Although there are consumer protection laws that puts the onus on the company -- in America, where it is caveat venditor -- there is also the question of how much decision-making power we want to give to automation in general, and who is ultimately responsible.
Some things, like the decision to trigger a weapon in an act of war may be something societies want to have humans, and only humans make the ultimate call. That is, there is a desire for a human-in-the-loop.
On the other end of the spectrum are decisions we want to take out of the human hands because we think automation is more reliable and better for our society.
And then there are the unintended consequences. Looking back the past 10 years, it's arguable that the 'share' and 'retweet' features of social media that gives the power of virality to ordinary people have had a profound effect on our society and culture, both for good and for bad (and for many cases where we can't even agree on what's good or bad).
I argue that, while some of this is not novel to the law, I don't necessarily think that those precedents cover all of the changes tech has wrought to how we live and govern ourselves.