Contract Negotiation

Venable LLP has published a legal analysis identifying a critical gap in U.S. law: traditional agency doctrine does not clearly govern autonomous AI systems, leaving liability allocation ambiguous when these systems act beyond their intended scope. Unlike human agents, AI systems lack independent legal status, forcing courts to apply existing doctrines—attribution, apparent authority, negligence, and product liability—in unprecedented ways. At least one jurisdiction has already moved forward. In Moffatt v. Air Canada, British Columbia courts held a company liable for inaccurate statements made through an AI chatbot, signaling that courts are beginning to assign responsibility despite the legal framework's uncertainty.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied Anthropic's emergency request on April 8, 2026, to block the Pentagon's March 3 designation of the AI company as a supply-chain risk under 41 U.S.C. 4713 and 10 U.S.C. 3252. The blacklist remains in effect, barring Anthropic from new Pentagon contracts and requiring defense contractors to stop using its Claude AI system in military work. A three-judge panel—Judges Henderson, Katsas, and Rao—ruled that the government's national security interests during active military conflict outweigh Anthropic's financial harm. The court expedited oral arguments to May 19.

On March 30, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an amicus brief in Art Center Holdings, Inc. v. WCE CA Art, LLC before the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. Bonta argued that succession agreements in management services organization–professional corporation (MSO-PC) structures violate California's corporate practice of medicine doctrine by granting MSOs impermissible control over physician ownership. The brief supports a 2024 trial court ruling that found the defendants engaged in unlicensed practice of medicine through a succession agreement that gave the MSO unfettered discretion to replace the physician-owner, effectively creating a "captive PC" regardless of whether that control right was actually exercised.

Epstein Becker Green released Episode 23 of its "Speaking of Litigation" podcast on April 22, 2026, titled "How to Protect Your Business from a Counterparty's Financial Crisis." The episode features EBG attorneys discussing practical strategies for businesses managing distressed counterparties, including early legal consultation, security interests, guarantees, debtor-in-possession financing, and critical vendor program positioning in bankruptcy scenarios.

On April 10, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar ruled that the Federal Trade Commission's lawsuit against Uber Technologies can proceed, rejecting Uber's motion to dismiss. The FTC, joined by 21 state attorneys general, alleges that Uber violated the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act and the FTC Act by charging consumers for Uber One subscriptions without clear consent, failing to provide a simple cancellation mechanism despite promising "cancel anytime," and misrepresenting promised savings. The core problem: Uber enrolled users who had already saved payment information for ride-hailing into subscriptions without adequately disclosing material terms before charging their stored payment methods.