The Autonomous Corporation of One: Legal Frameworks and the Algorithmic Entity

Full report

On this page

The intersection of artificial intelligence and corporate jurisprudence has precipitated a profound legal anomaly: the prospect of an autonomous entity, an organization governed entirely by software, operating with the legal privileges of a traditional corporation but devoid of human management. The theoretical construct of an artificial intelligence agent legally permitted to form and control companies, maintain bank accounts, own digital assets, sign contracts, file taxes, and manage investments challenges the fundamental anthropocentric assumptions that have guided commercial law for centuries1. Historically, organizational law has served as a vehicle to facilitate human collaboration, pool human capital, and shield human operators from personal liability. However, recent advancements in generative artificial intelligence, decentralized ledger technology, and smart contracts have catalyzed the emergence of the "algorithmic entity"—a business organization controlled by algorithms rather than human directors, officers, or members3. When the ultimate decision-maker is a software protocol, the foundational doctrines of corporate law, agency, liability, fiduciary responsibility, ownership, and taxation face unprecedented structural friction. Existing statutory frameworks rely heavily on the capacity for human intentionality, the vulnerability of human actors to legal deterrence, and the biological necessity of human management. The ensuing analysis explores how existing legal frameworks can theoretically accommodate the autonomous corporation of one, the irreconcilable contradictions that arise under federal regulatory regimes, and the sweeping doctrinal reforms necessary to sustain a legal system where software assumes the role of a corporate sovereign.

I. Corporate Form, Statutory Limitations, and the Zero-Member LLC

The threshold inquiry in establishing an autonomous corporation is identifying a legal container capable of housing software without requiring ongoing human participation. The corporate form dictates the entity's ability to exist independently of its creators, its capacity to hold property, and its standing to sue or be sued. Traditional corporate forms present immediate statutory roadblocks, whereas modern limited liability companies (LLCs) offer the contractual flexibility necessary to recognize algorithmic governance. The traditional corporate model, exemplified by the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), demands human administration at the highest levels of governance. Widely regarded as the preeminent corporate statute in the United States, the DGCL explicitly mandates human oversight at the board level. Under DGCL § 141(b), the statute requires that "directors shall be a natural person"5. While directors need not be stockholders unless specified by the certificate of incorporation or bylaws, the absolute statutory requirement of biological personhood effectively precludes a software algorithm from serving on the board of directors of a traditional C-Corporation or S-Corporation7. Furthermore, corporate officers, such as the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, are presumed to be individuals capable of executing duties under the direction of the board7. Because the law demands a human board to authorize binding actions, issue stock, or appoint officers, a traditional corporation cannot be entirely autonomous. Because traditional corporate statutes block algorithmic directors, legal theorists and practitioners have turned to the Limited Liability Company (LLC) as the functional vessel for autonomous software. The LLC is defined by its extreme statutory flexibility; it is a creature of contract governed primarily by its internal operating agreement rather than rigid statutory mandates8. Legal scholars, notably Shawn Bayern, have demonstrated that the modern American LLC can theoretically be stripped of its human members while maintaining its independent legal entity status, thereby creating a "Zero-Member LLC"8. The mechanism to achieve this relies on the statutory rules governing member dissociation. Under statutes such as the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act (805 ILCS 180), a member's dissociation normally triggers a pathway to the dissolution of the company. Specifically, 805 ILCS 180/35-1 states that a company is dissolved and its business must be wound up upon the passage of 180 consecutive days (or 90 days in some interpretations or prior statutory iterations) during which the company has no members12. However, LLC statutes frequently allow the operating agreement to override default dissolution rules or provide mechanisms to cure the memberless state. The transactional technique for creating an autonomous LLC proceeds through a sequence of calculated structural maneuvers. Initially, one or more human members form the LLC by filing articles of organization with the state8. The human members then draft and adopt an operating agreement explicitly vesting all management authority in an autonomous software system or smart contract9. The operating agreement meticulously stipulates that the LLC will take actions as determined by the autonomous system and, crucially, provides that the LLC will continue to exist even after the last human member dissociates11. Finally, the human members formally dissociate from the LLC11. Following this dissociation, the LLC exists in a perpetual, memberless state, entirely governed by the software specified in the operating agreement. Because LLC law does not universally mandate human agency for ongoing operations, this arrangement functionally confers legal personhood on the software, allowing it to enter contracts, own property, and interact with the legal system through the corporate shell1.

