Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA) released a discussion draft of the Clear Liability for Artificial Intelligence Misconduct Act on Oct. 7, creating a federal cause of action against AI developers when their systems commit conduct amounting to negligence, an intentional tort, or a crime. Courts would presume the system acted with the state of mind a person taking the same actions would’ve had, and developers couldn’t argue that AI is incapable of intent. The bill sets a federal floor and doesn’t preempt state law.

Then comes the carve-out. Developer liability “does not apply where the user or a company that modified the system intended the conduct or was negligent,” the one-pager reads. That sentence quietly moves the defendant’s chair.

For a small-business owner who’s wired an off-the-shelf agent into outbound email, lead scoring, or customer messaging, the configuration itself is the exposure. Prompt-level customization, tool connections, and workflow tuning all plausibly count as modification. The developer walks; the operator stays.

The structural logic parallels the Senate’s AI Agent Accountability Act, which pushes liability toward whoever deploys the agent. Trahan’s draft also complements the bipartisan FRONTIER Act she introduced with Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA). Gabriel Weil, the University of Houston Law professor who helped draft the CLAIM Act, is already weighing a tweak for open-weight models where developers are hard to trace, a gap that would otherwise route every claim back to the operator by default.

Sen. Maria Cantwell released a parallel framework the same day, also calling for developer liability for “foreseeable harms.” Two draft texts, one afternoon, converging ahead of the midterms. Trahan’s office is taking comment at [email protected].

Sources

Sources