Latest news with #AIregulation
Reuters
5 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
California court system adopts rule on AI use
July 18 (Reuters) - California on Friday became the largest U.S. state court system to embrace policies governing the use of generative artificial intelligence by judges and court employees. California courts that do not ban generative AI outright must develop AI-related regulations by September 1 under a rule adopted by the California Judicial Council, the policy-making body for the state's court system. The rule, opens new tab was developed by an artificial intelligence task force established by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero in 2024. Courts that allow generative AI in court-related work may adopt a model AI policy already released by the task force in February or modify it to address their specific goals by September. The rule 'strikes the best balance between uniformity and flexibility,' task force chair and state appellate judge Brad Hill told the council on Friday. Each court's AI policy must address the 'confidentiality, privacy, bias, safety, and security risks posed by generative AI systems," according to the task force's report on the proposal. The policies must also address the 'supervision, accountability, transparency, and compliance when using those systems.' The court policies must prohibit entering confidential information into public generative AI systems, prohibit unlawful discrimination through AI programs, and require court staff and judicial officers to 'take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the material.' Staff and judicial officers would also have to disclose their use of AI if the final version of any written, visual, or audio work provided to the public was generated entirely by AI. Hill said the task force did not want a rule that specified how courts can and cannot use generative AI because the technology is evolving quickly. California has the nation's largest state court system with five million cases, 65 courts, and approximately 1,800 judges. A number of other state have already adopted generative AI rules or policies, including Illinois, Delaware, and Arizona. New York, Georgia, and Connecticut are among the states currently assessing the use of generative AI within their courts. Read more: Illinois top court say judges and lawyers can use AI, with limits California court system to decide on AI rule
Bloomberg
5 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
Meta Says It Won't Sign EU's AI Code, Calling It Overreach
Meta Platforms Inc. said it won't sign the code of practice for Europe's new set of laws governing artificial intelligence, calling the guidelines to help companies follow the AI Act overreach. 'Europe is heading down the wrong path on AI,' Meta's head of global affairs Joel Kaplan said in a post on LinkedIn. 'This code introduces a number of legal uncertainties for model developers, as well as measures which go far beyond the scope of the AI Act.'
Bloomberg
09-07-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
California Lawmaker Pushes to Require AI Companies to Release Safety Policies
A California lawmaker is making another effort to regulate artificial intelligence in the state after legislation that would have held large companies liable for harm caused by their technology was vetoed last year by Governor Gavin Newsom. State Senator Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, has introduced a bill that would require companies developing AI models above a certain computing performance threshold to publicly release safety and security protocols that assess the potential catastrophic risks to humanity from the technology. Under the law, AI companies also would need to report any 'critical safety incidents,' such as theft of sensitive technical details, to the state attorney general. Companies that may be affected by the proposed legislation include OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.'s Google and Anthropic.
CNET
05-07-2025
- Business
- CNET
Congress Won't Block State AI Regulations. Here's What That Means for Consumers
After months of debate, a plan in Congress to block states from regulating artificial intelligence was pulled from the big federal budget bill this week. The proposed 10-year moratorium would have prevented states from enforcing rules and laws on AI if the state accepted federal funding for broadband access. The issue exposed divides among technology experts and politicians, with some Senate Republicans joining Democrats in opposing the move. The Senate eventually voted 99-1 to remove the proposal from the bill, which also includes the extension of the 2017 federal tax cuts and cuts to services like Medicaid and SNAP. Congressional Republican leaders have said they want to have the measure on President Donald Trump's desk by July 4. Tech companies and many Congressional Republicans supported the moratorium, saying it would prevent a "patchwork" of rules and regulations across states and local governments that could hinder the development of AI -- especially in the context of competition with China. Critics, including consumer advocates, said states should have a free hand to protect people from potential issues with the fast-growing technology. "The Senate came together tonight to say that we can't just run over good state consumer protection laws," Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, said in a statement. "States can fight robocalls, deepfakes and provide safe autonomous vehicle laws. This also allows us to work together nationally to provide a new federal framework on artificial intelligence that accelerates US leadership in AI while still protecting consumers." Despite the moratorium being pulled from this bill, the debate over how the government can appropriately balance consumer protection and supporting technology innovation will likely continue. "There have been a lot of discussions at the state level, and I would think that it's important for us to approach this problem at multiple levels," said Anjana Susarla, a professor at Michigan State University who studies AI. "We could approach it at the national level. We can approach it at the state level, too. I think we need both." Several states have already started regulating AI The proposed moratorium would have barred states from enforcing any regulation, including those already on the books. The exceptions are rules and laws that make things easier for AI development and those that apply the same standards to non-AI models and systems that do similar things. These