An Agentic MSA for AI: Contracts That Match Autonomous Software

Paid and GitLaw launched a free, open-source Agentic MSA tailored to AI agents. It fixes key gaps in traditional SaaS contracts by clarifying decision responsibility, limiting liability with AI-specific disclaimers, and codifying data ownership and training permissions. This legal foundation enables outcome-based pricing and margin protection for agent businesses.

Key Points

• Traditional SaaS contracts don’t fit autonomous, adaptive AI agents and create unpriced legal exposure.
• Agents make decisions without approvals, act continuously, and evolve—behaviors legacy contracts never contemplated.
• The Agentic MSA clarifies customer oversight responsibility, limits liability with AI-specific disclaimers and caps, and cleanly separates data ownership from optional training use.
• Clear training rights (de-identified, aggregated, opt-out) preserve trust and unblock deals.
• Proper legal frameworks enable outcome-based pricing and protect margins, forming the foundation for sustainable agent monetization.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment is mixed, leaning towards questioning and skeptical. While the initial premise that traditional contracts might not suffice for evolving AI agents is acknowledged as a valid concern, the specific implication of contracts themselves 'changing behavior' or adapting dynamically is met with strong skepticism and a desire for clarification on how that would align with fundamental contractual principles.

In Agreement

• Traditional contract structures may struggle to keep up with AI systems that learn and change behavior over time, suggesting a need for new approaches.
• Some form of contract structure is indeed needed for systems that learn and change behavior over time, acknowledging the article's underlying premise.

Opposed

• The idea of contracts that 'learn and change behavior over time' is counterintuitive to the traditional understanding of contracts as fixed agreements that do not change without mutual consent.
• There is skepticism about the desirability and practical use case for contracts that dynamically change, questioning how this aligns with legal certainty.