AIGP - Understanding how laws, standards and frameworks apply to AI (25% of the exam) - Section 2.3

Understand how intellectual property, nondiscrimination, consumer protection and product liability laws apply to AI systems and their outputs.

Recognise how intellectual property, nondiscrimination, consumer protection, and product liability laws constrain AI systems and their outputs. Apply this understanding to identify legal exposure when an AI system generates content, influences decisions, or causes harm.

AI and intellectual propertynondiscrimination lawsconsumer protectionproduct liability

Practice question for this objective

Free sampleUnderstanding how laws, standards and frameworks apply to AImedium

A household robot vacuum with an AI navigation component malfunctions and damages a customer's property, and the customer wants to recover without having to prove that the manufacturer was careless in how it built the device. Which legal theory most directly supports recovery on that basis?

AA strict product liability claim, because liability for a defective product can attach regardless of whether the manufacturer exercised reasonable care. Correct
BA negligence claim, because the customer must establish that the manufacturer breached a duty of care that it owed when designing the device.
CA copyright infringement claim, because the navigation software embedded in the vacuum is protected intellectual property of the manufacturer.
DA consumer protection deception claim, because the malfunction shows the product did not perform as the customer expected when buying it.

Identify strict product liability as the theory that lets a claimant recover for harm from a defective AI-enabled product without proving the manufacturer's fault. Strict product liability turns on whether a product was defective and caused harm, not on whether the maker was careful, so a claimant can recover without proving fault. Negligence by contrast requires proving breach of a duty of care, while copyright and consumer-deception theories address rights in software and misleading representations rather than physical harm from a malfunction.

Why A is correct: Strict product liability allows a claimant injured by a defective product to recover without proving negligence, because the focus is on the defective condition of the product rather than the manufacturer's conduct.

Why B is wrong: This is tempting because negligence is a common route for defective goods, but it specifically requires proving breach of a duty of care, which is the very fault element the customer is trying to avoid having to show.

Why C is wrong: This is plausible because the device contains protected software, but copyright concerns rights in the code, not compensation for physical harm caused by a malfunction, so it does not support recovery for the damage.

Why D is wrong: This is attractive because unmet expectations sound like deception, but consumer protection deception targets misleading representations rather than physical harm from a defect, so it is not the direct route to recover for property damage.

See more AIGP practice questions, answers explained.

Exam traps in Understanding how laws, standards and frameworks apply to AI

Answers that look right on this material and are not. Each one is a distractor from a different question in the AIGP bank for this domain.

Any statement about an AI system that later proves inaccurate, regardless of whether a reasonable consumer would have been misled or suffered any detriment.
Why it is wrong: Tempting because accuracy clearly matters, but it is wrong: deception generally requires that the practice be likely to mislead a reasonable consumer to their detriment, not merely that a statement turned out to be imperfect.
Software is excluded from the revised Directive because it is intangible, so the user must instead prove the developer was negligent in order to recover for the loss.
Why it is wrong: Tempting because the older regime centred on tangible goods, but the revised Directive deliberately brings software and AI systems within scope; treating software as excluded and requiring proof of negligence misstates the reform.
Both practices are outside consumer protection law, because rules on unfair and deceptive conduct apply only to the price and delivery of physical goods, not to software services.
Why it is wrong: This is tempting because consumer law is often associated with goods, but prohibitions on unfair and deceptive practices apply broadly to services and representations, including AI-enabled software offered to consumers.

Examworthy is not affiliated with or endorsed by IAPP. Original, blueprint-aligned practice material only.