Existing Law Already Covers AI Corporate Liability, Scholar Says
Judge Glock, a Manhattan Institute scholar, told The Alex Marlow Show that policymakers are overcomplicating AI regulation when traditional tort and contract law already address the core problem: preventing companies from harming third parties. Glock pointed to centuries of legal precedent as sufficient guardrails, rejecting the premise that novel AI threats require novel legal frameworks.
Key Details
- Glock stated: "The old-fashioned law we've had…going back hundreds and hundreds of years actually does have a pretty good system to prevent companies from harming third parties."
- His argument centers on existing tort liability, contract enforceability, and common law negligence standards as mechanisms already equipped to handle AI-related harms.
- The position directly challenges the regulatory push from both tech companies and some lawmakers for sector-specific AI legislation.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
This argument carries direct implications for Second Amendment advocates. Gun rights organizations have consistently opposed AI-driven surveillance, ballistics databases, and predictive policing systems—tools that could enable ammunition tracing, shooter identification, or autonomous enforcement. If AI regulation follows Glock's framework (relying on existing law rather than new federal rules), gun owners face a different threat profile: liability litigation against platforms rather than statutory restrictions. This could slow weaponized AI deployment against the right to bear arms, but only if courts recognize the harm. Conversely, absent new privacy protections, existing law may not prevent tech companies from building AI systems that target gun owners for data harvesting or insurance denial.
DownRange Analysis
Glock's argument mirrors 2A reasoning in Bruen: historical law, not novel policy preferences, should govern. But the analogy breaks down. Common law liability requires someone to sue—and gun owners suing Big Tech faces asymmetrical resources and discovery burdens. For AI targeting firearms communities, waiting for tort litigation is reactive and expensive. That said, his point that regulation-happy legislatures often miss existing tools holds weight. A smarter approach: enforce existing wire fraud, privacy tort, and negligence standards aggressively against AI systems designed to profile or restrict gun owners. Don't wait for new laws. Use the old ones with teeth.
