Partners and inclusion criteria.

1. The reference platform

Agent Liability Global is an independent cross-jurisdictional publication tracking AI agent liability frameworks across seventeen jurisdictions, among them the European Union, the United States at federal and state level, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Singapore, Japan, South Korea and Brazil, and others as they produce material developments. Our readers include general counsel, risk officers, compliance professionals and technologists in multinational organisations that deploy autonomous AI agents across borders.

The publication is one of the Future Proof standards, a family of sister sites. Organisations, frameworks and developments appear in our tracking because of their substantive relevance to cross-jurisdictional liability. A commercial relationship plays no part.

2. In 2026: editorial only

In 2026 this site operates on an editorial basis only. No government body, carrier, vendor, law firm, consultancy or other third party pays for inclusion, placement, ranking or favourable framing in any content on this site. Every jurisdiction tracked, every framework analysed and every development covered qualifies on editorial grounds alone.

This commitment is set out in detail in our editorial standards.

3. What qualifies for the tracker

We apply the following criteria to decide whether a jurisdiction, statute, framework, court decision or supervisory opinion enters our cross-jurisdictional tracking.

Jurisdictions

A jurisdiction qualifies for ongoing tracking if it has enacted, or is actively legislating, a statute or regulatory framework that creates obligations with legal force for operators or providers of AI systems. Jurisdictions that have issued executive orders, supervisory guidelines or soft law without statutory force are tracked in a separate category and labelled as such.

Legislative and regulatory instruments

An instrument qualifies if it creates, modifies or clarifies the legal obligations of entities deploying autonomous AI agents in the relevant jurisdiction. It must have been published in the official legal record of the enacting jurisdiction, such as an Official Journal, the Federal Register or an Official Gazette. Draft legislation is tracked separately, clearly labelled, and never presented as current law.

Divergence and convergence

A cross-jurisdictional development qualifies for analysis if it creates material divergence or convergence between two or more jurisdictions we track, so that an operator deploying agents across them faces a materially different compliance position. This includes mutual recognition arrangements, adequacy decisions, enforcement cooperation memoranda, and conflicting supervisory positions on the same question.

Court decisions and enforcement actions

A decision qualifies if it establishes or clarifies a principle on the allocation of liability for AI agent conduct in any tracked jurisdiction. An enforcement action qualifies if it produces a public decision, sanction or corrective order.

Standards

A standard qualifies if it is published by ISO, IEC, NIST, BSI or an equivalent national standards body and is directly referenced in legislation or supervisory guidance that applies to AI operators in a tracked jurisdiction.

4. From 2027: a partner programme

We anticipate introducing a paid partner programme in 2027 for verified institutional participants. It has not launched, and what follows is indicative only and subject to consultation.

Reference listing. A verified law firm, consultancy or standards body with documented cross-jurisdictional AI liability expertise receives a named profile page, with editorial coverage of its published positions.

Sponsored research briefing. A commissioned cross-jurisdictional briefing on a topic the partner proposes, labelled as sponsored and published separately from editorial coverage.

Institutional partnership. A multi-year arrangement across the sister sites, which may include data licensing for the tracker datasets and co-branded research.

Terms will be discussed directly with each participant. Every paid placement will be visibly labelled as commercial. Partnership will have no influence on tracking decisions, editorial coverage or the framing of any analysis.

5. What inclusion means

Being tracked in our jurisdiction map, cited in our briefings or included in our framework comparisons is no endorsement, by Agent Liability Global or by Future Proof Intelligence, of any legal position, product, service or regulatory interpretation. We are not a regulator, a bar association, an accreditation body or a legal adviser. We track and analyse published primary sources. We do not certify compliance or validate legal arguments.

6. Proposing something for editorial inclusion

We review publicly available primary sources on an ongoing basis. If a statute, framework, court decision, enforcement action or cross-jurisdictional development that qualifies under section 3 is missing from our coverage, please tell us through the contact page with "Editorial inclusion" at the start of your message. Include a direct link to the primary source and a short note on its cross-jurisdictional significance. Editorial inclusion is free of charge.

7. Hearing about the 2027 programme

If you represent a law firm, consultancy or institution with cross-jurisdictional AI liability expertise and would like to hear when the consultation on the 2027 programme opens, write to us through the contact page. We make no commitment to a launch date beyond 2027.

8. Conflicts of interest

The conflicts of interest that apply to this site are set out in section 5 of the editorial standards. Future Proof Intelligence is the publisher and has a commercial interest in the development of the AI agent compliance market. That interest is disclosed here and has no bearing on editorial coverage.