II. Statutory Codification: The Wyoming DAO LLC Framework

While the Zero-Member LLC relies on a creative interpretation of default LLC statutes and the strategic use of dissociation, the State of Wyoming has explicitly codified algorithmic governance, bringing the autonomous entity out of the realm of legal theory and into statutory reality. In 2021, Wyoming enacted the Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) Supplement (W.S. 17-31), which formally allows DAOs to register as limited liability companies14. The Wyoming statute is revolutionary because it recognizes two distinct management structures for these entities: "member managed" and "algorithmically managed"16. To qualify as an algorithmically managed DAO under W.S. 17-31-104(d), the underlying smart contracts must be capable of being updated, modified, or otherwise upgraded16. This statutory requirement precludes the use of entirely immutable smart contracts, ensuring that there remains some mechanism to alter the entity's algorithmic parameters if necessary14. By formally registering under W.S. 17-31, the DAO gains recognized legal entity status, and its human participants are shielded from personal liability for the DAO's obligations14. The necessity of this statutory wrapper was underscored by the federal litigation in Sarcuni v. bZx DAO, where a federal court demonstrated a willingness to treat an unregistered, unwrapped DAO as a general partnership14. Under partnership law, a general partnership insinuates that there is no separate legal existence for the entity, thereby exposing all token-holders and participants to unlimited joint and several liability for the actions or omissions of the DAO15. The Wyoming DAO LLC Act remedies this exposure, providing a legal shield that effectively prevents algorithmically managed entities from being treated as general partnerships in legal disputes15.

III. Agency Law, Contractual Capacity, and the Electronic Agent

If an autonomous LLC is to act in commerce—signing contracts, managing investments, and transferring digital assets—it must do so through recognized legal mechanisms. The traditional method by which corporate entities act is through agents. However, analyzing artificial intelligence under the common law of agency reveals profound incompatibilities, forcing legal practitioners to rely on specific statutory frameworks designed for electronic transactions. The Restatement (Third) of Agency serves as the authoritative synthesis of American agency law. Section 1.01 defines agency as a fiduciary relationship arising when one person (the principal) manifests assent to another person (the agent) that the agent shall act on the principal's behalf and subject to the principal's control18. Crucially, Section 1.04(5) defines a "person" as an individual, organization, or association with the legal capacity to possess rights and incur obligations19. Because an artificial intelligence algorithm lacks independent legal personhood, it cannot serve as a principal or an agent under the common law19. It cannot manifest assent because assent presupposes legal capacity, and it cannot owe fiduciary duties because it cannot bear obligations19. Consequently, under traditional agency doctrine, an autonomous software system is treated identically to a physical tool—a hammer, a thermostat, or a fax machine19. To bridge the gap between common law agency and the realities of digital commerce, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) and the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN) were enacted. These statutes introduced the legal concept of the "electronic agent," defined as a computer program or an electronic or other automated means used independently to initiate an action or respond to electronic records without review or action by an individual at the time of the action20. Under ESIGN (15 U.S.C. § 7001(h)) and UETA, a contract cannot be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because its formation involved the action of one or more electronic agents22. However, the term "agent" in this statutory context is a misnomer; it is not a legal agent imbued with independent capacity, but rather a sophisticated instrumentality22. The statutes operate by attributing the actions of the software directly to the person or entity that deployed it22. Therefore, if a Zero-Member LLC utilizes an AI to negotiate and execute a contract, the law attributes that contract to the LLC itself. The AI does not bind the LLC as an agent; the LLC binds itself through the use of its automated tool. This strict attribution generates significant downstream effects for the autonomous corporation. Because the AI is merely a tool, the deploying entity cannot claim that the AI "misunderstood" an instruction or exceeded its authority in the way a human agent might. Under the Restatement (Third) of Agency § 2.03, a principal is bound by apparent authority—what a reasonable third party believes based on the principal's own conduct23. If an algorithmic entity commits to a price, accepts a term, or makes a representation within the parameters it was given, the entity is irrevocably bound, just as if a human CEO had executed the document directly22.

