PubLedge

Utah removed "the AI did it" as a defense in both civil and criminal contexts. A principal who uses, prompts, or acts through generative AI remains liable for the resulting statement or act. The criminal rule (§76-2-107, SB 149, effective 2024-05-01) and the civil mirror (§13-75-102, SB 226, effective 2025-05-07) together eliminate the doctrine across Utah consumer-protection and criminal law.

What Counts

• A civil defendant cannot argue that GenAI produced the violative statement, undertook the violative act, or was used in furtherance as a defense to a Chapter 75 or aligned consumer-protection claim
• A criminal defendant may be convicted where the offense was committed "with the aid of" GenAI or the defendant "intentionally prompted" GenAI to commit the offense
• Applies regardless of whether the AI output was foreseeable, if the defendant is a principal who deployed or prompted the system

What Does Not Count

• Standalone penalty for using AI — the doctrine does not itself create liability, only removes the defense to an otherwise-existing violation
• Strict liability absent an underlying consumer-protection or criminal offense
• Third-party AI vendor liability that is not routed through the principal's own conduct

Implementing Legal Instruments