WASHINGTON, September 14 — Lina Khan, the former chair of the Federal Trade Commission, has argued that artificial intelligence companies can and must be held liable for releasing what she calls “dangerous, unvetted products,” according to a new public statement. Khan, who led the FTC from 2021 to 2025, made the remarks in a speech or written piece whose exact date and venue are not specified in the source material.
The statement places her among a growing group of US officials and legal scholars who contend that existing product-liability and consumer-protection laws already apply to AI systems, and that companies cannot claim blanket immunity for harms caused by their models.
An argument rooted in existing law
Here’s what it means in plain terms. Khan’s position is that regulators don’t need to wait for Congress to pass new AI-specific legislation before going after companies whose models cause harm. The tools are already on the books.
That view echoes longstanding principles in US product-liability law, under which manufacturers can be held responsible for defects in design, manufacturing, or warnings, even if a product is novel. Think of it like a car: the fact that a vehicle is a new design doesn’t exempt its maker from responsibility if the brakes fail.
Khan championed the idea that consumer-protection law is technology-neutral and can be applied to AI without waiting for new legislation. Her tenure at the FTC was marked by aggressive enforcement and rulemaking aimed at curbing anticompetitive conduct and deceptive practices in digital markets. Under her leadership, the agency brought high-profile cases against major technology firms, including Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft, over issues ranging from monopolization to privacy violations.
What the FTC has already done on AI
The FTC has previously taken action against companies for deceptive claims about AI capabilities, including a 2023 case against a company that falsely advertised AI-powered legal services. That case is a concrete example of the technology-neutral approach Khan describes. Legal experts have noted that applying these doctrines to AI is complicated by issues of foreseeability, causation, and the rapid pace of model updates.
Nonetheless, Khan’s position signals that regulators and plaintiffs’ attorneys may increasingly pursue AI firms under existing statutes. The debate over AI liability has intensified as generative AI tools have proliferated since the public release of ChatGPT in November 2022.
In the US, the White House issued an executive order on AI safety in October 2023, and several federal agencies have since issued guidance on AI use. The FTC itself held a virtual roundtable on AI and consumer protection in 2023 and has solicited public comment on AI-related harms. No specific new enforcement action or legislation is announced in the source material, and no direct quotes beyond the phrase “dangerous, unvetted products” are provided.
The story is developing, and further details may emerge. Khan’s latest statement is likely to be cited in ongoing policy discussions and litigation.
The practical upshot for AI companies is that the legal ground is shifting beneath them — and the next test may come not from a new law, but from a courtroom applying rules that have been on the books for decades.
