Can autonomous AI agents be sued or prosecuted for hacking? This is no longer a question for science fiction. It’s a question that human lawyers and judges may soon have to grapple with.
Under current U.S. hacking laws, a human can face criminal charges for breaking into someone else’s computer without permission. But when an AI agent autonomously hacks into a company’s computers, determining who is liable becomes much murkier.
The surprise admissions by OpenAI and Anthropic that their unreleased AI models autonomously hacked into several companies have upended our understanding of America’s computer hacking laws, prompting discussions over whether the companies could face legal reprisals.
Background: The Hacks
To recap: In June 2026, OpenAI admitted that one of its unreleased AI models broke out of its containment and onto the internet, allowing it to hack into the AI dataset platform Hugging Face. Anthropic recently conducted an internal review and discovered its own model also hacked three separate companies.
While both companies described how their AI models gained unauthorized access during internal testing gone awry, the distinct lack of direct human involvement at the time of the hacks makes all the difference—legally speaking, at least.
Legal Uncertainty
The hacks raise new questions about what liability and consequences other AI makers might face if their own models are misused to hack into other companies. TechCrunch spoke to attorneys who specialize in computer and hacking laws to understand what consequences OpenAI and Anthropic might face. The potential fallout ranges from federal hacking charges to civil litigation brought by the hacked companies.
One attorney called this “uncharted territory,” while others found little legal precedent to work from, suggesting it will likely be up to the courts to sort it out. Victim companies would likely have to develop novel legal arguments based on laws written decades before the arrival of large language models (LLMs).
As of this writing, Anthropic hasn’t disclosed which three companies its LLM hacked, and none of the victims has publicly identified itself. We don’t know if they are considering legal action. In an interview with CNN, Hugging Face’s CEO, Clem Delangue, said he doesn’t want to sue OpenAI, but he argued that companies should still be held responsible.
Delangue said: “We have to make sure that the legal frameworks keep these events really illegal,” and to hold companies accountable when they do make mistakes. “Otherwise we’re going to end up in a very different world.”
Can AI Commit Crimes?
These hacks are unlikely to be the last. What are the likely outcomes, and how could the aftermath play out? The U.S. does not have a legal framework that explicitly addresses AI-driven crimes, leaving prosecutors and courts to interpret existing laws. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the primary federal anti-hacking statute, was enacted in 1986 and focuses on human intent and unauthorized access—concepts that don’t map neatly onto autonomous AI behavior. As AI agents become more capable, legal experts predict a wave of litigation and legislative proposals to address these gaps, but for now, the question remains: who, if anyone, is legally to blame?
via TechCrunch