kinds of regulations are already starting to pop up. The biggest focus is not in the US, but in Europe, where the European Union has already implemented standards for AI. But states are starting to get in on the action. Colorado passed a set of consumer protections last year, set to go into effect in 2026. California adopted more than a dozen AI-related laws last year. Other states have laws and regulations that often deal with specific issues such as deepfakes or require AI developers to publish information about their training data. At the local level, some regulations also address potential employment discrimination if AI systems are used in hiring. "States are all over the map when it comes to what they want to regulate in AI," said Arsen Kourinian, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown. So far in 2025, state lawmakers have introduced at least 550 proposals around AI, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In the House committee hearing last month, Rep. Jay Obernolte, a Republican from California, signaled a desire to get ahead of more state-level regulation. "We have a limited amount of legislative runway to be able to get that problem solved before the states get too far ahead," he said. Read more: AI Essentials: 29 Ways to Make Gen AI Work for You, According to Our Experts While some states have laws on the books, not all of them have gone into effect or seen any enforcement. That limits the potential short-term impact of a moratorium, said Cobun Zweifel-Keegan, managing director in Washington for IAPP. "There isn't really any enforcement yet." A moratorium would likely deter state legislators and policymakers from developing and proposing new regulations, Zweifel-Keegan said. "The federal government would become the primary and potentially sole regulator around AI systems," he said. What a moratorium on state AI regulation would mean AI developers have asked for any guardrails placed on their work to be consistent and streamlined. "We need, as an industry and as a country, one clear federal standard, whatever it may be," Alexandr Wang, founder and CEO of the data company Scale AI, told lawmakers during an April hearing. "But we need one, we need clarity as to one federal standard and have preemption to prevent this outcome where you have 50 different standards." During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in May, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, that an EU-style regulatory system "would be disastrous" for the industry. Altman suggested instead that the industry develop its own standards. Asked by Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, if industry self-regulation is enough at the moment, Altman said he thought some guardrails would be good, but, "It's easy for it to go too far. As I have learned more about how the world works, I am more afraid that it could go too far and have really bad consequences." (Disclosure: Ziff Davis, parent company of CNET, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.) Not all AI companies are backing a moratorium, however. In a New York Times op-ed, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called it "far too blunt an instrument," saying the federal government should create transparency standards for AI companies instead. "Having this national transparency standard would help not only the public but also Congress understand how the technology is developing, so that lawmakers can decide whether further government action is needed." A proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI laws is now in the hands of the US Senate, where its Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has already held hearings on artificial intelligence. Nathan Howard/Bloomberg via Getty Images Concerns from companies, both the developers that create AI systems and the "deployers" who use them in interactions with consumers, often stem from fears that states will mandate significant work such as impact assessments or transparency notices before a product is released, Kourinian said. Consumer advocates have said more regulations are needed and hampering the ability of states could hurt the privacy and safety of users. A moratorium on specific state rules and laws could result in more consumer protection issues being dealt with in court or by state attorneys general, Kourinian said. Existing laws around unfair and deceptive practices that are not specific to AI would still apply. "Time will tell how judges will interpret those issues," he said. Susarla said the pervasiveness of AI across industries means states might be able to regulate issues such as privacy and transparency more broadly, without focusing on the technology. But a moratorium on AI regulation could lead to such policies being tied up in lawsuits. "It has to be some kind of balance between 'we don't want to stop innovation,' but on the other hand, we also need to recognize that there can be real consequences," she said. Much policy around the governance of AI systems does happen because of those so-called technology-agnostic rules and laws, Zweifel-Keegan said. "It's worth also remembering that there are a lot of existing laws and there is a potential to make new laws that don't trigger the moratorium but do apply to AI systems as long as they apply to other systems," he said. What's next for federal AI regulation? One of the key lawmakers pushing for the removal of the moratorium from the bill was Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican. Blackburn said she wanted to make sure states were able to protect children and creators, like the country musicians her state is famous for. "Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can't block states from standing in the gap to protect vulnerable Americans from harm -- including Tennessee creators and precious children," she said in a statement. Groups that opposed the preemption of state laws said they hope the next move for Congress is to take steps toward actual regulation of AI, which could make state laws unnecessary. If tech companies "are going to seek federal preemption, they should seek federal preemption along with a federal law that provides rules of the road," Jason Van Beek, chief government affairs officer at the Future of Life Institute, told me. Ben Winters, director of AI and data privacy at the Consumer Federation of America, said Congress could take up the idea of pre-empting state laws again in separate legislation. "Fundamentally, it's just a bad idea," he told me. "It doesn't really necessarily matter if it's done in the budget process."
