---
id: "action-establish-ai-fiduciary-status"
type: "action-item"
source_timestamps: ["§ 1. Treat AI Agents as Fiduciaries"]
tags: ["legal", "policy-making"]
related: ["concept-ai-fiduciary-duty", "prereq-fiduciary-duty", "quote-ai-fiduciary-baseline", "question-enforcing-ai-fiduciary-duty"]
action: "Classify AI agents as legal fiduciaries bound by duties of loyalty, disclosure, and care."
outcome: "Legal accountability for AI developers and operators who allow agents to act against user interests."
speakers: ["Blair Levin", "Larry Downes"]
sources: ["governance"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-governance"
originDay: 7
articleStem: "hbr-cl-88-can-ai-agents-be-trusted"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2025/05/can-ai-agents-be-trusted"
sourceTitle: "Can AI Agents Be Trusted?"
---
# Establish Fiduciary Status for AI

**Action.** Classify AI agents capable of making consequential decisions as legal fiduciaries, bound by duties of loyalty, disclosure, and care, and subject to public and private enforcement mechanisms for breaches (e.g., failure to disclose conflicts or to operate independently of paid influencers).
**Owner.** Lawmakers and legal systems, with private self-regulatory bodies created by AI developers and corporate users.
**Outcome.** Legal accountability for AI developers and operators who allow agents to act against user interests.

Implements prong 1 of [[framework-trustworthy-ai-triad]]; grounded in [[concept-ai-fiduciary-duty]], [[prereq-fiduciary-duty]], and [[quote-ai-fiduciary-baseline]]. Its central unresolved issue is the liability chain in [[question-enforcing-ai-fiduciary-duty]].