top of page
  • Writer's pictureLaw Office Sung

AI and Law - AI Tech Transaction Agreement (part 2) (ENG)

Limitation of Liability


​Almost all license agreements include the "Limitation of Liability" clause. There are usually two steps of limiting damages. The first is limiting the liability for indirect, consequential, and incidental damages (i.e. type of damages) and the second is limiting the liability to a certain amount (i.e. liability cap) even if direct and general damages are occurred. It usually multiplies the fee paid by Licensee. For Licensor, it is advantageous to define both steps of liability, while for Licensee, it is advantageous to carefully consider the second step of liability even if they acknowledge the first one. This is because, if the Licensee ultimately provides the service to consumers, the Licensee may be required to assume unlimited liability to consumers of that service (especially for general individual consumers).

​However, if the Licensee request that the liability cap should be lifted altogether, the negotiations are likely to be stalled. Even if there are restrictions on the types of damages in the agreement, it is very difficult to clearly distinguish between direct damages and other special damages (such as indirect, consequential, incidental damages, etc.) unless a lawsuit is filed, and the above restrictions in the agreement often do not function properly in practice. As a result, in reality, lawyers often include all the ambiguities of the damages in the agreement at first and engage in intense negotiations between the parties with a final share (ex. 60 percent to 40 percent) after. The presence of restriction on the amount is a crucial bargaining point for the Licensor, so it is highly likely that they will not yield this clause, and deciding the specific amount of liability cap will be the main battling point.

The process will be more intense especially for AI technology licenses. In AI technology transactions, failures or malfunctions in hardware or systems can cause very serious consequences. For example, if a system that collects and analyzes highly sensitive personal information, such as one's medical history, is down and the information is exposed unencrypted to other users, the amount of damages required as a result of class action suits can be enormous and it will be difficult for Licensors to expect to bear these risks indefinitely.

Insurance


​Even in general technology license agreements, it often requires either or all of the parties to purchase appropriate insurance. For instance, a performance bond insurance serves to protect the other party if either party fails to perform its contractual obligations (including liability for damages). Of course, the types of insurance required will vary depending on the needs and types of contracts for each party. Typical insurance includes the comprehensive general liability, employer's liability, and workers' compensation, in addition to performance bond insurance or maintenance bond insurance.

​The importance of insurance increases in areas that are just being explored, such as AI technology. When damage or loss occurs due to an event, revealing the causal link between the event and the loss is the basis of the compensation but people still lack experience in identifying the causal link. Until sufficient experience is built up, the causal link between most events and losses will often be concluded unclearly, and as a result, people will rely more on insurance.

However, there are no specific data or research results on how the previously mentioned AI system can cause casualties or property damage to third parties. Insurers will also need empirical research on which damages can be caused during the data collection, accumulation (storage), and analysis process in which AI systems operate. They need to classify errors, 1) in the collection stage, 2) in the storage stage, 3) in the analysis stage, and therefore, more and more data experts are getting employed for the job.

For the parties signing the agreement, it will be necessary to examine whether the insurance product to which they purchase can cover the damage caused by the AI system (or if it should be recognized as force majeure) and whether the coverage amount is sufficient to cover the loss or damages. In addition, it is also recommended to check if the other party’s insurance protects me appropriately in case the other party fails to perform or pay, and whether receiving double protection from more than one insurance is necessary.

Recent Posts

See All

NFT 시장에서의 IP 분쟁의 유형 (Part 2)

2022. 7. 18. 지난 글에서는 NFT 시장의 발전과 함께 새롭게 등장하고 있는 지식재산(IP)의 분쟁 중 저작권 관련 분쟁에 대하여 살펴보았다. 이번 글에서는 상표권(Trademark)과 관련된 분쟁에 대하여 한번 살펴보고자 한다. ​ ​ 유명 이탈리안 레스토랑 프랜차이즈 Olive Garden의 상표 무단 사용 ​ NFT와 관련된 상표분쟁은 이미

NFT 시장에서의 IP 분쟁의 유형 (Part 1)

2022. 7. 12. NFT라는 새로운 시장은 지식재산권을 소유하고 있는 사람들에게 새롭고 잠재적으로 수익성이 좋은 새로운 기회를 가져다 준것은 분명하다. 동시에 잠재적으로 타인의 지식재산권 침해에 대한 새로운 영역도 나타나기 시작했다. 이미 NFT와 관련된 몇몇 분쟁들이 구체화되기 시작하였는데, 이번 글에서는 NFT와 관련된 저작권과 상표 침해를 사례들

E-커머스 사업과 미국 내 법적 이슈

2022. 6. 27. 요즘에는 거의 모든 기업들이 자신들의 제품을 홍보하거나 사업을 진행하기 위해, 그리고 고객들과 소통하기 위해 인터넷과 SNS를 사용한다. 그 중 특히 e-커머스(전자상거래)를 비즈니스로 영위하는 기업들은 기존의 오프라인 상에서 발생되는 전통적인 법적 이슈들은 물론 인터넷 상에서 발생할 수 있는 새로운 법적 이슈들에 대하여도 항상 관

bottom of page