Agentic artificial intelligence (AI) wallets may be capable of moving money, negotiating terms and entering transactions without human intervention, but under existing U.S. law they cannot be held legally responsible when those actions go wrong.
That accountability gap is emerging as a central legal issue as businesses experiment with autonomous AI systems capable of paying invoices, rebalancing portfolios, executing trades and managing other financial operations, according to an analysis by Gamma Law.
“The problem with agentic wallets is not that they can move money,” Gamma Law said. “The problem is that they can move money without becoming legally responsible for what they do.”
American commercial law generally assumes that economic activity can ultimately be attributed to a person or legally recognized entity. Agentic wallets challenge that premise because they can perform functions resembling those of employees, financial managers and agents without having legal status themselves.
AI systems have no legal personhood under current U.S. law. Unlike people, corporations, partnerships and other recognized entities, an AI wallet cannot independently own property, incur legal obligations or bear liability. Courts cannot impose damages on software, meaning responsibility for an autonomous transaction must ultimately be attributed to a user, developer, platform operator or other legally recognized party.
That becomes particularly important when agentic wallets move money.
An AI instructed to reduce transaction costs, for example, might route a payment through an intermediary that creates regulatory exposure. A wallet instructed to maximize investment yield could select a strategy that produces returns while also creating substantial legal risk. In each case, Gamma Law noted, the AI may have accomplished its assigned objective. The problem is the method it autonomously followed.
Traditional agency law offers one potential framework, per Gamma. Under agency principles, a principal authorizes an agent to act on its behalf and generally assumes responsibility for authorized conduct. But that framework assumes human agents capable of intent and judgment, while autonomous AI systems instead process inputs and pursue objectives.
For now, Gamma Law expects courts to rely primarily on “functional attribution.” If an agentic wallet executed a transaction under delegated authority, the law is likely to treat the transaction as though the user executed it directly.
That approach has significant implications for contracts.
Contract formation traditionally requires mutual assent, but commercial law has long accepted automated systems acting for human parties. Agentic AI pushes that precedent further because a wallet could accept terms, negotiate prices or commit an organization to contractual obligations without anyone reviewing the particular transaction.
Gamma Law nevertheless expects courts to be reluctant to invalidate agreements merely because no human reviewed every step. As a result, an AI-entered contract could bind a company even if no individual specifically approved it. “Broad instructions create broad exposure,” the analysis warned. Commercial law’s preference for transactional certainty also favors counterparties being able to rely on such agreements.
Liability becomes more complicated when a transaction causes harm. A compromised wallet could send payments to fraudulent addresses, while an investment agent could inadvertently engage in market manipulation or a treasury system could generate losses that neither its user nor developer anticipated. Existing doctrines including negligence, product liability, vicarious liability and regulatory enforcement provide potential avenues for assigning responsibility, but autonomous decision-making can complicate traditional tests of causation and fault.
Gamma Law expects courts to focus on control, predictability and safeguards in determining responsibility, including transaction controls, approval requirements, audit logs, monitoring and emergency shutdown mechanisms. The practical question may become which party was best positioned to prevent the harm.
For businesses, that makes governance part of the legal architecture of agentic finance. Spending limits, approval thresholds and monitoring systems can help establish the boundaries of an AI wallet’s authority, while user agreements, licensing terms and indemnification provisions can allocate losses when autonomous conduct produces a dispute.
Until lawmakers create a different framework, the central principle remains straightforward: AI may come to control the movement of money, but legal accountability for that movement will remain with humans and organizations.
