alt Hacker NewsBanks will try to get out of it, but in the US, Regulation E could probably be used to get the money back, at least for someone aware of it.
And OpenClaw could probably help :)
Banks will try to get out of it, but in the US, Regulation E could probably be used to get the money back, at least for someone aware of it.
And OpenClaw could probably help :)
I'm not a lawyer, but if I'm reading the actual regulation [0] correctly, it would only apply in the case of prompt injection or other malicious activity. 1005.2.m defines "Unauthorized electronic fund transfer" as follows:
> an electronic fund transfer from a consumer's account initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority to initiate the transfer and from which the consumer receives no benefit
OpenClaw is not legally a person, it's a program. A program which is being operated by the consumer or a person authorized by said consumer to act on their behalf. Further, any access to funds it has would have to be granted by the consumer (or a human agent thereof). Therefore, baring something like a prompt injection attack, it doesn't seem that transfers initiated by OpenClaw would be considered unauthorized.
[0]: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/100...