Hawley and Murphy plan bipartisan AI liability legislation

Senators Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) plan to introduce legislation on AI liability.

The core question is simple to ask and hard to answer. When an AI system hurts someone, who pays?

What’s on the table

The planned Hawley-Murphy bill lands on top of a stack of AI accountability proposals that Hawley has already helped push through the introduction stage. Two stand out.

The first is the AI LEAD Act (S. 2937), which Hawley co-sponsored with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). It was introduced on September 29, 2025.

Its central move is to classify AI systems as products under federal law. Victims would then be able to bring product liability claims against companies whose AI causes harm. The stated goal is to push developers toward safer design and deployment, since sloppy engineering would carry a real price tag.

The bill has drawn endorsements from the American Association for Justice and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation.

The second proposal is the GUARD Act, introduced on October 28, 2025. It would ban AI companions for minors outright. It would also require chatbots to disclose that they are not human. It sets out strict new rules, including criminal penalties for companies that produce harmful content aimed at children.

Support for the GUARD Act has come from RAINN, the anti-sexual violence organization. Parents affected by their children’s interactions with AI have also advocated for it.

How we got here

Congress has held hearings where affected individuals described harms tied to AI systems, and those testimonies have shaped the legislative push. The discussions have touched on the biggest names in the field, including OpenAI and Google.

Hawley has also made the case publicly. In an op-ed, he argued that companies should be held accountable for reckless AI design and called for a rethink of how tech firms approach building these systems.

As of early 2026, both the AI LEAD Act and the GUARD Act remain under legislative consideration. Neither has become law.

What this means

For AI developers, a product liability framework would turn safety from a public relations talking point into a line item on the legal budget. Bills like the AI LEAD Act aim to close the classification gap by settling the question in federal law, removing companies’ ability to argue their systems are services, platforms or tools rather than products.

The details of the Hawley-Murphy bill will determine whether it overlaps with the AI LEAD Act, builds on the GUARD Act or carves out new ground. Key questions include how it defines harm, who can sue, and whether it includes criminal penalties or sticks to civil liability.