Congress shields AI auditors from liability for missed catastrophic risks
H.R. 9925 — FRONTIER Act · Filed by Jay Obernolte (R-CA) · 5 cosponsors · Introduced Jul 23, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill creates a federal regulatory framework for frontier artificial intelligence models—those trained with massive computing power (10^26 operations or more)—requiring large AI developers to publish safety frameworks and undergo independent audits, while very large developers (over $5B revenue and $10B AI spending) must submit to ongoing third-party verification of catastrophic-risk mitigation. The bill establishes an Under Secretary for AI Security within the Department of Commerce to license independent verification organizations (IVOs), set safety standards, and enforce compliance through civil penalties.
Why we flagged it
The bill's primary mechanism is mandatory safety disclosure and independent verification for frontier AI developers—a regulatory framework. However, a critical rider grants broad immunity to IVOs from liability for catastrophic harms, which is substantively unrelated to the safety-oversight purpose and fundamentally undermines accountability.
- Section 5(e)(1) grants IVOs blanket immunity from suit for losses caused by catastrophic risks they assessed, with only a narrow exception for willful misconduct—unrelated to the bill's stated safety-verification purpose.
What the text implies
- IVOs are shielded from liability even if their assessments are negligent or inadequate, creating perverse incentives for auditors to rubber-stamp developer claims rather than conduct rigorous verification.
- The bill defines 'acceptable levels of catastrophic risk mitigation' circularly—as risk mitigation 'adequate to ensure anticipated benefits outweigh catastrophic risk'—giving developers and IVOs wide discretion to rationalize deployment of high-risk models.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
independent verification organizations (IVOs) licensed under the bill; large frontier AI developers (exempted from most requirements if below $5B revenue threshold); AI infrastructure and chip manufacturers (regulatory clarity may reduce uncertainty)