印度新消保法能否管住AI缺陷带来的伤害？
AI and Consumer Rights in India Working Paper
- 用现有法律框架分析AI产品责任归属问题
- 指出证明AI致害因果关系存在技术难题
- 适合关注AI治理与法律适配的政策研究者
随着AI系统在面向消费者的应用中日益普及，由AI引发的损害责任问题仍不明确。本文评估印度2019年《消费者保护法》是否足以应对缺陷AI产品和服务造成的损害，并判断其在AI价值链中责任分配是否合理。该法对产品责任、损害和缺陷的定义具有技术中立性，可能适用于包括人身伤害、心理伤害、偏见输出和失控在内的多种AI相关事件。然而，仍存在显著空白：证明AI缺陷与消费者损害之间的因果关系面临技术挑战，因AI故障常源于设计决策而非具体缺陷；此外，该法假设制造商、销售商和服务提供者角色分明，但AI价值链中数据提供方、模型开发者、部署者和用户职责重叠，难以对应传统分类。当前责任框架缺乏对多利益相关方复杂伤害的合理分摊机制。尽管法律可能涵盖AI主体，但在具体行业中的交叉适用仍需明确。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
As AI systems proliferate in consumer facing applications, questions about liability for AI related harms remain unresolved. This working paper examines whether India's Consumer Protection Act, 2019, adequately addresses harm caused by defective AI products and services, and whether it proportionately allocates liability across the AI value chain. The Act's broad definitions of product liability, harm, and deficiency appear technology agnostic and potentially applicable to AI related incidents including personal injury, psychological harm, biased outputs, and loss of control. However, significant gaps remain. Proving causation between AI defects and consumer harm presents a technical challenge, as AI failures often stem from design choices rather than discrete defects. Additionally, the Act's framework assumes distinct roles for manufacturers, sellers, and service providers, yet the AI value chain involves overlapping responsibilities among data providers, model developers, deployers, and users that do not neatly map to these categories. Current liability frameworks lack proportionate mechanisms to effectively address complex, multistakeholder AI harms. While the Act may cover AI entities, enforcement requires clarification on sector specific overlaps.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。