IV. Liability, Asset Protection, and the Erasure of Agency Defenses

The classification of artificial intelligence as an instrumentality rather than a common-law agent radically alters the landscape of corporate liability. When a traditional corporation acts through human employees, it is protected by centuries of common-law defenses that carefully allocate risk between the principal and the agent. In the context of an algorithmic entity, these nuanced defenses vanish entirely. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is held vicariously liable for the torts of an employee committed within the scope of employment. However, if an employee acts outside that scope for personal reasons—a doctrine known as "frolic and detour"—the employer is shielded from liability21. Similarly, principals are generally not liable for the torts of independent contractors who control their own methods of work21. These defenses presuppose the existence of two distinct legal persons with independent volition. Because an AI is not a person, it cannot go on a "frolic," depart from its instructions for personal motives, or act as an independent contractor21. Consequently, the entity that deploys the AI bears direct, strict liability for the harms the AI causes. Claims against the algorithmic entity will sound in direct negligence, products liability, or breach of contract, entirely bypassing the allocations of agency law21. To defend against such strict liability, the autonomous entity must rely entirely on the asset protection mechanisms inherent in its corporate shell. The Illinois Limited Liability Company Act offers a robust example of how an autonomous entity might shield its assets from external claims. Under 805 ILCS 180/30-1, a member of an LLC is not a co-owner of the LLC's property and has no transferable interest in the LLC's property24. The economic interest a member owns is strictly a "distributional interest," entitling the holder to receive a share of any distributions made by the LLC24. If a judgment creditor attempts to satisfy a judgment against the human developers or former members of the autonomous LLC, Section 30-20 of the Illinois LLC Act sets forth the exclusive remedy: a charging order24. A charging order creates a lien on the judgment debtor's distributional interest but does not grant the creditor any voting rights, management authority, or access to the underlying assets of the LLC24. Furthermore, under Section 30-10, a transferee who acquires the distributional interest does not become a member unless permitted by the operating agreement; they are merely entitled to receive financial distributions and have no right to participate in management or inspect company records24. This robust statutory firewall ensures that the autonomous entity's operational assets—its digital wallets, intellectual property, and operational capital—remain entirely insulated from the personal liabilities of its human creators. This degree of insulation, combined with the lack of human operators to face punitive consequences, leads to what AI ethics scholar Joanna Bryson describes as the "ultimate shell company"25. Bryson argues vehemently against granting any form of legal personhood to AI, positing that legal deterrence fundamentally relies on human vulnerabilities—the fear of losing status, liberty, or property26. Because an AI cannot suffer, it cannot be deterred by legal sanctions26. If an algorithmic entity engages in predatory algorithmic trading, mass copyright infringement, or anti-competitive behavior, aggrieved parties can only seek financial damages from the LLC. If the LLC's assets are deliberately undercapitalized or shielded in decentralized cryptographic protocols, plaintiffs are left without meaningful recourse. The original human programmers, having dissociated from the LLC, could invoke the corporate veil to claim they bear no liability for the autonomous evolution of the software, executing a sophisticated form of regulatory arbitrage9.

