Precision Agriculture AI Standard of Care

AI in Agriculture: A Liability Frontier

#

Precision agriculture promises to revolutionize farming through artificial intelligence, optimizing pesticide applications, predicting crop yields, detecting plant diseases, and operating autonomous equipment. But this technological transformation raises critical liability questions that remain largely untested in courts. When AI-driven recommendations violate regulations, who bears responsibility? When autonomous farm equipment causes injury, how is liability allocated? And when algorithmic bias harms smaller operations, what remedies exist?

The stakes are significant. Agriculture remains one of America’s most dangerous industries, and AI systems increasingly influence decisions affecting food safety, environmental compliance, and farm economics. As legal experts have warned: “The growing use of AI in precision agriculture raises a number of legal issues for both producers and consumers of these technologies… the issues raised by AI in precision agriculture are largely untested and unregulated.”

The Scale of AI Adoption in Agriculture

#

The precision agriculture AI market is experiencing explosive growth. According to Precedence Research, the global precision farming market was valued at approximately $14 billion in 2025 and is projected to reach $43.64 billion by 2034, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 13.3%.

North America dominates adoption, accounting for over 43% of the global market. The U.S. precision farming market alone is valued at $4.37 billion in 2025 and projected to reach $13.69 billion by 2034.

Key AI Applications in Agriculture:

• Autonomous Tractors and Equipment - John Deere’s autonomous 9RX tractor uses 16 cameras and on-board GPUs to navigate fields without a driver. The company aims for a fully autonomous fleet by 2030.

• Precision Pesticide Application - AI systems analyze satellite imagery, weather data, and crop conditions to recommend optimal pesticide timing, concentration, and application patterns.

• Crop Yield Prediction - Machine learning models process historical data to forecast yields, though studies show many models still produce 20-30% prediction errors.

• Autonomous Weeding - Systems like Carbon Robotics’ LaserWeeder use computer vision to identify and eliminate weeds without herbicides, processing up to 600,000 weeds per hour.

• Disease Detection - AI-powered drones identify early disease symptoms and apply targeted treatments only to affected areas.

The Core Liability Problem: Farmers Bear the Burden

#

The Pesticide Recommendation Scenario

#

Consider the central liability dilemma identified by King & Spalding’s agricultural technology practice:

“Consider an example of orchard management software that uses an AI model to output precision recommendations for pesticide applications. If the AI model recommends application of a pesticide at a concentration in violation of a government regulation, where does liability lie? While the software developer, the provider of the training data and the farmer all are implicated, the farmer will likely bear the burden of the violation under existing law.”

This reflects a fundamental asymmetry in agricultural AI liability. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the applicator, typically the farmer, bears primary responsibility for pesticide violations. Even if the farmer followed AI recommendations in good faith, they face:

• Civil penalties for FIFRA violations
• State regulatory enforcement
• Potential criminal liability for knowing violations
• Crop damage liability to neighboring farms from drift

The AI vendor, meanwhile, typically disclaims responsibility through terms of service, offering no warranty that recommendations comply with applicable regulations.

The Training Data Bias Problem

#

A second critical exposure involves algorithmic bias against smaller farming operations. As Senator Peter Welch (D-VT) emphasized at a November 2023 Senate Agriculture Committee hearing:

“A real concern I have is for the viability of our smaller producers. We’ve got smaller farms in Vermont. And a lot of times, something will come up that, it’s an opportunity for bigger ag when you can spread the cost over time, but for a lot of smaller producers, there is a lot of skepticism on whether they’ll get a return on investment.”

Senator Stabenow, chairing the hearing, cautioned that “placing vast amounts of data in the hands of a few private companies could accelerate the trend of consolidation in the agricultural industry or perpetuate bias that has harmed small farmers and farmers of color for decades.”

