The shift to agentic AI has direct contractual consequences. Standard terms written for generative AI systems may not adequately address deployments where the system acts with a degree of autonomy.
This article highlights the areas where standard terms are most likely to need tailoring for agentic deployments and evolving approaches to AI and procurement.
Scope and permissions
As agentic systems act within permissions rather than simply producing outputs, the scope of those permissions becomes a core contractual issue.
Not all permissions will carry the same risk. A system permitted to read data presents a materially different profile from one permitted to send communications, execute transactions or trigger downstream processes.
Contracts should reflect that hierarchy by defining not just what the system can access, but what it can do - and by calibrating authorisation requirements to the consequence of the action.
Performance and warranties
Once the permission boundary is defined, the next question is what counts as operating properly within it. Given agentic systems may produce different outputs given the same input, traditional software-style warranties that the system will perform in accordance with its specification are harder to apply.
A more useful approach may be to define expected behaviour: what kinds of actions fall within the system's intended scope, and what falls outside it. That gives both parties a clearer basis for assessing performance and - as set out below - links more directly to liability.
Human oversight and intervention
Given an agentic system may take consequential steps at speed, AI contracts need to address how human oversight operates in practice as part of broader legal governance risk management and compliance measures. That includes what triggers human review, where approval gates sit, and what happens if those controls fail.
A related issue is intervention. Customers may need a clear right to suspend or disable agentic functionality quickly - together with clarity on how fast that right must take effect and what support the supplier must provide during an incident.
Liability allocation
In an agentic context, the system may take action before any human decision has been made - including actions that affect third parties or appear to commit the organisation externally.
Contracts therefore need to address responsibility where the system acts within its technical permissions but outside the customer's intended scope, where failures arise across a wider vendor chain, and what remedies are available where harm has already occurred before the customer becomes aware of the problem.
This links back to defining expected behaviour (see above under “Performance and warranties”) - if the system has acted outside what was agreed, the contractual basis for attributing responsibility becomes clearer.
Audit and evidence
Where an agentic system has taken a series of autonomous steps, the customer may need to establish what happened, when and why - for regulatory enquiries, third-party claims, internal investigations and incident response.
Contracts should therefore address what the supplier is required to log, at what level of granularity, whether those logs are accessible in a usable format, and how fragmentation is handled where relevant records sit across multiple providers or systems.
Exit and continuity
Where agentic functionality becomes embedded in core business processes, exit provisions may take on greater significance than in conventional software procurement.
Contracts should address whether workflow configurations, decision logs and operational history are available to the customer on termination in a portable and usable format, and what the supplier may retain after termination and for what purpose.
How this relates to governance
Agentic AI changes not just what the system does, but what the contract needs to say. Contractual protections alone are only one part of an overall risk mitigation strategy - as with AI more broadly.
Internal governance frameworks that address how agentic systems are deployed, monitored and - where necessary - stopped will still be key across both AI procurement and operational deployment.
Explore our AI capabilities by visiting our AI hub.
Explore the series
- What is Agentic AI - what separates an agentic system from a generative one, and why the distinction matters.
- From content risk to conduct risk: Identifying agentic AI risks - the main legal and compliance risks arising when systems can act, not just generate.
- Contracting for agentic AI - the contractual issues to address when procuring and deploying agentic solutions.
- Governance and oversight - how governance, approvals and monitoring need to evolve when systems can initiate actions.
- Agentic AI and data protection - the challenges agentic AI poses for data protection compliance.
- The EU AI Act and agentic AI - the challenges of applying AI regulation – focusing on the EU AI Act – to agentic AI.
- Agentic AI and Consumer Protection - the opportunities and risks that agentic AI presents for businesses and consumers, alongside the growing regulatory focus in the UK and beyond.
- When the agent has already acted - what organisations should be doing now to prepare for the agentic AI incident that may be rather closer than they think.
- Agentic AI and competition law - how competition law applies when an agent sets prices or selects suppliers on your behalf.
- Liability - common liability issues arising from agentic AI contracts.

/Passle/5f3d6e345354880e28b1fb63/MediaLibrary/Images/2025-09-29-13-48-10-128-68da8e1af6347a2c4b96de4e.png)
/Passle/5f3d6e345354880e28b1fb63/MediaLibrary/Images/2025-07-10-13-52-35-189-686fc5a39f23a993118ba1a0.png)
/Passle/5f3d6e345354880e28b1fb63/MediaLibrary/Images/2024-08-23-11-31-07-354-66c872fb971eecc249d83d40.png)
/Passle/5f3d6e345354880e28b1fb63/SearchServiceImages/2026-09-21-15-33-29-071-6ab14e49ba6cdd81f304d592.jpg)