AI and Autonomous Agent Lawyer
Astraea Counsel advises companies building and deploying AI agents — on who is liable when an agent acts, which financial-services registration an autonomous agent triggers, and how to contract for a product built on someone else's model.
Lead attorney: Chanté Eliaszadeh, Founder & Principal
When companies call us
- Your agent moves money, trades, or advises — and you need to know whether that makes you a broker-dealer, an investment adviser, a commodity trading advisor, or a money transmitter
- You are papering a vendor agreement for an AI product and the IP assignment has to reach the model and the data, not just the code
- Your agent retains memory or session state, and a deletion request arrives that you cannot actually honor
- You trained on user-generated or third-party content and need the copyright and consent posture assessed before you ship
- Your board wants an AI governance framework that would hold up against a Caremark-style oversight challenge
- A protocol or product is governed in part by autonomous agents, and you need to know how that reads under the securities laws
What engagement gets you
- A registration analysis mapping what your agent actually does to the regime it answers to — the Exchange Act broker test, the Advisers Act three-part test, CFTC registration categories, and FinCEN and state money transmission — including where they stack
- Deployer liability assessed under the doctrines that already apply, rather than waiting for AI-specific legislation: agency, negligence, product liability, unfair practices, and the emerging state AI statutes
- Vendor and customer agreements for AI products, drafted around what an assignment can and cannot reach — a third-party foundation model and open-source components need carve-outs and licenses rather than a blanket assignment, and AI-generated code may carry no copyright at all
- Privacy architecture for agents that persist memory, built so a deletion obligation under the CCPA or GDPR can actually be executed against what the agent stored
- AI governance frameworks and board-level reporting structures, and compliance with the California AI statutes that actually reach a deployer — AB 2013's training-data disclosures and SB 942's watermarking duties — plus the EU AI Act's obligations for US companies
Recognition
- Astraea Counsel ranked in Chambers USA: Spotlight 2026 — Fintech (Los Angeles)
- Lawdragon 500 X — The Next Generation: Crypto Regulation, Disputes, Blockchain (2026), Chanté Eliaszadeh
- 2024 Law360 Distinguished Legal Writing Award, The Burton Awards — Chanté Eliaszadeh, co-author (White & Case)
- Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America — Commercial Litigation (2026), Brandon Orewyler (recognized during his tenure at Ervin Cohen & Jessup)
- SEC Honors Program, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (honors intern, Cyber Unit, 2018)
- Invited speaker: American Bar Association Business Law Section, Korea Blockchain Week (BIF25), ETHDenver, GRR Live, Blockchain Law for Social Good Conference, Art Basel Miami, and Berkeley Law; keynote, Computational Law & Blockchain Festival
Common Questions
Does my AI agent need a financial license?
It depends on what the agent does, not on what it is called. An agent that effects securities transactions for others implicates the Exchange Act broker test; one that gives personalized advice about securities for compensation implicates the Advisers Act, where the personalized character is often what breaks the publisher's exclusion; one that trades futures, swaps, or leveraged retail crypto implicates CFTC registration; and one that moves customer funds implicates FinCEN and state money transmission. These regimes stack rather than substitute, so an agent can fall into more than one.
Who is liable when an autonomous agent gets it wrong?
There is no settled federal rule allocating responsibility between the operator of an AI agent and its end user, and that gap is the practical problem. What exists instead is a set of doctrines that already reach deployers — agency, negligence, product liability, and unfair-practices law — plus a widening patchwork of state AI statutes. The workable answer is architectural: a named human principal, a defined scope of authority, disclosure to counterparties, and an audit trail, so that when the question is litigated the record supports the answer you want.
What AI work has the firm actually done?
Client identities are confidential, but the questions are representative. For a client whose platform layers a personalized coaching feature over impersonal market signals, we assessed whether that personalization defeats the Advisers Act publisher's exclusion under Lowe v. SEC — the line between publishing and advising, drawn on the product's actual architecture. For a client licensing a consumer application with an AI component, we drafted the intellectual-property terms around a problem most assignment clauses miss: a developer cannot assign what he does not own, so the agreement has to address the third-party model and the open-source components separately, and cannot assume AI-generated code carries copyright at all. And for a protocol client, we analyzed how automated governance mechanisms read under Howey.
Book a Call With Chante Eliaszadeh
Pick a time that works for you — a 15-minute introductory call, no forms, no waiting.
Pick a date and time
Prefer to send a message instead?
Get your AI deployment assessed before it ships
Schedule a consultation on agent liability, registration, or AI governance.
Talk to an AttorneyAttorney advertising. Case results described on this page depend on the specific facts and law of each matter and do not predict or guarantee a similar outcome in any other matter. No attorney-client relationship is formed by visiting this page or submitting the contact form.