# Do robots have rights?

**No. No jurisdiction on DEPLOY's record grants a robot legal rights.** The European Parliament did ask the Commission in 2017 to consider making the most sophisticated robots electronic persons. Specialists objected that this would hand robots human rights, and the law the EU went on to pass, the AI Act, regulates AI as a product and puts every duty on its providers and deployers instead.

Last verified Aug 1, 2024. 5 sources.

## Short answer

No robot holds legal rights anywhere on DEPLOY's record. The interesting part is that this was seriously proposed, argued over by name, and then not adopted, which is a much better answer than a flat no.

In February 2017 the European Parliament asked the Commission to explore creating a specific legal status for robots, so that the most sophisticated autonomous ones could be established as electronic persons responsible for making good any damage they cause. It was a recommendation, not a law, and the Commission was never obliged to follow it.

The objection was immediate and organised. An open letter from specialists in AI, robotics, law and ethics argued the idea fails on its own terms: a legal status drawn from the natural person model would give a robot human rights, including dignity, integrity and citizenship, which collides with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. They rejected the corporate and trust models too, because each still needs a human behind the robot and so never solves the liability gap the proposal existed to close.

What the EU actually enacted went the other way. The AI Act places its duties on providers and deployers, the human and corporate actors, and never treats the system itself as bearing rights or liability. Scholars have since argued that the closest legal analogy was always corporate rights rather than human rights, and that this is a reason for caution rather than a precedent to follow.

## Proposed, opposed, and not adopted

- **The European Parliament, 2017: asked the Commission to consider it.** The Parliament asked the Commission to explore creating a specific legal status for robots in the long run, so the most sophisticated autonomous ones could be electronic persons responsible for making good any damage they cause. A recommendation, not a law.
- **The specialists who objected, 2018: said it fails on its own terms.** An open letter argued a status drawn from the natural person model would give a robot human rights, including dignity, integrity and citizenship, confronting the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and that the corporate and trust models still need a human behind the robot.
- **Where it stands: the law went the other way.** The AI Act puts its duties on providers and deployers rather than on AI systems, and no jurisdiction on DEPLOY's record grants a robot a right.

## The legal record

| What the record shows | Kind | Date | Who | Source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| The law the EU actually enacted treats AI as a regulated product, not a rights holder. The AI Act places its obligations on providers and deployers of AI systems. The European Commission's own description of the framework assigns duties to those human and corporate actors throughout, and at no point treats an AI system as an entity holding rights or bearing liability itself. Electronic personhood was proposed in 2017 and is not what the EU went on to legislate. | Regulation in force | Aug 1, 2024 | European Commission | [European Commission (official)](https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai) |
| Scholars argue the closest legal analogy is corporate rights, and that it is a warning. Abeba Birhane, Jelle van Dijk and Frank Pasquale argue in First Monday that machines are not the kinds of things that may be denied or granted rights, that limits on machines rather than rights for them belong at the centre of AI ethics, and that the best analogy to robot rights is not human rights but corporate rights, a framework whose historical effect has been to weaken worker and consumer protections. This is an attributed argument, not a legal finding. | Scholarly argument | Apr 14, 2024 | Abeba Birhane, Jelle van Dijk and Frank Pasquale, First Monday 29(4) | [First Monday](https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/13628) (2024-04-14) |
| More than a hundred specialists formally objected, and their objection was structural. An open letter to the European Commission from AI, robotics, law and ethics specialists rejected electronic personhood on the ground that a legal status for a robot cannot derive from the Natural Person model, since the robot would then hold human rights such as the right to dignity, integrity, remuneration and citizenship, directly confronting human rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The letter rejects the Legal Entity and Trust models too, on the ground that both still require a human behind the robot and so do not solve the liability problem the proposal was meant to solve. | Professional opposition | Apr 12, 2018 | Signatories of the open letter to the European Commission | [Open Letter to the European Commission on Artificial Intelligence and Robotics](https://www.robotics-openletter.eu/) (2018-04-12) |
| The European Parliament asked the Commission to consider making robots electronic persons. In its resolution on Civil Law Rules on Robotics, the Parliament asked the Commission to explore, among other options, creating a specific legal status for robots in the long run, so that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons responsible for making good any damage they may cause. It is a recommendation to the Commission, not a law, and the Commission is not obliged to follow it. | Legislative recommendation | Feb 16, 2017 | European Parliament, resolution P8_TA(2017)0051, paragraph 59(f) | [EUR-Lex (European Parliament resolution, official text)](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52017IP0051) (2017-02-16), [CMS (Dr Markus Haeuser)](https://cms.law/en/int/legal-updates/Do-robots-have-rights-The-European-Parliament-addresses-artificial-intelligence-and-robotics) (2017-04-06) |

## How we know this

- [European Commission (official)](https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai)
- [First Monday](https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/13628) (2024-04-14)
- [Open Letter to the European Commission on Artificial Intelligence and Robotics](https://www.robotics-openletter.eu/) (2018-04-12)
- [EUR-Lex (European Parliament resolution, official text)](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52017IP0051) (2017-02-16)
- [CMS (Dr Markus Haeuser)](https://cms.law/en/int/legal-updates/Do-robots-have-rights-The-European-Parliament-addresses-artificial-intelligence-and-robotics) (2017-04-06)

## Common questions

### Does any country give robots legal rights?

None on DEPLOY's record. The European Parliament asked the Commission to consider a specific legal status for robots in 2017, but that was a recommendation rather than a law, and the AI Act the EU went on to adopt places its obligations on providers and deployers instead of on AI systems.

### What is electronic personhood?

It is the proposal that the most sophisticated autonomous robots could be given a legal status of their own, so they could be held responsible for making good any damage they cause. The European Parliament asked the Commission to explore it in February 2017. It was not adopted, and the law the EU passed instead regulates AI as a product.

### Why do people object to giving robots rights?

The organised objection is structural rather than sentimental. Specialists wrote to the European Commission arguing that a robot given a natural-person status would hold human rights such as dignity, integrity and citizenship, which confronts the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and that the corporate and trust alternatives still require a human behind the robot and so do not close the liability gap the proposal was meant to close.

### Is Sophia the robot a legal person?

Saudi Arabia granted Sophia citizenship in October 2017, and reporting at the time found that no rights attaching to that status were ever specified. DEPLOY tracks that grant on its own page rather than treating it as evidence that robots hold rights.

### Who is liable when a robot causes harm?

Under the framework the EU actually adopted, the duties sit with the providers and deployers of the system, not with the system. That was the practical question electronic personhood was proposed to solve, and the objection to it was precisely that shifting liability onto a robot would let the humans behind it off.

### Could robots get rights in the future?

DEPLOY does not predict it. What the record holds is that the one serious legislative attempt was a 2017 recommendation that was not adopted, that specialists opposed it in writing, and that scholars since have argued the closest analogy is corporate rights rather than human rights. If a jurisdiction grants a robot a right, this page will record it.

## Keep reading

- [Can a robot feel pain?](/can-a-robot-feel-pain.md): Capabilities & sentience
- [Can a robot cry?](/can-a-robot-cry.md): Capabilities & sentience
- [Which robots can do a backflip?](/which-robots-can-do-a-backflip.md): Capabilities & sentience
- [What can robots actually do today?](/what-can-robots-actually-do-today.md): Capabilities & sentience
- [All verified answers](/answers.md): Every standing question DEPLOY tracks.

_Canonical URL: /do-robots-have-rights. HTML version: [link](/do-robots-have-rights)._