The regulatory response is fragmenting. Cal/OSHA has begun defining employer responsibilities for hazard evaluation and machine guarding, while the International Organization for Standardization is developing two critical frameworks: ISO 21448 for safety of intended function and ISO 25785-1 for safe-shutdown requirements. Boston Dynamics has pioneered one model—Atlas squats in place upon failure—but no industry-wide standard exists. Companies are experimenting with padding and protective clothing, and teleoperation safeguards, but enforcement mechanisms remain unclear. The standards are still in development, and it is unknown how they will apply across different robot types and deployment contexts.
The timeline matters. Bank of America projects humanoid robot shipments will jump from roughly 90,000 units in 2026 to 1.2 million by 2030. The window to establish enforceable safety standards and liability frameworks before mass deployment is closing. Attorneys should monitor ISO standard finalization, Cal/OSHA guidance updates, and early litigation over robot-caused injuries. Companies deploying these machines face exposure under product liability, premises liability, and worker safety statutes. The first major injury case will likely establish precedent for manufacturer and operator liability—and that case may arrive before regulatory consensus solidifies.