Marc Andreessen and Chris Dixon of a16z warn that holding developers liable for downstream misuse of their code could make open-source software development legally unworkable, despite the provision not appearing in the current CLARITY Act.
A proposed developer-liability provision discussed during negotiations over the CLARITY Act could make open-source software development legally unworkable, according to Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) leaders Marc Andreessen and Chris Dixon.
Andreessen, General Partner at a16z, described the proposal as a “kill shot to the industry,” arguing that holding developers legally responsible for downstream misuse of their software would make it impossible to build open source projects. He compared the idea to holding a hotel owner responsible for a guest’s crime or an automobile manufacturer liable when a getaway car is used in a robbery.
Dixon, Co-founder of a16z, said unlimited downstream liability would be untenable for open-source developers, many of whom contribute without pay and cannot absorb legal risks. He warned that such a precedent would ripple through academic research, venture investment and eventually large technology companies.
The proposal stems from arguments by Carole House, former White House cybersecurity official, who suggested software developers should bear greater legal responsibility for how their code is used, potentially extending the principle beyond crypto to artificial intelligence.
However, the current CLARITY Act does not include the proposed liability language. Instead, a Senate Banking Committee fact sheet says the bill protects developers who do not hold customer funds from being treated as money transmitters or facing certain securities-law liabilities for compiling network transactions or providing computational work on distributed ledgers.
Andreessen and Dixon also defended the bill’s broader framework, saying it balances innovation with regulation while strengthening ethics rules for public officials’ crypto activities.
