Hawaii’s State Data Office recently issued a series of guidance documents for its state agencies on how to handle artificial intelligence. This includes guidance on data protection, data retention and use of Generative AI.
For data protection, the agencies are requires to abide by principles of:
Employee security awareness training is a best practice and a “reasonable safeguard” for protecting the privacy and security of an organization’s sensitive data. The list of data privacy and cybersecurity laws mandating employee data protection training continues to grow and now includes the EU AI Act. The following list is a high-level sample of employee
Let’s be honest. How many people read the fine print in a privacy notice?
*Cue the crickets.*
From personal experience and surveys, we know people don’t read privacy notices or terms and conditions.
Which is a paradox, right? People are more concerned about their data privacy than ever, yet we still don’t review company documents
Keypoint: Last week saw a flurry of activity across numerous states, including bills advancing in Virginia, Oklahoma, Washington, Utah, and South Carolina, while lawmakers continued to introduce bills across the country.
Below is the sixth weekly update on the status of proposed state privacy legislation in 2025. As always, the contents provided below are time-sensitive
Recently, a federal court issued the first ruling on the closely watched issue of fair use in copyright infringement involving AI. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on its direct infringement claim, and ruled that the defendant’s use of plaintiff’s material to train its AI model was not a fair use.
The Upshot
The EU’s AI Act imposes extensive obligations on the development and use of AI. Most of the obligations in the AI Act look to regulate the impact of the specific use cases on health, safety, or fundamental rights. These sets of obligations apply to ‘AI systems’. A tool will fall out of scope of much
@media screen and (max-width: 1023px){section[data-id=”block_01a1423ccfdf18e59a6706ae2c84b6e5″]{ }}@media screen and (min-width: 1024px) and (max-width: 1365px){section[data-id=”block_01a1423ccfdf18e59a6706ae2c84b6e5″]{ }}@media screen and (min-width: 1366px){section[data-id=”block_01a1423ccfdf18e59a6706ae2c84b6e5″]{ }}
Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Melissa Holyoak spoke last week at a conference in Miami about “a new season at the FTC.”
What can we learn from Holyoak’s comments about the FTC’s plans for AI regulation and free speech?
TL;DR: AI should be facilitated, but not if it restricts competition or engages in fraud. Also, collusion
On February 4, 2025, the European Commission (EC) issued draft guidelines clarifying the AI practices that are prohibited under the European Union’s (EU) Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act. While non-binding, the guidelines offer valuable clarifications and practical examples to help businesses navigate their obligations under the AI Act. The EC has approved the draft guidelines, but
Since the Trump 2.0 administration commenced, the U.S. federal government has experienced some major policy shifts. Several Biden-Harris administration era regulations are now eliminated or on a 60-day hold while under review. States and other organizations have filed lawsuits to stay implementation of certain Trump 2.0 initiatives (i.e., the funding freezes, deferred resignation offer