The bias risk is straightforward: AI precision agriculture software trained predominantly on data from large-scale commercial operations may produce recommendations that are inapplicable or actively harmful to smaller, diversified farms. This could result in:

• Reduced crop yields from inappropriate planting or application recommendations
• Increased costs from recommendations optimized for scale economics
• Equipment damage from systems not calibrated for smaller machinery
• Regulatory violations from recommendations suited to different jurisdictions

As legal analysts note: “Although the developers of those algorithms are well aware of this risk, it cannot always be fully mitigated.”

Autonomous Equipment: An Emerging Liability Frontier

#

No Specific Agricultural Robot Litigation:Yet

#

Despite the proliferation of autonomous farm equipment, no significant litigation specifically addressing AI agricultural robot malfunctions has reached the courts. However, the liability framework is developing rapidly based on industrial robotics cases in other sectors.

Relevant Industrial Robot Precedents

#

Tesla/Fanuc Lawsuit (2025)

A $51 million lawsuit filed by former Tesla employee Peter Hinterdobler illustrates the liability theories applicable to autonomous equipment:

• On July 22, 2023, Hinterdobler was helping disassemble a Fanuc industrial robot at Tesla’s Fremont facility
• The robot arm “suddenly and without warning” struck him with the force of an 8,000-pound counterbalance weight
• The lawsuit targets both the deployer (Tesla) and the manufacturer (Fanuc)

This dual-defendant approach, holding both the equipment operator and manufacturer liable, will likely govern autonomous agricultural equipment cases.

OSHA Robot Injury Data

Researchers identified 77 robot-related incidents from 2015 to 2022 resulting in 93 injuries documented in OSHA records, including amputations and fatal crushing injuries. These incidents establish a baseline for understanding autonomous equipment risks.

Product Liability Theories for Agricultural AI

#

Legal analysis from Products-Liability-Insurance.com identifies three defect categories applicable to AI-enhanced agricultural equipment:

1. Design Defects - The AI system’s architecture fails to account for foreseeable hazards (e.g., sensor limitations in dusty field conditions)

2. Manufacturing Defects - Individual units malfunction due to production errors in sensors, processors, or mechanical components

3. Marketing Defects (Failure to Warn) - Inadequate disclosure of AI system limitations, training data constraints, or required operating conditions

Autonomous Equipment Failure Scenarios:

• Autonomous tractors with malfunctioning sensors failing to detect obstacles, causing collisions
• Software bugs causing unpredictable operation of AI-controlled harvesters
• Failure of fail-safe mechanisms when GPS or connectivity is lost
• Laser weeding systems creating eye or skin injury hazards from inadvertent exposure

The Five Areas of Law Requiring Reform

#

Agricultural law experts have identified five legal frameworks that must evolve to address autonomous farm equipment:

1. Motor Vehicle Laws - Most states require licensed operators for vehicles on public roads; autonomous equipment transiting between fields faces unclear legal status

2. OSHA Regulations - Worker safety standards may not account for human-robot interaction in agricultural settings

3. Product Liability - The allocation of fault among equipment owners, software providers, and manufacturers remains undefined

4. Insurance - Coverage gaps exist for autonomous equipment failures and AI-related claims

5. State Tort Law - Each state has different approaches to robotic liability, creating a patchwork of potential exposure

The Data Ownership Crisis

#

Farmers Don’t Own What They Think They Own

#

A critical, and largely unrecognized, liability exposure involves agricultural data ownership. According to the University of Maryland Extension:

“There are no laws that specifically protect ag data in the United States, which means as a lawyer you better make sure the contracts are really clear and people have an understanding of who owns what in those contracts.”

Terms of Service: What Farmers Actually Sign

#

The reality of agricultural technology contracts is troubling. As Farmtario’s legal analysis explains:

“There are companies out there that say ‘yes, you own the data,’ but when you read the agreements you find out that they have an unlimited licence to do whatever they want with the data.”

