Ohio bill defines AI systems as tools, not legal persons

Ohio lawmakers have introduced House Bill 469, which would formally declare that artificial intelligence systems cannot be considered “persons” under state law and establish liability frameworks for AI-related harm. The legislation, introduced by Republican State Representative Thaddeus J. Claggett, aims to maintain human control over AI technology while creating clear legal boundaries around the technology’s status and accountability.

What you should know: The bill explicitly defines AI systems as “nonsentient entities” that lack consciousness, self-awareness, or subjective experiences like humans.

• AI systems would be prohibited from obtaining any form of legal personhood or being recognized as spouses under marriage law.
• The legislation bars AI from serving as officers, directors, or managers within legal entities.
• AI systems cannot own, control, or hold title to any property, including real estate and intellectual property.

In plain English: Think of this like declaring that your smartphone or computer can never be treated as a human being under the law—no matter how smart AI becomes, it remains a sophisticated tool rather than a legal person with rights.

The big picture: Ohio is proactively addressing potential legal complexities around AI personhood before they become pressing issues, establishing clear human oversight and control mechanisms.

• The bill has been referred to the House Technology and Innovation Committee for review.
• This represents one of the first state-level efforts to formally define AI’s legal status in anticipation of advancing technology capabilities.

Who’s responsible: The legislation places liability squarely on humans and companies rather than AI systems themselves.

• Owners or users who direct or employ AI systems bear responsibility for any direct or indirect harm caused by the technology’s operation.
• Developers and manufacturers can be held liable if design defects, construction flaws, or inadequate instructions proximately cause harm, following established product liability principles.
• The bill explicitly states that AI systems cannot bear liability as independent entities.

Regulatory requirements: Companies involved in serious AI incidents must comply with specific notification and investigation protocols.

• Owners or developers of AI systems must promptly notify relevant authorities when incidents result in significant bodily harm, death, or major property damage.
• They must also comply with subsequent investigations to provide a clear regulatory pathway for examining serious AI-related incidents.

Why this matters: As AI capabilities continue advancing, establishing legal frameworks now helps prevent future complications around AI rights, responsibilities, and potential claims to personhood that could emerge as the technology becomes more sophisticated.