you get. First Alert says that its fire extinguisher will work for 1-A, 10-B, and C class fires, which includes ordinary combustibles (wood, paper, cloth), flammable liquids (oil, paint, solvents), and electrical fires caused by motors, wiring, and electrical panels. That covers the gamut for most typical household fires. It comes with a wall hanger, a rust and impact-resistant handle, and a powder-coated aluminum cylinder for corrosion protection. If you pick one up and you’re curious what all the various symbols mean, here’s a good guide.

Bauer 20V Cordless Drill and Hercules Driver Bit Set

One of the tools I use most often is my cordless drill. You can get a decent one at Harbor Freight with the Bauer 20V Cordless Drill. It’s a $55 deal that includes the drill, a battery, and a charger. If you have a Bauer 20V battery, you can save a few bucks and get just the tool for $40. 

It’s a pretty standard cordless drill. You get the drill and the battery, which lasts a decent amount of time according to user reviews. It also has a flashlight so you can see into dark corners while drilling. You can also pick up this Hercules Impact Driver Bit Set for another $23 and get the entire package and be ready to go for about $78. It’s a hair over the $75 limit for this article, but that’s a drill, a battery, a charger, and all the bits you’ll need, which covers a lot of bases in DIY repairs or projects. Plus, it’s still cheaper than the Hercules Cordless Drill, which clocks in at $98. 

U.S. General 3-Shelf Steel Service Cart

A good storage cart is useful for tons of applications, from transporting tools across a workshop to holding tools in a garage. Harbor Freight has several such carts for sale, including the U.S. General Steel Service Cart. This cart comes with three shelves, wheels, and costs $70, which is on the lower end for any hardware store. It only comes in red, but that makes it easier to see, and it comes with a 90-day warranty. 

It has three shelves that are 3-1/2 inches deep. Two of the four casters swivel, which helps you steer it across the room. Its total load capacity is 450 pounds, which means you can fit a lot of tools and other items on this thing without breaking it. Customers say that the cart works as expected and say that it’s pretty sturdy and easy to assemble. You can step up to one from U.S. General with a lockable drawer, but it’ll cost you an extra $50, and the weight limit is actually 100 pounds lower. 

Bauer 14.5-amp 16-inch Chainsaw

If you live anywhere that has bushes or trees, a good chainsaw can help with a lot of cleanup. You can get a fancy cordless one (gas or electric) from Ryobi or DeWalt, but it’ll run you $170 to $200 at least, and most people don’t need a tool that strong most of the time. A less expensive, but still capable option is the Bauer 14.5-amp 16-inch Chainsaw. It costs $75, which is half the price of cheaper gas or cordless options, with the only downside being that you’ll need a long extension cord

Since it is corded, you won’t need any batteries or chargers. The 14.5-amp power and 16-inch width are good enough for small to medium jobs around the home, including chopping logs, trimming branches, and similar tasks. It also comes with a built-in chain brake for safety. 

It’s one of several budget chainsaws sold at Harbor Freight, but the Bauer strikes a good balance between power, length, usability, and price. For example, this Portland 9-amp 14-inch Chainsaw is only $50, but the extra $25 is worth it for the extra 2 inches and 5.5 amps of power.

How we chose these products

There are a ton of products at Harbor Freight for under $75. In fact, you can find stuff there for under $5 andeven $1. It also doesn’t help that Harbor Freight sells plenty of specialized and niche tools that most people may use only a handful of times, like a handheld cement mixer or a 10,000-foot measuring wheel. We avoided such items because while they are certainly available for under $75, they don’t add much value to a DIYer’s toolkit. Let’s be honest, when was the last time you used a measuring wheel? 

We focused on more common tools that would be at home in any DIY garage, workshop, or hobby corner. Every tool above had to have a user rating of at least 4.5 stars and 100 reviews. In addition, every item had to be $75 or less at full price.





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