AI Lawyers for Agent Compliance and Emerging Technology
The regulatory landscape for artificial intelligence is evolving faster than most companies can track. From autonomous agent liability to algorithmic transparency mandates, our California-based team helps technology companies build compliant AI systems before regulators come knocking.
What We Do
Practical legal guidance for companies deploying AI—from risk assessment through governance implementation.
AI Agent Liability
- Deployer vs. developer liability analysis for autonomous agents
- AI agent authorization and identity frameworks
- Product liability risk assessment for AI-driven services
- Insurance and indemnification structuring for AI deployments
Algorithmic Compliance
- Automated decision-making transparency requirements
- Bias auditing and discrimination risk mitigation
- State-by-state AI regulation compliance mapping
- SEC and FINRA algorithmic trading compliance
AI Governance Frameworks
- Internal AI use policies and acceptable use standards
- AI vendor due diligence and procurement review
- Board-level AI governance and oversight structures
- NIST AI Risk Management Framework implementation
Why Tech Companies Choose Us
A Published Body of Work on Agent Liability
Twenty-two published analyses of AI law sit in our insights archive, covering deployer liability, agent contract formation, financial-services registration for autonomous agents, and board-level oversight. The firm also publishes Know Your Agent (KYA), the compliance standard for identifying which legal person answers for an agent's transaction. You can read the reasoning before you retain anyone.
Cited Where the Questions Are Being Settled
Chanté Eliaszadeh is quoted throughout part four of Sandmark's seven-part Agentic AI series on who bears liability when AI agents move money, is the author of Law360 Expert Analysis on California's crypto licensing rewrite, and served as a panelist at the American Bar Association Business Law Section's 2026 Spring Meeting on use cases tied to agentic-AI payment flows.
Regulatory Foresight
From the SEC to the California legislature, AI regulation is moving fast. We track SB 53, AB 2013, the California AI Transparency Act as extended by AB 853, and the EU AI Act obligations that reach US companies, so your compliance posture anticipates what is coming rather than only what already binds you.
Regulatory Advice and a Litigator Behind It
AI deployments that go wrong become disputes, and the two capabilities are usually split across two firms. Brandon Orewyler clerked three years in the Los Angeles Superior Court's Complex Division, first-chaired a books-and-records trial in the Delaware Court of Chancery, argued a unanimous Ninth Circuit reversal, and is recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America for Commercial Litigation (2027).
One Deployment, Several Regimes
AI compliance does not live in a single regulatory silo. A single deployment can trigger securities law, privacy regulation, intellectual property questions, and consumer protection rules at once — and those regimes stack rather than substitute. We connect those dots so nothing falls through the cracks.
Frequently Asked Questions
What laws regulate AI agents and autonomous systems?
AI agents are regulated by a patchwork of federal and state laws. At the federal level, the SEC, FTC, and CFPB have all asserted jurisdiction over AI-driven decisions in their respective domains. California leads at the state level with SB 53, the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, effective January 1, 2026; AB 2013, the Generative AI Training Data Transparency Act, effective the same day; and SB 942, the California AI Transparency Act, whose watermarking and provenance duties were moved to August 2, 2026 by AB 853. SB 1047 is the bill founders usually name, and it never took effect — Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 29, 2024. Existing consumer protection and privacy statutes apply to automated decision-making on top of all of this, and there is no single comprehensive federal AI law yet, so compliance stays a multi-jurisdictional exercise.
Who is liable when an AI agent causes harm—the developer or the deployer?
Liability depends on the specific failure and the relationship between developer and deployer, and no court has settled the question. Strict product liability is the theory most often aimed at developers, but whether software is a “product” at all remains open — courts have split, and no California appellate decision resolves it. The claims that actually reach a deployer today are the ordinary ones: negligence, agency, breach of contract or warranty, and unfair-practices statutes, turning on foreseeable misuse and the adequacy of the safeguards actually implemented. California's enacted AI statutes and the EU AI Act both place duties on developers and deployers, but they are disclosure, transparency, and risk-management regimes — they do not, by themselves, decide who pays.
Does my company need an AI governance framework?
If your company develops or deploys AI systems that affect consumers, employees, or financial markets, a governance framework is increasingly essential—both for regulatory compliance and liability management. California, Colorado, Illinois, and New York City have already enacted AI-specific obligations. The NIST AI Risk Management Framework provides a voluntary but widely adopted starting point. Companies without documented governance face heightened enforcement risk and weaker litigation defenses.
How does California regulate AI differently from other states?
California has the most aggressive AI regulatory posture in the United States. The operative frontier-AI law is SB 53, which reaches “frontier developers” training above 10^26 operations and reserves its heaviest duties for developers with more than $500 million in annual revenue — a threshold most startups fall below. AB 2013 catches far more companies, requiring a developer to post public training-data documentation for each generative-AI system it makes available to Californians that was released on or after January 1, 2022, and SB 942 adds watermarking and provenance duties from August 2, 2026. The California Consumer Privacy Act's automated decision-making provisions apply alongside them. SB 1047, the bill most founders still name, was vetoed on September 29, 2024 and is not law. California also applies existing employment, housing, and consumer protection laws to AI-driven decisions. Companies operating in California face a higher compliance baseline than in most other jurisdictions.
Insights on AI Regulation
Schedule an AI Compliance Assessment
Book a 30-minute call to discuss your AI deployment's regulatory exposure and compliance roadmap.
Pick a date and time
Stay Ahead of AI Regulation
Your AI systems deserve legal counsel that understands both the technology and the regulatory trajectory.
Talk to an Attorney