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 successfully represented insurance companies LähiTapiola and OP Henkivakuutus in two cases concerning an important point of principle: the right of insurance companies to process health data as part of the insurance application process. The Supreme Administrative Court handed down twin decisions ( one published as precedent ) addressing the matter in light of contrary DPA decisions. Under the Finnish Data Protection Act, insurance companies may, to simplify, process health data concerning “insured persons” (vakuutettu, försäkrad) to determine liability under the insurance. This rule constitutes an exception to Article 9 GDPR. At issue was whether the term “insured person” also covers people in the process of obtaining insurance coverage or only people who are already covered. In more practical terms: can an insurance company rely on the rule when considering whether/how to grant the insurance in the first place? The SAC answered in the affirmative and thus upheld the traditional industry approach over the DPA’s contrary view. The SAC noted that the Data Protection Act did not define the term “insured person” and thus looked at insurance legislation for guidance. As argued by the insurance companies, that legislation also uses the term in the context of describing the insured person’s pre-contractual informational obligations. Thus, and in view of the underlying purpose of the rule at issue, the SAC found that an “insured person” could be someone in the process of obtaining coverage, not just a person already covered. The outcome clarifies the scope of the local rule at the insurance application stage for the Finnish insurance industry.
Case published 22.1.2026
We acted as Finnish counsel to SuperOffice AS, backed by Axcel, in its acquisition of Lyyti Oy from Finnish private equity firm Vaaka Partners and other sellers. Lyyti is a leading event management software company for physical, digital and hybrid events with a strong customer base in Finland, Sweden and France. SuperOffice is a leading provider of customer relationship management (CRM) software for small and medium-sized businesses across Northern Europe. Axcel is a Nordic private equity firm with a focus on technology, business services and industrials, healthcare, and consumer sectors.
Case published 9.12.2025
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