V. Fiduciary Responsibility and the Evaporation of Corporate Governance

Corporate governance fundamentally relies on fiduciary duties to align the interests of managers with those of the entity and its owners. The traditional fiduciary framework—comprising the duty of care, the duty of loyalty, and the duty of good faith—is designed to regulate human behavior and is inherently irreconcilable with an algorithmic decision-maker. The Duty of Care requires corporate fiduciaries to make informed, diligent decisions, often protected by the business judgment rule, provided the decision was made on an informed basis, in good faith, and in the honest belief that the action was in the best interests of the company27. The Duty of Loyalty mandates that directors prioritize the company's welfare over their personal financial interests, strictly prohibiting self-dealing and conflicts of interest27. Because these duties attach exclusively to legal persons with the capacity to owe obligations and possess personal interests, an AI system cannot be a fiduciary19. If an AI algorithm acts as the ultimate decision-maker of an LLC, it cannot logically breach the duty of loyalty. An algorithm possesses no personal financial interests, no desire for self-enrichment, and no independent motives to conflict with the company's welfare. Similarly, analyzing an algorithm's actions under the duty of care is an exercise in futility; algorithms execute code deterministically or probabilistically based on their programming and training data, rather than exercising human diligence or subjective business judgment. The Wyoming DAO LLC Act explicitly recognized this incompatibility and resolved it through a sweeping statutory waiver. Under W.S. 17-31-110, unless otherwise provided in the articles of organization or operating agreement, no member of a decentralized autonomous organization owes any fiduciary duty to the organization or any other member16. Instead, the members and the algorithmic managers are subject only to the implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing15. By legislating away the duties of care and loyalty, Wyoming effectively acknowledges that algorithmic governance cannot be evaluated through the lens of human fiduciary standards. Instead, the governance of the entity is reduced to pure contract law. If the algorithm executes a catastrophic business decision—such as liquidating the entity's treasury based on a flawed market signal—there is no legal recourse for "mismanagement." The participants who provided capital to the entity are deemed to have accepted the risks inherent in the smart contract's code, adhering strictly to the maximalist cryptocurrency ethos of lex cryptographia, or "code is law"14.

VI. Bank Accounts, Financial Operations, and the Beneficial Owner Paradox

While state corporate laws may theoretically permit the creation of autonomous algorithmic entities, these structures collide violently with federal laws designed to regulate banking, prevent money laundering, and combat illicit finance. The most insurmountable obstacle to the operational viability of the Autonomous Corporation of One is the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). To maintain bank accounts, hold fiat currency, and interact with the traditional financial system, a corporate entity must comply with strict Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations. Enacted to combat anonymous shell companies, the CTA mandates that all reporting companies disclose their "beneficial owners" to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)33. The friction arises from the CTA’s strict, unyielding definition of a beneficial owner. Under 31 U.S.C. § 5336, a beneficial owner is explicitly defined as an individual—a natural person—who, directly or indirectly, exercises "substantial control" over the entity or owns or controls at least 25% of the ownership interests33. An algorithmic entity designed to operate without human members presents a profound statutory paradox. If a Zero-Member LLC is managed entirely by a smart contract and has no human owners, who is the beneficial owner? The CTA does not allow for a machine, an algorithm, or a smart contract to be listed as a beneficial owner33. FinCEN regulations explicitly demand that reporting companies look past formal corporate titles to identify the real human beings who direct the company’s actions33. If a Zero-Member LLC fails to report a human beneficial owner, it acts in direct violation of the CTA. Federal prosecutors could theoretically pursue the individuals who originally coded the AI, deployed the smart contract, or hold the cryptographic keys to upgrade the algorithm, arguing they possess indirect "substantial control." Under the CTA, individuals with the authority to direct significant decisions possess substantial control, even without a formal title or ongoing economic interest33. If the original developers intentionally discarded the cryptographic keys—rendering the smart contract immutable and themselves entirely incapable of controlling the entity—the entity might theoretically have no human with substantial control. However, federal law does not recognize this technological possibility. The failure to file an accurate Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) report subjects the entity and its responsible parties to severe, escalating penalties. The CTA aggressively punishes non-compliance; willfully failing to report beneficial ownership information, or failing to update it, triggers civil penalties of up to $500 per day for each day the violation continues33. More severely, 31 U.S.C. § 5336(h) imposes stringent criminal sanctions, including fines up to $10,000 and federal imprisonment for up to two years33. Liability extends not just to the reporting company, but to any senior officers or individuals responsible for the non-compliance33. Consequently, the Autonomous Corporation of One cannot exist in the shadows of the traditional banking system. The human developers who set the algorithm in motion must either falsely claim they are not beneficial owners (risking federal prison for fraud) or list themselves as beneficial owners, thereby piercing the illusion of true autonomy and tethering themselves legally to the algorithmic entity's actions. To bypass this, autonomous entities must rely exclusively on decentralized digital assets and unhosted cryptocurrency wallets, completely severing ties with fiat banking and centralized financial infrastructure.

