22.11.2016

Robotics and AI: A Solid Contract Is the Best Shield

Related services

The rise of robotics and AI has led to a number of ethical and social questions making the headlines lately. Many countries—Finland included—have announced plans to take the lead in automation and robotics in the coming years.   

What has received less attention, however, is the fact that there is little to no legislation specifically concerning robotics and AI, which currently have to be fit into existing legal frameworks. So, what is the deal with robots and AI from a contractual perspective?

Is This Sale of Tangibles, Too?

When buying a robot vacuum for their home or a toy robot for their children, the laws that would probably first come to your mind in Finland—assuming  you think about those sorts of things—would be the Sale of Goods Act and the Consumer Protection Act. These acts state that goods must be fit for the purpose such goods are usually used for.

While the Sale of Goods Act does also apply in B2B sales, there is more freedom of contract than in consumer sales, giving the parties a great deal of leeway to agree on their responsibilities and obligations. 

AI in Business Operations

What about when a company buys robotic or AI systems as part of its business operations? Despite all the hype surrounding AI, it is still essentially a procurement of software like any other, and AI contracts struggle with the same kinds of issues as traditional software procurements.

 There are many issues that need to be agreed, such as:

We can get the answer to the issue of the purpose of an algorithm by applying the Sale of Goods Act. The supplier cannot reasonably be made liable for actions that do not conform to the limitations set for the algorithm. However, the supplier could be thought to be liable for the flawless functioning of the algorithm within the original parameters set for it.

Here is where we come to the really interesting question: where does the supplier’s liability end if a robot or AI system is able to independently develop and alter its own code?  

Who Owns Data?

The raw material for an AI is usually data. The current saying is that data is the new oil, though it would be more accurate to say that data is the new operating environment. No matter how you phrase it, though, data is certainly a new currency.

So, how does current legislation account for the ownership of data? Can anyone own data from a legal standpoint?

With the exception of personal data, there is often no legal owner of data. Of course, exclusive rights to data can be obtained in certain situations, such as the protection of catalogues. Data can also be defined as being confidential through an agreement.

In certain situations in Finland, data can be protected as business secrets under the Criminal Code, the Employment Contracts Act or the Unfair Business Practices Act. There is also an EU directive concerning the protection of business secrets.

If you are entering an agreement on business partnership that will result in data being created—either as a by-product or the main product—and that data is not personal data, you and your business partner should agree on who owns that data, how it can be used and how you can access it during and after the joint project. You should also agree on the format the data is to be handed over in. Reaching an agreement after the fact can be difficult, as there may not be an applicable norm to guide business partners in that situation.

New Technology Highlights the Importance of Contracts

One thing, at least, is clear: the importance of contracts is set to increase as novel and existing technologies are used more and more.

When drafting contracts for procurements of or services involving robotic or AI systems, make sure that you know what contractual terms and conditions are best suited to the deal. When leveraging new technology, you need to be able to look into the future and try to predict the potential benefits and risks.

Latest references

We advised Lantmännen ek för in its contemplated acquisition of Leipurin from Aspo Plc. Lantmännen is an agricultural cooperative and Northern Europe’s leader in agriculture, machinery, bioenergy and food products. Lantmännen is owned by 17,000 Swedish farmers and has 12,000 employees in over 20 countries. Leipurin is a leading Nordic supplier of bakery ingredients, equipment, and expert services to professional bakeries, confectioneries, and food manufacturers. The company operates across Finland, Sweden, and the Baltic countries with subsidiaries located in the aforementioned countries, providing comprehensive solutions to the baking industry. The closing of the transaction remains subject to regulatory approvals.
Case published 25.8.2025
We assisted Oomi Oy in its expansion into the mobile telecommunications market with the launch of Oomi Mobiili, a new MVNO brand. Our work covered the preceding due diligence process as well as structuring and negotiating key partner agreements, laying a solid foundation for Oomi’s entry into the new market. Oomi Mobiili will operate as a virtual mobile network operator, offering customers the option to purchase a mobile subscription together with their electricity contract. The phased launch is set to begin in autumn 2025, with nationwide availability targeted for early 2026. 
Case published 15.8.2025
We advised Nevel Oy in its acquisition of the business of Labio Oy. Lahti Aqua Oy and Salpakierto Oy sold their entire shareholdings in Labio to Nevel, expanding Nevel’s already significant biogas portfolio. The transaction will have no impact on Lahti Aqua’s water utility operations or Salpakierto’s municipal waste management responsibilities. Labio’s operations and customer relationships will continue as before. ‘This partnership is a natural next step for us as we continue investing in sustainable material efficiency and renewable energy solutions. By integrating Labio’s comprehensive offerings and expertise, we can provide customers with a strong platform for material circularity. We are also strengthening our market position as one of Finland’s leading material efficiency solution providers,’ says Ville Koikkalainen, Director of Industrial and Biogas Business at Nevel. Nevel is an energy infrastructure company offering advanced, climate-positive solutions for industry and real estate. It operates more than 130 energy production plants and manages over 40 district heating networks. Nevel’s annual turnover is EUR 150 million, and it employs 190 experts in Finland, Sweden and Estonia.
Case published 16.7.2025
The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) issued a significant precedent (decision KHO:2025:23) in a case in which it found that the Finnish Motor Insurers’ Centre (Liikennevakuutuskeskus, LVK) processed patient data in accordance with the requirements concerning fairness, data minimisation, and privacy by design and by default when deciding on compensation claims. We represented LVK in this case in which the SAC upheld the Administrative Court’s decision to repeal the EUR 52,000 administrative fine imposed on LVK by the Sanctions Board of the Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman. The SAC also confirmed the Administrative Court’s decision, which, as far as we know, was the first of its kind in Finland, ordering the Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman to reimburse some of our client’s legal costs. The decision bears great significance for the insurance industry as a whole. The crux of the matter were LVK’s information requests under the Motor Liability Insurance Act for patient data that were essential in determining insurance or compensation claims. In certain cases, making a decision may require extensive patient data. The Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman had found that LVK had systematically made overly broad information requests infringing Articles 5 and 25 of the GDPR and that the information should have been provided in the form of separate medical opinions. The Administrative Court repealed the Data Protection Ombudsman’s decision and found that patient records from medical appointments are, as a general rule, essential in establishing causality in compensation matters. It also stated that the tasks related to the consideration of compensation matters are specifically the core tasks of the insurance company and not of the controller of patient data. Furthermore, the Administrative Court found no evidence indicating that LVK would have systematically made overly broad information requests. ‘Once again, our collaboration with C&S was seamless throughout this extensive process, and we could trust that our case was in expert hands’, says Visa Kronbäck, Chief Legal Officer of the Insurance Centre. The full decision is available on the SAC website (in Finnish):  KHO:2025:23.
Case published 18.6.2025