Could a distinct legal structure make AI agents easier to govern? Legal scholar Yonathan Arbel defends Delaware’s approach against US Representative James Comer’s criticism. In a Bloomberg Law report published October 26, he disputes the idea that the proposal mainly shields large AI labs from responsibility.
Arbel, a University of Alabama professor, sees the proposal as a way to organize AI-run companies within the law. In his assessment, it could even make investors and corporate parents easier to hold responsible. That is his legal judgment, not an established result from practical testing.
Martin Petrin of York University in Toronto emphasizes a different concern. He expects other states could pursue similar structures. A federal framework could, in his view, address safety concerns and competition for ever-looser rules. Petrin also describes Comer’s document request as very broad.
Both positions come from the scholars’ own emailed responses to Bloomberg Law. They are not a joint initiative. While Comer warns about liability gaps and seeks records by November 9, the scholars debate whether and under what rules AI-run firms could be more accountable. No enacted federal framework or demonstrated safeguard follows from their comments.