Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming industries across the globe, including Egypt, by automating tasks, improving efficiency, and enabling innovative solutions. From AI-driven healthcare diagnostics to autonomous vehicles, the technology holds immense potential to reshape society. However, as AI systems increasingly make decisions that affect individuals and organizations, questions about liability arise. When an AI system causes harm, who should be held accountable under Egyptian law? This article explores the civil liability implications of AI, highlighting the challenges and proposing potential reforms to the legal framework.

1. The Role of AI in Modern Society

AI applications are becoming integral to various sectors in Egypt. In fintech, AI enhances fraud detection and credit risk assessment. In healthcare, AI aids in diagnostics and treatment planning. Autonomous vehicles and smart infrastructure promise to revolutionize transportation. Despite these advancements, the deployment of AI is not without risks. For example, an autonomous vehicle might cause a traffic accident, or an AI-powered medical system could misdiagnose a condition, leading to harm. These scenarios underscore the urgent need to address the legal ramifications of AI-induced damages.

2. The Legal Framework of Civil Liability in Egypt

Under Egyptian law, civil liability is primarily governed by the Egyptian Civil Code, which establishes the principles of fault, harm, and causation. Key provisions include:

• Fault-Based Liability: Article 163 states that “any fault that causes harm to another obliges the person at fault to compensate the harmed party.”
• Liability for Things Under One’s Control: Article 178 imposes liability on a person for damages caused by things they control, such as machines or animals.
• Employer’s Liability: Article 174 holds employers responsible for damages caused by their employees in the course of their work.

While these provisions provide a foundation for addressing civil liability, the unique characteristics of AI challenge their application.

3. Challenges in Applying Traditional Liability Rules to AI

Identifying the Liable Party

One of the most complex issues is determining who should be held accountable when an AI system causes harm. Unlike traditional tools or machines, AI operates autonomously and can make decisions without direct human intervention. Potential liable parties include:

• The developer or manufacturer of the AI system.
• The owner or operator of the AI system.
• The user or individual who deployed the AI system.

Fault vs. No-Fault Liability

Proving fault in AI-related cases is particularly challenging due to the “black box” nature of many AI systems. These systems often operate based on complex algorithms that are difficult to understand or predict, even for their developers. As a result, traditional fault-based liability may be inadequate, and a strict liability approach, where the liable party is responsible regardless of fault, might be more appropriate for high-risk AI applications.

Causation Issues

Establishing a direct causal link between an AI system’s actions and the harm caused is another significant challenge. For instance, if an AI system’s recommendation leads to a harmful medical decision, is the fault with the AI, the developer, or the healthcare provider who acted on the recommendation? Such complexities demand a nuanced legal approach.

4. Comparative Insights

Globally, jurisdictions are grappling with similar issues. The European Union’s proposed AI Act introduces a framework for regulating high-risk AI systems and ensuring accountability. In the United States, discussions focus on creating specific liability rules for autonomous vehicles and other AI applications. These approaches offer valuable insights for Egypt, emphasizing the need for tailored regulations that balance innovation with accountability.

5. Proposals for Reform

To address the challenges posed by AI-related civil liability, Egypt could consider the following reforms:

1. Introducing a Specific Legal Framework for AI:
• Define the legal status of AI systems and their associated liabilities.
• Establish guidelines for assigning responsibility among developers, owners, and users.
2. Mandatory Insurance for High-Risk AI Applications:
• Require operators of high-risk AI systems, such as autonomous vehicles, to obtain liability insurance to cover potential damages.
3. Creating a National AI Oversight Body:
• Establish an authority to oversee AI systems, address liability disputes, and ensure compliance with safety standards.
4. Encouraging Transparency and Explainability:
• Mandate that developers design AI systems with transparency and explainability in mind, making it easier to assess liability when harm occurs.
5. Adopting a Strict Liability Approach for High-Risk AI:
• Implement strict liability rules for specific AI applications, ensuring that victims can obtain compensation without the burden of proving fault.

Conclusion

As AI continues to advance and integrate into Egyptian society, the legal framework must evolve to address the challenges of AI-induced harm. Balancing the promotion of innovation with the protection of individuals’ rights is essential. By proactively reforming its civil liability laws, Egypt can ensure that it remains at the forefront of technological progress while safeguarding public trust and accountability.