FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Translators and interpreters
When you post-edit machine translation, you usually take on responsibility for the accuracy of the final text, including errors the engine made and you missed. Post-editing is now a large share of agency work, so it is where many AI-related disputes start.
Part of: AI in Translators and interpreters
In short
Machine translation post-editing (MTPE) means a translator revises output from an MT engine or a large language model rather than translating from scratch. Agencies may pay lower rates for it and may expect "light" editing. The legal duty is still reasonable care and skill for the service agreed, so the scope of the job matters. If the brief is unclear, a client may say a full-quality translation was expected. Errors the post-editor missed are usually treated as the post-editor's errors. Translators' PI usually responds to negligent post-editing, subject to the wording and to the business description given to the insurer.
Post-editing usually comes in one of three ways. An agency sends a file pre-translated by its MT engine and asks for a revision at a reduced word rate. A direct client runs its own text through a public tool and asks a translator to "tidy it up". Or the translator uses MT or a generative AI chatbot as part of their own workflow and edits the result. In each case the translator's name, invoice or certification is attached to the final text.
CIOL's AI Voices white paper warns that organisations may cut corners when AI output seems "good enough". Post-editing is where that pressure shows: lower rates, tighter deadlines and an assumption that the machine has done most of the work.
For business clients, section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 implies a term that the service will be carried out with reasonable care and skill. Consumers get the same protection under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The duty attaches to the service agreed, so a contract for a light post-edit is judged differently from a contract for a publishable translation. That makes the written brief important.
ITI's Phase 1 AI report says core skills matter more than ever: understanding the brief, research and critical evaluation. It also notes that clients find quality hard to judge and suggests a risk-based approach to choosing workflows. There is no binding ITI rule specific to post-editing.
Illustrative scenario: an agency asks a freelancer for a light post-edit of a supplier agreement at a reduced rate. The engine translated "shall not be liable" as a positive obligation in one clause, and the freelancer, working quickly to the light brief, did not catch it. The agency's client relies on the text in a dispute and suffers a loss. The client claims against the agency, which looks to the freelancer.
Other common problems include:
Usually the person who delivered the final text to the client owes the duty. An agency is usually liable to its own client and may then seek to recover from the freelancer under their contract. The engine provider is rarely a realistic target. A clear brief, stating the level of edit, the purpose of the text and any parts excluded from review, can narrow what you are held responsible for. The same logic applies to certified translations, where the declaration makes your responsibility explicit.
Translators' PI usually covers claims alleging a negligent error in professional services, and post-editing is a professional service. Whether a particular claim is covered depends on the wording, any exclusions, the business description on the proposal and whether you have agreed contract terms beyond what the law would impose, such as an unlimited indemnity to an agency. A pure fee dispute, where the client simply refuses to pay, is usually not a PI claim. Our page on professional indemnity for translators and interpreters covers the basics, and Does translators' PI cover AI mistakes? goes into wording questions.
A short checklist keeps post-editing jobs defensible:
Apex arranges PI for translators and translation agencies. A broker checks that your policy describes post-editing and AI-assisted work, and that agency contract terms do not leave you exposed beyond your cover.
Return to the AI in translation and interpreting hub.
The duty is reasonable care and skill for the service agreed, so a genuine light post-edit, clearly briefed and priced, is not judged as a full translation. If the brief is vague or oral, a client may argue it expected publishable quality. Put the level of edit in writing.
Usually not. The client relied on you to review the output, and the engine provider is rarely a party to your contract. CIOL's position is that AI is not accountable for its output, so responsibility rests with the person who delivered the final text.
Usually not. PI usually responds to claims alleging negligence that caused a loss. A disagreement over whether a job was light or full post-editing, or over what you should be paid, is a commercial dispute. It may become a PI matter if the client alleges a negligent error caused it a loss.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
