As efforts to scale up the carbon dioxide removals (CDR) sector continue to expand, the question of liability for failed storage, also known as ‘reversals’, comes to the fore. There are a range of possibilities and views as to who should be liable if reversals do occur. As well as a need to better understand both the permanence issues and risks associated with given CDR methods, we seek to deepen understandings of and the means to address the risk of storage failure through legal approaches and structures. We review the comparable carbon market scenario that preceded entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, the current voluntary carbon market, and what implications scaling up the CDR sector may have. We canvass a range of legal approaches and structures, and argue that liability for on-going storage integrity should remain with the party that carries out the CDR project, proposing also an institutional structure building on the same.