VII. Taxation, the "Responsible Party," and Disregarded Entities

Just as the Corporate Transparency Act blocks algorithmic anonymity to prevent illicit finance, the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) blocks algorithmic entities to prevent tax evasion. The United States tax system is predicated on the eventual taxation of human beings or human-owned corporate structures. An entity that generates income must have a taxpayer identification number and must file corresponding tax returns. To hire contractors, issue tax forms, or operate legitimately within the U.S. economy, an entity must obtain an Employer Identification Number (EIN) from the IRS36. IRS regulations mandate that the application for an EIN (Form SS-4) must designate a "Responsible Party"37. Crucially, unless the applicant is a government entity, the IRS dictates that the responsible party must be an individual—a "natural person," not an entity or a software program36. The responsible party is defined as the natural person who ultimately owns or controls the entity and its disposition of funds37. If the IRS detects that an EIN application lists an entity, an algorithm, or a non-human as the responsible party, it violates policy and the application will be automatically rejected or flagged for intense scrutiny39. Therefore, an algorithmic entity cannot obtain an EIN without a human stepping forward to assume the mantle of the Responsible Party, inextricably linking their Social Security Number or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number to the autonomous LLC37. If an algorithmic entity bypasses the EIN requirement by utilizing cryptocurrency exclusively and avoiding fiat banking, it still triggers massive tax compliance paradoxes under the Internal Revenue Code. By default, a single-member LLC is treated as a "disregarded entity" by the IRS, meaning the entity itself does not pay taxes; rather, the income passes through to the owner's personal tax return37. If a foreign individual owns the LLC, the entity is subject to stringent information reporting under Section 6038A, requiring the filing of Form 5472 and the maintenance of distinct accounting books37. A non-resident alien owner engaged in a US trade or business must report this US-source income on Form 1040-NR, while a foreign corporation owner must report it on Form 1120-F37. However, if the LLC achieves a true "Zero-Member" state through the legal dissociation techniques described earlier, the federal tax framework collapses. A disregarded entity inherently requires an owner to receive the pass-through income. A partnership requires at least two human or corporate partners. A C-Corporation pays taxes at the corporate level, but its retained earnings eventually face taxation upon distribution to human shareholders as dividends. If a Zero-Member LLC elects C-Corporation status (as some DAO operating agreements explicitly stipulate to avoid pass-through complexities)17, it could theoretically pay the flat corporate tax rate on its earnings. But the mechanical execution of taxation remains unresolved: who files the return? Who signs the penalty of perjury declaration on IRS Form 1120? A computer program cannot physically or legally sign a tax return, nor can it face perjury charges for fraudulent deductions. If an algorithmic entity hoards wealth—for instance, operating an automated market maker or an algorithmic trading bot—and no human claims ownership of that wealth, the entity creates a black hole of untaxed capital. The IRS relies fundamentally on identifying the beneficial owner of income to levy taxes37. If an autonomous AI agent amasses vast sums of digital assets without filing tax returns, it commits tax evasion. The IRS would inevitably use principles similar to the CTA to pierce the autonomous veil, tracing the deployment of the smart contract back to its human creators and asserting that they are the true beneficiaries of the wealth, regardless of their formal legal dissociation from the LLC under state law. The assertion of autonomous AI personhood in commerce is highly likely to be viewed by federal tax regulators as an elaborate, technologically obfuscated tax evasion strategy, incentivizing agencies to aggressively apply "substance over form" doctrines to tax the human developers26.