The John Deere EULA exemplifies the problem. According to Vice News reporting, the agreement, which farmers automatically accept by turning the ignition key, protects the company against lawsuits for “crop loss, lost profits, loss of goodwill, loss of use of equipment arising from the performance or non-performance of any aspect of the software.”

Data-Related Liability Risks

#

For Farmers:

• Loss of control over proprietary farming data and practices
• Potential regulatory exposure if data reveals violations
• Competitive disadvantage if data is shared with or sold to competitors
• Liability for data security if farm systems are breached

For Technology Providers:

• Potential liability for data breaches exposing farm operational information
• Regulatory risk from data use exceeding disclosed purposes
• Contract disputes over data ownership and use rights

Voluntary Frameworks: Limited Protection

#

The American Farm Bureau Federation’s “Privacy and Security Principles” for Farm Data and the Ag Data Transparent certification program provide voluntary guidelines. However, as the Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts notes:

“These voluntary frameworks lack enforcement mechanisms. Until formal legal frameworks catch up with agricultural technology, farmers are advised to negotiate well-crafted contracts specifying their data rights.”

Regulatory Framework

#

Federal Landscape

#

FIFRA and Pesticide Liability

The EPA continues aggressive FIFRA enforcement, with 122 administrative enforcement actions in the first half of 2025 alone. Key implications for AI users:

• EPA registration does not validate AI pesticide recommendations
• The applicator (farmer) remains liable for improper application regardless of AI guidance
• AI-generated application records may be discoverable in enforcement actions

State Pesticide Liability Limitation

A wave of state legislation in 2025 aims to limit pesticide manufacturer liability by making EPA-approved labels a defense to failure-to-warn claims. States with introduced legislation include Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Iowa.

Georgia’s SB 144, effective January 1, 2026, provides that pesticide manufacturers cannot be held liable under Georgia law for failing to warn consumers of health risks beyond those required by the EPA.

Implication: These laws protect pesticide manufacturers but do nothing to shield farmers who follow AI recommendations that violate application requirements.

Pending Federal Legislation

#

Agriculture Innovation Act (S.98/S.1713)

Introduced by Senators Klobuchar and Thune, this bipartisan legislation would:

• Establish a USDA secure data center for agricultural data collection and sharing
• Require industry-standard data security protocols
• Protect confidentiality of proprietary producer data
• Support research on conservation and farm productivity practices

The bill was reintroduced in the 119th Congress as S.1713 (Agriculture Innovation Act of 2025).

Farm Tech Act (H.R. 6806)

This bill would direct USDA to establish a certification program for AI software used in agricultural production. Key requirements:

• Certification based on NIST AI Risk Management Framework
• Software must perform accurately
• Software must meet or exceed federal and state standards applicable to a person performing the same task

Status: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture; no further action as of late 2025.

The Chevron Doctrine Reversal

#

The Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overturned the Chevron doctrine, which had required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. According to Penn State’s Agricultural Law Center, this could significantly impact agricultural AI regulation:

• USDA, EPA, and OSHA guidance on AI may face heightened judicial scrutiny
• Regulatory uncertainty may increase as courts independently interpret statutory requirements
• Agency enforcement actions involving AI may face more successful legal challenges

The Emerging Standard of Care

#

The Fundamental Question

#

The central liability question in agricultural AI is whether following AI recommendations satisfies or breaches the applicable standard of care. Legal analysts frame the issue:

“Developers of AI precision agriculture products should anticipate a growing expectation by users that AI products are accurate, especially where products are marketed as accurate.”

This creates tension:

• If AI recommendations are held to establish standard of care: Farmers who don’t use AI may face negligence claims for failing to adopt available technology
• If AI recommendations are not reliable: Farmers who follow AI guidance may face liability for outcomes that human judgment would have avoided

For Farmers and Agricultural Operations

#

Before Adopting AI Systems:

1. Due Diligence on Vendors

   • Investigate accuracy claims and validation methodology
   • Request documentation of training data composition and geographic coverage
   • Understand known limitations for your farm size and crop types
   • Verify regulatory compliance, does the system account for your jurisdiction’s pesticide and application rules?

