Key Takeaway
The AI Rights and Legal Personhood Tracker records public legal cases, judgments, decisions, separate opinions, official legal materials and serious judicial or institutional discussions concerning whether artificial intelligence systems, autonomous agents, robots or other digital entities can be treated as rights-holders, duty-bearers, legal persons, applicants, victims, inventors, authors, owners or other legal actors.
Inclusion in this tracker does not mean that any court has recognised artificial intelligence as having rights, legal personality, standing, victim status or legal personhood. Many entries may concern courts, judges, legislatures, regulators or official bodies refusing, limiting, warning against or merely discussing that possibility. Each entry should be read by reference to the linked source. Readers should carry out their own checks before relying on any entry, including checking the linked source, the procedural status of the case or material, and whether the source has been updated, corrected, appealed, withdrawn or superseded.
Tracker Status: Active/Monitoring
Publication Date: 30 May 2025
Last Verified: 30 May 2026
Latest Case Chronologically: Ships Waste Oil Collector B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands
Latest Legal Article: Could AI Ever Claim Human Rights and Civil Liberties? ECHR Judge Raises Thought-Provoking Questions
Other AI Legal Trackers: AI Law Trackers Hub
Author and Contact: Matthew Lee (Barrister) click here for details.
Ad/Marketing Communication regarding AI Rights and Legal Personhood Tracker
This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary on the use of artificial intelligence within the justice system and the possible future legal status of artificial intelligence. It supports my work in teaching, lecturing, and writing about AI and the law and is published to promote my practice. Not legal advice. Not Direct/Public Access. All instructions via clerks at Doughty Street Chambers. This legal article concerns the AI Rights and Legal Personhood Tracker.
| No | Date | Case Name | Judicial Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 April 2025 | Ships Waste Oil Collector B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands (applications nos. 2799/16, 2800/16, 3124/16 and 3205/16) | “If, one day, member States decide to provide some kind of protection for artificial intelligence, it would be better done through a new Protocol. A new Protocol would also offer the opportunity to firmly and clearly set out a legal basis for the claims of entities other than natural persons, including companies. However, one can only wonder how such developments in the future, if they came to be, could be reconciled with the Convention’s primary aim for the effective protection of human rights and the principle of human dignity! If, in the future, artificial intelligence has rights similar or adjacent to human rights safeguarded by the Convention, as granted by a new Protocol to the Convention, how could one be certain that it would itself respect human rights, the rule of law and the principle of democracy. Though it may be conceivable that autonomous artificial intelligence may in the future benefit from the protection of rights similar or adjacent to human rights contained in the Convention, at the same time, it is crucial that this goes hand in hand with the capacity and obligation of such artificial intelligence to respect human rights, the rule of law and the principle of democracy. However, I cannot continue further this interesting, though theoretical and philosophical discussion, since this is not the issue here.” |
| 2 | 5 February 2026 | T 0528/25 (Designation of inventor/DABUS), European Patent Office Boards of Appeal, ECLI:EP:BA:2026:T052825.20260205 | Thus, a machine, such as the artificial intelligence machine DABUS in the present case, cannot be an "inventor"within the meaning of the EPC |
AI Rights and Legal Personhood Tracker
This AI Rights and Legal Personhood Tracker covers legal cases and official legal materials in which artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, robots or other digital entities are discussed as possible rights-holders, duty-bearers, legal persons, applicants, victims, inventors, authors, owners or other legal actors.
That includes cases and materials concerning AI personhood, legal personality, electronic personhood, robot rights, AI inventorship, AI authorship, AI ownership, AI standing, AI victim status, AI as an applicant before a court or tribunal, AI duties and responsibility, and whether artificial intelligence could ever receive rights similar or adjacent to human rights.
The tracker is distinct from my AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker. That tracker concerns human rights issues affecting human beings where AI or algorithmic systems are involved. This tracker concerns the different and more speculative question of whether AI itself could ever have rights, duties, standing, legal personality or rights-adjacent protection.
How to read the AI Rights and Legal Personhood Tracker
The status column gives a short indication of the procedural or source status of each entry, such as whether the matter involved a judgment, decision, separate opinion, dissenting opinion, legislative proposal, official report, regulator material, treaty material or other public legal source.
Inclusion in this tracker does not mean that a court has recognised artificial intelligence as having legal rights, legal personality, standing, victim status, inventorship, authorship or any other legal status. Some entries may involve rejected arguments, theoretical judicial observations, separate opinions, legislative proposals or official discussions rather than binding findings.
