Ohio’s Groundbreaking Bill Draws Line: AI Programs Barred from Legal Personhood Status

Ohio lawmakers slam the brakes on AI's legal ambitions—no more pretending algorithms deserve human rights.

The Human Frontier

Politicos in the Buckeye State just dropped legislation that explicitly blocks artificial intelligence systems from claiming legal personhood. No more corporate loopholes where code gets treated like citizens.

Why This Matters

This isn't just academic—it prevents AI systems from suing, owning property, or dodging liability through legal technicalities. Companies can't hide behind their algorithms when things go sideways.

The Fine Print

The bill specifies that only 'natural persons' and legally recognized entities like corporations qualify for legal standing. Sorry, chatbots—you're still property, not plaintiffs.

Meanwhile in finance... because somehow everything ties back to money—this feels like regulatory theater compared to how crypto gets treated. Wall Street's AI trading bots already manipulate markets with less oversight than your average DeFi protocol.

Can AI Achieve Personhood?

Artificial General Intelligence, or AGI, is a Core long-term goal in the US AI industry. Many LLM developers genuinely believe that these models can achieve true sentience, functionally becoming independent intelligences.

Whether or not AI can ever reach personhood like this, one Ohio lawmaker is trying to preempt the discussion with a new bill:

New bill introduced in Ohio yesterday WOULD declare AI systems legally "non-sentient".

HB469 prohibits any AI from being granted "legal personhood", or being considered to have consciousness under the law.

Fascinating area of law developing behind the scenes pic.twitter.com/aLDkZgLnkB

If HB 469, introduced by Thaddeus Claggett, passes, AI protocols could never achieve legal personhood in the state of Ohio.

This restriction wouldn’t only concern AGI; in the US, some corporations legally count as persons for certain business functions. Claggett’s bill takes aim at many of these.

Immediate Practical Concerns

For example, this bill would prohibit LLM software from becoming “any officer, director, or manager” over human beings at any place of work or other organization. An AI could not legally hold or control any property independently, even in the event of AI-generated content.

If a protocol directly or indirectly violates the law, a human being must bear criminal liability. In other words, these AI personhood restrictions would establish crucially important precedents for this growing industry.

After all, if a self-driving car runs over a pedestrian, it’s not feasible to sentence an automobile to prison. Either the software developers or other company representatives would need to take responsibility.

Long-Term Implications: A New Legal Field?

This AI personhood bill is particularly interesting because Claggett is a Republican. Under Trump’s Presidency, the GOP has become a staunchly pro-crypto party, but some cracks have appeared in this position.

It’s unfair to call this bill “anti-AI,” but nonetheless, the industry generally opposes all regulation. This may cause some friction.

It’s currently unclear whether this AI personhood bill will win broader support. Even if it does become a law, the effort only concerns one US state. Still, these are crucial “common sense” measures.

Claggett’s efforts here could FORM the basis of future AI regulation across the entire country. If AI development is going to be the main pillar of today’s economy, then we need to answer a lot of questions. A new field of legal theory is developing, and we have the chance to influence it.