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NCTO Urges House Leaders to Preserve Provision Ending De Minimis in Updated Megabill
Senate Republicans advanced the One Big Beautiful Bill act Tuesday afternoon, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote in favor of the bill. The megabill will now return to the House of Representatives for a vote. Senate members made some changes to the bill—including striking the controversial 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation—which means it now requires a new vote from House leaders. More from Sourcing Journal Trump Announces 'Great Deal of Cooperation' With Vietnam, Lowering Tariff Rate China Warns Nations Not to Sign Trade Deals With US at Its Expense Asia-to-North America Air Cargo Demand Plunges 10.7% After De Minimis Suspension The National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO) lauded Senate leaders Tuesday for choosing to keep a provision focused on ending de minimis in the bill. The section in question would see the U.S. permanently collapsing the de minimis provision by the middle of 2027. Kim Glas, president and CEO of the NCTO, called on House politicians to keep up the Senate's momentum, noting that doing so 'would help rebalance the playing field for the domestic textile industry.' 'We are urging congressional leaders to ensure inclusion of this critical provision in the final version of the reconciliation bill this week, which would bring us one step closer to marking a significant milestone for the U.S. textile industry and a broad coalition of organizations dedicated to advocating for ending this destructive loophole,' she said in a statement. De minimis has long been used to ship low-value goods into the U.S. without duties, enabling easy access to the U.S. consumer for newer e-commerce players like Shein and Temu. Over time—and, in particular because of the rise of China-founded e-tailers' influence over U.S. consumers' shopping habits in recent years—de minimis has amassed a group of critics that include politicians hailing from both sides of the aisle. Some critics have argued that maintaining de minimis has allowed products made with forced labor to enter the U.S., while others have maintained that it creates an easier pathway for fentanyl to come into the country. Other proponents of de minimis reform, like the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) have previously contended that the provision creates an unfair playing field for U.S. companies and manufacturers. Scott Paul, president of AAM, said in 2024 upon the group's decision to join the Coalition to Close the De Minimis Loophole that legislative reform on de minimis would benefit domestic manufacturers. He kept that sentiment up Tuesday, noting that reform on the provision is overdue. 'The de minimis loophole has long been exploited by trade cheats worldwide to circumvent tariffs and import counterfeit and dangerous goods into the United States. Bafflingly, it is our own law that has granted bad actors like Shein and Temu this outrageous advantage over American manufacturers and workers,' Paul said in a statement. 'However, this action, coupled with the White House's de minimis reform efforts, is a critical step toward a permanent policy. America must end de minimis treatment for imports from all countries now.' The New York Times estimated based on an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office that repealing de minimis could yield $39 billion in savings for the U.S. over the course of 10 years. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump collapsed what many have called a trade 'loophole' for goods entering the U.S. from China, forcing importers to pay applicable taxes on the shipments. That action came as part of Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariff scourge, and while de minimis remains in place for goods inbound from countries other than China, the administration has made its intentions clear: it plans to scrap de minimis for goods inbound from any country once U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has the means to handle the influx of imports such a move would cause. Republicans have stated they want the 'big, beautiful bill' passed and on Trump's desk for final signature by the time Independence Day comes this week. Glas said the NCTO would also like to see House lawmakers adopt the bill expeditiously, with the de minimis-ending provision intact. 'We are…grateful that the Trump administration has already used executive authorities to end de minimis access for Chinese goods—which represent approximately two-thirds of all de minimis shipments—while also laying the groundwork to close de minimis to commercial shipments from all countries,' Glas said. 'We request that the administration utilize its executive authorities to immediately close this damaging loophole for commercial shipments from all countries in the interim until this legislation ultimately takes effect.'