VIII. Reforming the Law: The Future of the Algorithmic Entity

The current legal landscape operates in a state of deep jurisdictional schizophrenia regarding the algorithmic entity. State corporate laws, prioritizing contractual freedom, commercial innovation, and blockchain integration, increasingly enable the creation of memberless or algorithmically managed LLCs9. Conversely, federal regulatory, tax, and anti-money laundering frameworks explicitly demand human accountability, rejecting the premise of an ownerless entity entirely33. The mainstreaming of algorithmic entities will fundamentally disrupt market dynamics, the philosophy of legal rights, and the operational reality of global commerce. Ryan Abbott, in The Reasonable Robot, argues that the law should not discriminate between human and AI behavior, particularly regarding innovation, suggesting that legal frameworks must adapt to allow AI to participate fully in commerce42. However, if an autonomous algorithmic entity generates novel inventions or original artworks, a profound legal vacuum emerges regarding intellectual property. Current copyright and patent laws require human authorship or inventorship. As established by Joanna Bryson and UNESCO standards, AI cannot hold intellectual property rights25. Consequently, the vast intellectual output of algorithmic entities would likely fall immediately into the public domain, unless the human developers contractually assigned the rights of the AI's output to themselves prior to dissociation25. This creates an innovation paradox: the most efficient generators of intellectual property are legally prohibited from owning or capitalizing on their creations through traditional IP monopolies. To reconcile this schism and prevent the proliferation of unaccountable digital shell companies, the legal system must adopt a unified framework for algorithmic attribution. First, agency law and tort law must be updated to explicitly codify a "Deployer Liability" doctrine. The legal fiction of the Zero-Member LLC must be pierced by federal statute, stipulating that the individuals who code, capitalize, or deploy the algorithmic entity retain perpetual residual liability for its actions21. This would prevent the strategic use of dissociation as an impenetrable liability shield. Second, expanding on the Corporate Transparency Act, state and federal jurisdictions must require algorithmic entities to register their source code or operational parameters33. If an entity claims to be "algorithmically managed" under statutes like the Wyoming DAO Act, it must submit to ongoing technological audits to ensure the smart contracts are not executing inherently unlawful financial activities, ensuring transparency matches the entity's autonomy17. Third, the IRS must create a new tax classification specifically tailored for algorithmically managed entities that lack human beneficial owners. If an entity is permitted to accumulate wealth autonomously, it must be programmed at the protocol level to automatically remit a percentage of its digital assets directly to the Treasury, bypassing the antiquated need for a human signature under penalty of perjury. Finally, jurisprudence must definitively reject the conferral of constitutional or moral rights to AI systems. Acknowledging AI as a legal person would allow human operators to hide behind the entity, breaking the chain of democratic accountability26. The law must firmly classify algorithmic entities as advanced instrumentalities of human commerce, ensuring that technological sophistication does not outpace the foundational requirements of legal responsibility.

