Blab Tech
Argentinas President Proposes Legal Status for AI-Run Companies
In a bold move that could reshape the global legal landscape, Argentine President Javier Milei filed a bill in May that would create a new corporate category for businesses run entirely by artificial intelligence. The proposal was first announced in a June 4 op‑ed in the Financial Times, where Milei outlined a three‑pillar strategy: unregulated AI, a new corporate framework, and a competitive tax environment.
At the heart of the bill is the concept of a “non‑human corporation.” Under the proposed structure, an AI agent or robot could operate a company without the need for human shareholders, although the law would allow them to be added. Milei argues that limited liability is essential for autonomous systems that must make decisions in unpredictable environments. He likens the need for a new legal framework to the limited‑liability model that enabled the Dutch East India Company in 1602, a factor he says helped spark the Industrial Revolution.
If enacted, the legislation would replace Argentina’s corporate law that has been in force since 1972. Shareholders could select the corporate governance regime that applies to their non‑human corporation, but the bill would require disclosure of ultimate beneficial owners. Milei cited the 2023 U.S. case Sarcuni v. bZx DAO, in which a blockchain‑based DAO was treated as a general partnership and lost limited‑liability protection, to illustrate how existing legal frameworks fail autonomous entities.
The proposal has drawn swift criticism. An electronics engineer and AI specialist posted on X (formerly Twitter) that combining non‑human corporations with full AI deregulation would create “programmed impunity,” shifting responsibility onto machines. Historian Yuval Noah Harari responded in a separate Financial Times op‑ed, warning that granting legal status to AI‑run corporations would give those entities access to financial, economic, and political systems. He cautioned that the move could produce an “AI‑state” governed by non‑human corporations—a scenario with no historical precedent.
A recurring theme in the debate is the accountability gap. Current contract law requires parties to have legal personhood, and when an AI agent acts across multiple systems, it can be difficult to determine who granted authority and whether that authority is binding. The European Commission’s withdrawal of its proposed AI Liability Directive in October reflects the challenges of creating new legal categories for autonomous systems. Instead, the Commission has adopted a risk‑based framework under the AI Act, deliberately avoiding the establishment of a distinct legal status for AI.
Milei’s bill remains in the legislative process. No vote has been taken, and the Argentine Congress has yet to signal whether it will amend or reject the proposal. The debate has attracted legal scholars, technologists, and policymakers who are watching how the bill might influence global discussions on AI regulation.
At this stage, the bill is a proposal. If passed, it would mark the first time a country has formally recognized a corporate entity that is fully autonomous and operated by AI. The outcome could reshape Argentina’s domestic legal landscape and set precedents for international norms around AI governance, liability, and corporate personhood.
The situation remains fluid. The Argentine legislature has not yet acted on the bill, and no official timetable for a vote has been announced. The proposal continues to generate debate among experts, and its eventual fate will be closely watched by stakeholders in the AI and corporate law communities.
At the heart of the bill is the concept of a “non‑human corporation.” Under the proposed structure, an AI agent or robot could operate a company without the need for human shareholders, although the law would allow them to be added. Milei argues that limited liability is essential for autonomous systems that must make decisions in unpredictable environments. He likens the need for a new legal framework to the limited‑liability model that enabled the Dutch East India Company in 1602, a factor he says helped spark the Industrial Revolution.
If enacted, the legislation would replace Argentina’s corporate law that has been in force since 1972. Shareholders could select the corporate governance regime that applies to their non‑human corporation, but the bill would require disclosure of ultimate beneficial owners. Milei cited the 2023 U.S. case Sarcuni v. bZx DAO, in which a blockchain‑based DAO was treated as a general partnership and lost limited‑liability protection, to illustrate how existing legal frameworks fail autonomous entities.
The proposal has drawn swift criticism. An electronics engineer and AI specialist posted on X (formerly Twitter) that combining non‑human corporations with full AI deregulation would create “programmed impunity,” shifting responsibility onto machines. Historian Yuval Noah Harari responded in a separate Financial Times op‑ed, warning that granting legal status to AI‑run corporations would give those entities access to financial, economic, and political systems. He cautioned that the move could produce an “AI‑state” governed by non‑human corporations—a scenario with no historical precedent.
A recurring theme in the debate is the accountability gap. Current contract law requires parties to have legal personhood, and when an AI agent acts across multiple systems, it can be difficult to determine who granted authority and whether that authority is binding. The European Commission’s withdrawal of its proposed AI Liability Directive in October reflects the challenges of creating new legal categories for autonomous systems. Instead, the Commission has adopted a risk‑based framework under the AI Act, deliberately avoiding the establishment of a distinct legal status for AI.
Milei’s bill remains in the legislative process. No vote has been taken, and the Argentine Congress has yet to signal whether it will amend or reject the proposal. The debate has attracted legal scholars, technologists, and policymakers who are watching how the bill might influence global discussions on AI regulation.
At this stage, the bill is a proposal. If passed, it would mark the first time a country has formally recognized a corporate entity that is fully autonomous and operated by AI. The outcome could reshape Argentina’s domestic legal landscape and set precedents for international norms around AI governance, liability, and corporate personhood.
The situation remains fluid. The Argentine legislature has not yet acted on the bill, and no official timetable for a vote has been announced. The proposal continues to generate debate among experts, and its eventual fate will be closely watched by stakeholders in the AI and corporate law communities.