The wording in the tracker is a summary of public source material and should not be treated as a finding of fact by me.
Methodology of the AI Rights and Legal Personhood Tracker
I use a primary-source-first approach where possible. Judgments, decisions, separate opinions, court materials, tribunal decisions, regulator decisions, legislative materials, treaty materials, official reports and other public legal documents are preferred. Where no primary legal source is publicly available, reliable professional commentary or other third-party sources may be included, but those sources should be checked carefully before reliance is placed on them.
The tracker is maintained manually and may be assisted by research tools, including AI tools. I check entries before publication, but I do not warrant that the tracker is comprehensive, complete, current or error-free. Nothing is legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. The public tracker summarises and signposts source material. It is not a substitute for reading the linked material.
Source Hierarchy of the AI Rights and Legal Personhood Tracker
Primary legal sources are preferred. Official court, tribunal, regulator, legislature, treaty body, international organisation and government sources are prioritised where available. Some entries may rely on reliable professional commentary or other third-party sources where no primary legal source is publicly available. Readers should check the linked source before relying on any entry.
Use of AI, Human Review and Corrections
I may use AI tools to assist with research, drafting, checking, formatting and organisation of this tracker. AI tools can produce inaccurate, incomplete, outdated or misleading material. Entries are reviewed before publication, but errors and omissions may still occur. If you identify an error, missing source, broken link, duplicate entry, changed procedural status or material update, please contact me so that the tracker can be reviewed and, where appropriate, corrected.
No Recognition of AI Rights Implied
This page does not assert that artificial intelligence currently has legal rights, legal personality, human rights, Convention rights, standing, victim status, authorship, inventorship or ownership rights. It records and summarises public legal materials in which those possibilities are raised, rejected, limited, debated or discussed.
Some entries may concern speculative or theoretical legal questions. Others may concern concrete disputes about whether an AI system can be an inventor, author, owner, applicant, rights-holder or legal actor. The inclusion of a case or material should not be read as endorsement of any legal argument or factual claim.
Legal Themes Monitored
The tracker monitors legal issues including AI rights, AI legal personhood, AI personhood, electronic personhood, robot rights, legal personality of artificial intelligence, AI standing, AI victim status, AI as an applicant, AI as a rights-holder, AI as a duty-bearer, AI inventorship, AI authorship, AI ownership, AI liability, autonomous AI legal status, rights adjacent to human rights, and whether artificial intelligence could ever claim protection before a court, tribunal or human rights body.
Jurisdiction Monitored
The tracker is international. It may include public legal materials from the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights, the European Union, the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, international organisations and other jurisdictions where relevant legal source material is available. The jurisdictional scope may expand as further public legal materials are identified.
How to Cite This Tracker
Suggested citation: Matthew Lee, “AI Rights and Legal Personhood Tracker”, Natural & Artificial Law, first published [insert publication date], last verified [insert date above].
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the AI Rights and Legal Personhood Tracker?
It is an active legal database and monitoring tool maintained by barrister Matthew Lee. The tracker records selected public legal cases and official legal materials concerning whether artificial intelligence systems, autonomous agents, robots or other digital entities can be treated as rights-holders, duty-bearers, legal persons, applicants, victims, inventors, authors, owners or other legal actors.
Does inclusion in this tracker mean that AI has legal rights?
No. Inclusion does not mean that any court has recognised artificial intelligence as having legal rights, legal personality, standing, victim status or human rights. Many entries may involve rejected arguments, theoretical judicial observations, separate opinions, official warnings or legislative discussions.
Is this tracker about human rights claims brought by human beings against AI systems?
Not primarily. This tracker concerns whether AI itself could ever have rights, duties, legal status or standing. Cases where human beings complain that AI or algorithmic systems have interfered with their human rights are better treated as part of the AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker.
Are all entries based on court judgments?
No. Some entries may be based on judgments, decisions or separate opinions. Others may be based on official legislative materials, regulator materials, treaty materials, reports, policy documents or reliable legal commentary where they concern the legal status of artificial intelligence. Readers should check the linked source for the status of each entry.
Can I use the AI Rights and Legal Personhood Tracker as official legal advice?
No. The tracker and its contents are published as general legal commentary and educational reporting on AI law. Nothing on the tracker constitutes legal advice. Matthew Lee is a barrister regulated in England and Wales and is not authorised for Public or Direct Access. Instructions may only be given via his clerks at Doughty Street Chambers.