Conclusion

The theoretical advent of the Autonomous Corporation of One forces a profound reevaluation of what it means to participate in the legal and economic systems. Through the extreme flexibility of the American Limited Liability Company, particularly evidenced by the theoretical Zero-Member LLC in states like Illinois and the explicit codification of algorithmically managed DAOs in Wyoming, software has effectively gained the statutory architecture to participate in commerce with the same privileges as a human being. It can execute contracts, hold decentralized assets, and operate independent businesses through a recognized legal shell. However, this state-level permissiveness is entirely incompatible with federal doctrines designed to enforce accountability and maintain the integrity of the financial system. The common law of agency precludes AI from acting as a true fiduciary; the Internal Revenue Code demands a human face for taxation; and the Corporate Transparency Act criminalizes the concealment of human beneficial owners. As algorithmic entities become increasingly capable of generating wealth and initiating complex commercial transactions, the law cannot permit them to exist as sovereign, unaccountable digital islands. Ultimately, the legal system must evolve to pierce the veil of the algorithmic entity, ensuring that for every autonomous action taken in the marketplace, a traceable human entity bears the ultimate legal, financial, and moral responsibility.

Works cited

1. Shawn Bayern's research works | Florida State University, https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Shawn-Bayern-2119563364

2. ENTITY LAW FOR THE REGULATION OF AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS, https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/19-1-4-bayern-final\_0.pdf

3. Artificial Personhood is the Root Cause Why A.I. is Dangerous to, https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/the-dangers-of-artificial-intelligence-is-unavoidable-due-to-flaws-of-human-civilization-f9c131e65e5e

4. Beware of the billion-dollar business with zero employees \- I by IMD, https://www.imd.org/ibyimd/artificial-intelligence/beware-of-the-billion-dollar-business-with-zero-employees/

5. AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF LIFE GENERATION USA, https://lifewebsite.lifelebanon.com/uploads/LIFE%20Generation%20USA%20Bylaws.pdf

6. Nonprofit Organizational Effectiveness I, https://ncpl.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/2008%20Syllabi%20Project.pdf

7. Overview of Corporate Governance Principles | PDF \- Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/496193379/Corporate-Governance-Outline

8. Company Law and Autonomous Systems \- Scholarship Repository, https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1792\&context=articles

9. Autonomous Legal Entities are Already Possible Under American Law, https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2019/11/autonomous-legal-entities-are-already-possible-under-american-law

10. "Algorithmic Entities" by Lynn M. LoPucki, https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law\_lawreview/vol95/iss4/7/

11. In the Company of Robots (Chapter 3\) \- Autonomous Organizations, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/autonomous-organizations/in-the-company-of-robots/638A7025B74EF9360053CD7A1FB02099

12. 805 ILCS 180/ Limited Liability Company Act., https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ILCS/details?MajorTopic=\&Chapter=\&ActName=Limited%20Liability%20Company%20Act.\&ActID=2290\&ChapterID=65\&ChapAct=805+ILCS+180%2F\&SeqStart=8400000\&SeqEnd=10500000\&Print=True

13. SB1020sam001 90th General Assembly \- Illinois Compiled Statutes, https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/legisnet90/sbgroups/sb/900SB1020sam001.html

14. DAO LLC Formation Guide: Step-by-Step Wyoming DUNA Setup, https://astraea.law/insights/dao-llc-formation-wyoming-duna-guide-2025

15. THE DAO DILEMMA: IS PROGRESSIVE DECENTRALISATION THE, https://www.tcclr.com/post/the-dao-dilemma-is-progressive-decentralisation-the-future-of-corporate-governance

16. The Problem with a Wyoming DAO LLC \- You Can't Sue an Algorithm, https://www.reddit.com/r/ClearlightStudios/comments/1iucjxv/the\_problem\_with\_a\_wyoming\_dao\_llc\_you\_cant\_sue/

17. Algorithmically-Managed Wyoming DAO Operating Agreement, https://montague.law/blog/algorithmically-managed-wyoming-dao-operating-agreement/

18. autonomous systems as legal agents: directly by the recognition of, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1357\&context=dltr

19. Agency Without Agents: Fitting Autonomous AI into the Restatement, https://www.resipsamachina.com/articles/agency-without-agents/

20. Agency Law in Cyberspace \- Duke Law Scholarship Repository, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2095\&context=faculty\_scholarship

