Compliance

Owner

Person or entity that controls, deploys, or operates an AI system.

How the laws define this

Both instruments agree that an owner is a recognized legal entity, individual, or state body holding authority, control, or functional rights over a governed subject. They both frame ownership around the power to use, operate, or direct how that subject functions or is processed. However, they diverge fundamentally in the specific subject matter governed and the liabilities attached to that status. Under the AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act, ownership applies to AI systems through actions like creating, controlling, deploying, or operating them, explicitly designating owners or users as responsible for direct or indirect harms caused by the system's operation, outputs, or recommendations. In contrast, O'zbekiston Respublikasining Qonuni "Shaxsga doir ma'lumotlar to'g'risida" restricts the term to personal data databases, defining ownership through the legal rights to own, use, and dispose of the database while determining the purpose of processing, without detailing liability for resulting harms.

Synthesised from the 2 statutory definitions below. Each one is quoted in full, with its source.

How jurisdictions differ

What is distinctive in each definition, binding law in force first.

Jurisdiction	Instrument	Status	What is distinctive
Uzbekistan	Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On Personal Data"	In Force (Amended)	Limits owners to those with rights over a personal data database, focusing on determining processing purposes, unlike the broader AI system control in the other.
Missouri, United States	AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act	Withdrawn	Explicitly designates owners as responsible for direct or indirect harms from the AI's operation, outputs, or recommendations, widening beyond mere control.

What it triggers

In Missouri, United States, under the AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act, owners are designated as responsible for direct or indirect harms resulting from the AI's operation, outputs, or recommendations.source
Under Uzbekistan's Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan 'On Personal Data', owners determine the purpose of processing personal data.

Definitions (2)

Any natural person, corporation, or other legally recognized entity that creates, controls, deploys, operates, or otherwise exercises authority over an AI system. Owners or users are designated as responsible for direct or indirect harms resulting from the AI's operation, outputs, or recommendations.

AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility ActDefinition 1 of 2

A state body, individual, or legal entity that has the right to own, use, and dispose of a personal data database and determines the purpose of processing.

O'zbekiston Respublikasining Qonuni "Shaxsga doir ma'lumotlar to'g'risida"Definition 2 of 2

Not to be confused with

operator/owner

Operator/owner emphasizes responsibility for an AI model's decisions and outcomes, while this term covers broader control or data processing authority.

Model owner

Model owner specifically concerns rights and deployment of an AI model, narrower than the general AI system authority or data database control here.

AI owner

AI owner is the executive sponsor accountable for AI governance, differing from the legal responsibility or data rights focus of this term.

Questions and answers

What responsibilities do AI owners have for harms in Missouri?

Under the Missouri AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act, owners are designated as responsible for direct or indirect harms from the AI's operation, outputs, or recommendations. This applies to any natural person, corporation, or other entity exercising authority over an AI system.

Who qualifies as an owner under Uzbekistan's personal data law?

A state body, individual, or legal entity that owns, uses, disposes of a personal data database and determines processing purposes qualifies as an owner.

How does the Missouri bill treat AI responsibility?

The AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act places full responsibility for AI harms on human owners and developers, barring AI systems from legal personhood.