2. Contract Negotiation

   • Push back on blanket liability disclaimers
   • Seek representations that recommendations comply with applicable regulations
   • Clarify data ownership and use rights explicitly
   • Negotiate notification requirements for system changes or known defects

3. Data Protection

   • Understand exactly what data is collected and how it may be used
   • Preserve independent records not dependent on vendor systems
   • Consider the competitive sensitivity of operational data

During Use:

4. Human Oversight

   • Never blindly follow AI recommendations for regulated activities
   • Verify pesticide recommendations against current EPA labels and state requirements
   • Maintain trained personnel capable of independent judgment
   • Document decisions to deviate from AI recommendations and the reasoning

5. Documentation

   • Preserve all AI-generated recommendations and the data inputs
   • Maintain records of actual applications versus recommendations
   • Document system malfunctions, inaccuracies, and support interactions
   • Keep evidence of training and human review processes

6. Incident Response

   • Report system failures to vendors in writing
   • Preserve logs and data before system updates that might delete evidence
   • Consult agricultural counsel if AI recommendations result in regulatory violations

For Technology Providers

#

Product Development:

1. Bias Testing

   • Validate systems across farm sizes, geographic regions, and crop types
   • Test specifically for small farm applicability
   • Document and disclose known limitations

2. Regulatory Compliance

   • Ensure recommendation engines incorporate current regulatory requirements
   • Build in jurisdiction-specific rule validation
   • Provide updates when regulations change

3. Transparency

   • Disclose training data composition
   • Explain recommendation methodologies in accessible language
   • Alert users to confidence levels and uncertainty bounds

Deployment:

4. Warnings and Training

   • Clearly communicate that AI recommendations require human verification
   • Train users on system limitations and proper use cases
   • Provide accessible documentation of known failure modes

5. Ongoing Monitoring

   • Track system performance post-deployment
   • Issue corrections when errors are identified
   • Maintain incident reporting and response procedures

For Equipment Manufacturers

#

1. Fail-Safe Design

   • Implement redundant safety systems for autonomous operation
   • Design for safe behavior when connectivity or sensors fail
   • Ensure emergency stop capabilities are accessible

2. Testing and Validation

   • Test autonomous systems in diverse field conditions
   • Document performance limitations (dust, weather, terrain)
   • Validate sensor accuracy against claimed specifications

3. Post-Sale Obligations

   • Monitor adverse events and near-misses
   • Issue safety bulletins when issues are identified
   • Provide clear end-of-support communications

Practical Risk Mitigation

#

Insurance Considerations

#

Agricultural AI creates potential coverage gaps:

• Farm policies may not cover losses from AI system failures
• Product liability coverage for equipment manufacturers may exclude software-related claims
• Professional liability questions arise for agronomists using AI decision support

Farmers and agribusinesses should:

• Review existing policies for AI-related exclusions
• Discuss emerging AI risks with insurance providers
• Document AI adoption decisions and safeguards for underwriting purposes

When Problems Arise

#

If AI Recommendations Cause Regulatory Violations:

• Preserve all system data and recommendations
• Document the specific AI output and your reliance on it
• Engage agricultural counsel immediately
• Consider whether vendor contract provides any indemnification

If Autonomous Equipment Causes Injury:

• Secure the equipment and preserve logs before any updates
• Document the failure mode and circumstances
• Notify manufacturer and insurer
• Engage counsel experienced in both agricultural law and product liability

If Data Practices Cause Harm:

• Review contract terms governing data use
• Document any unauthorized disclosure or use
• Consider whether breach of contract or privacy claims may apply

Resources

#

• USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service
• EPA FIFRA Information
• Ag Data Transparent Certification Program
• American Farm Bureau Federation - Data Principles
• National Agricultural Law Center
• NIST AI Risk Management Framework