This would also legitimize fraud, and other unfair business tactics which are currently illegal under the law but are not being enforced under the reasoning tha

This would also legitimize fraud, and other unfair business tactics which are currently illegal under the law but are not being enforced under the reasoning that if an algorithm does it its not what it is. So people can design algorithms to do it and claim it wasn't intentional (when it was), how can you prove a negative?. IMO, Anyone who approved the algorithm for such use constitutes approval of the practice, even when it wasn't known, they should have had constructive knowledge to know about it as part of their duty of care. Things like bait and switch will be called something else like 'dynamic pricing'. Oh wait that's already being done ... (see amazon). Then there's the societal mechanics, what 'good' happens from stalling the economic engine (i.e. eliminating the bottom 2/3 of the factor markets)? Also don't forget, violation of constitutional rights, under false positives, and the crazy maker algorithms that drive insanity (social credit like). The requirements to use AI are negligible compared to an atom bomb. Comparing it thus is a poor comparison because its so much worse.