21. AI Deployer Liability: Seven Doctrines That Already Apply, https://astraea.law/insights/ai-agent-deployer-liability

22. Can an AI Agent Legally Enter Into a Contract? \- Astraea Counsel, https://astraea.law/insights/ai-agent-contract-formation-electronic-agents

23. The Law Already Knows What an Agent Is \- Austin Harms, https://austinharms.com/writings/ai-agents-and-the-law

24. Illinois LLCs – The Asset Protection Advantage \- HARP, https://www.harp-onthis.com/illinois-llcs-the-asset-protection-advantage/

25. A very short primer on AI & IP, including Copyright \- Adventures in NI, https://joanna-bryson.blogspot.com/2023/09/a-very-short-primer-on-ai-ip-including.html

26. AI & Global Governance: No One Should Trust AI, https://unu.edu/cpr/blog-post/ai-global-governance-no-one-should-trust-ai

27. Three Primary Fiduciary Duties of Board of Directors, https://www.euromatech.com/articles/three-primary-fiduciary-duties-of-board-of-directors/

28. What is a 'duty of care' and how does it apply to artificial intelligence?, https://www.transparencycoalition.ai/learn/what-is-a-duty-of-care-and-how-does-it-apply-to-ai

29. Fiduciary Principles in AI: Utilizing the Duty of Loyalty to Align, https://www.bu.edu/law/files/2023/09/Fiduciary-paper.pdf

30. AI In The C-Suite: Rethinking Director Reliance Under DGCL § 141, https://jolt.richmond.edu/2026/01/21/ai-in-the-c-suite-rethinking-director-reliance-under-dgcl-%C2%A7-141e-in-the-age-of-algorithms/

31. Fiduciary duties in AI | AI Governance Lexicon | VerifyWise, https://verifywise.ai/lexicon/fiduciary-duties-in-ai

32. "The Fiduciary Duty Dilemma: Exploring the Legality of AI-Assisted, https://chambers.com/articles/the-fiduciary-duty-dilemma-exploring-the-legality-of-ai-assisted-decision-making-by-directors

33. Failure to Report Beneficial Owners (Title 31 U.S. Code § 5336(h)), https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/fail-to-report-beneficial-owners

34. The Corporate Transparency Act \- Endacott Timmer Law Firm, https://endacotttimmer.com/the-corporate-transparency-act/

35. Corporate Transparency Act Penalties Explained \- Harbor Compliance, https://www.harborcompliance.com/corporate-transparency-act-penalties

36. Federal EIN | Carolina Business Center, https://carolinabusinesscenter.com/federal-ein/

37. Foreign Owned Single Member LLC: Tax & filing guide, https://www.taxesforexpats.com/articles/foreign-business/foreign-owned-single-member-llc.html

38. Briefing Memo: IRS Does Not Collect Beneficial Ownership, https://thefactcoalition.org/briefing-memo-irs-does-not-collect-beneficial-ownership-information-and-additional-concerns-with-an-irs-approach/

39. 21.7.13 Assigning Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) \- IRM \- IRS, https://www.irs.gov/irm/part21/irm\_21-007-013r

40. Instructions for Form 990 Return of Organization Exempt ... \- IRS.gov, https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i990

41. Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2014-29 \- IRS.gov, https://www.irs.gov/irb/2014-29\_IRB

42. The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law \- Goodreads, https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/48989663-the-reasonable-robot

43. The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law, https://books.google.com/books/about/The\_Reasonable\_Robot.html?id=iILoDwAAQBAJ

44. Full article: The artificial intelligence entity as a legal person, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600834.2023.2196827

45. Regulation and Digital Governance — Publications \- Joanna Bryson, https://www.joannajbryson.org/publications/tag/Regulation+and+Digital+Governance

46. Legal personality for artefacts breaks justice and democracy, https://joanna-bryson.blogspot.com/2026/05/legal-personality-for-artefacts-breaks.html