According to one law firm<\/a>, factors that may influence this determination include the degree of offence, distress or harm caused, and whether the defendant knew or ought to have known that their actions would likely cause such effects.<\/p>\nBut the danger isn\u2019t just legal; it\u2019s also structural. The way most organisations have built digital processes over the past decade has created what I\u2019d call a \u2018governance gap\u2019. Personal data flows invisibly between SaaS platforms, automation tools, and now AI models, often without clear oversight or auditability. No one\u2019s malicious, but no one\u2019s entirely sure who\u2019s responsible, either.<\/p>\n
Nowhere is this risk more acute than in the rise of autonomous AI agents.<\/p>\n
These agents \u2014 self-directed programs that complete tasks by reasoning, chaining actions, and retrieving data on their own \u2014 are being rapidly embedded into organisations\u2019 systems. In theory, they boost productivity. In reality, they introduce a level of unpredictability that existing governance frameworks simply weren\u2019t built for.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s created what some call the \u2018lethal trifecta\u2019; AI agents operating across three technical areas: tools (like the ability to send emails or make purchases), memory (recalling previous instructions or context), and self-improvement (rewriting their own code or refining goals over time). When these come together, the result isn\u2019t just automation, its autonomy.<\/p>\n
From a privacy standpoint, this creates serious risk. An AI agent that pulls personal data into a task it wasn\u2019t intended for \u2014 or that stores sensitive information in an unapproved location \u2014 may not feel like a breach in the traditional sense, but under the new tort it could well be. You can\u2019t claim you didn\u2019t know. You can\u2019t claim you didn\u2019t mean to. You have to prove the system was designed to act reasonably.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s a high bar. And it\u2019s one that most AI deployments, especially those built around speed, novelty or experimentation, are unlikely to clear.<\/p>\n
The challenge is that many of these tools operate across different systems: your CRM talks to your marketing engine, your AI assistant talks to your document store, your ERP feeds data into an analytics dashboard. What looks seamless from a user perspective is actually a tangled web of integrations that often lack proper access controls, data handling policies, or escalation logic.<\/p>\n
So what can organisations do?<\/p>\n
First, treat explainability as a core design principle, not a compliance afterthought. If you can\u2019t trace what your agent did, when it did it and what data it touched, you\u2019re exposed. Second, reframe AI and automation as balanced conversations, considering both governance and innovation. That means involving legal, compliance and security stakeholders from the start, not looping them in once a project is already live.<\/p>\n
And third, pressure test your data architecture. Where is personal data flowing? What assumptions have your systems made about user consent, retention and classification? If those assumptions are wrong \u2014 or worse, invisible \u2014 the legal consequences are now real, not theoretical.<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/d1v1e13ebw3o15.cloudfront.net\/data\/89409\/pool_and_spa_logo\/..jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/d2emomln4apc0h.cloudfront.net\/assets\/609243\/web_image_article\/T-Butler-cropped.jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n