More and more, I hear some version of the same question from business owners: “We made something valuable with the help of AI. Can we protect it?”
Sometimes the “something” is obvious, like marketing copy, a logo, a photo, a product description, a training guide, or software code. Sometimes it is less obvious but more
Yesterday I shared why legal practitioner-generated secondary law—blogs, alerts, newsletters and email newsletters—is essential to legal AI.
When AI looks at primary law, only, the result is generic or wrong because AI is guessing at how to interpret primary law. There’s no insight from legal practioners and other legal professionals to help guide AI.
The
The European Commission announced today (16 December) its plans to simplify the existing EU regulatory framework for medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices (“IVDs”). Many industry stakeholders have criticized the current EU device rules as being slow, costly, unpredictable, and unnecessarily complex. Under the proposed revisions, the Commission aims to make the rules
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (“AI”) has spurred remarkable innovation for the healthcare industry, while also resulting in swiftly emerging regulatory frameworks. On October 13, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law California Senate Bill 243 (“SB 243”) – the first law in the nation to address the “human interface” of AI chatbots, especially those used by minors, by establishing strict requirements around transparency, safety, and behavioral integrity. Healthcare providers, technology companies, and digital platform operators must now anticipate and prepare for a regulatory landscape that establishes meaningful obligations around AI’s emotional and psychological impact on users. SB 243 will take effect on January 1, 2026.
On December 11, President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) that establishes a national artificial intelligence (AI) regulatory framework and attempts to preempt enforcement of state AI laws. Titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” the EO states that “[i]t is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI.” This latest effort follows bipartisan opposition in Congress and among state attorneys general (AGs) to previous legislative attempts this year to supersede state AI laws. While the order seeks to minimize a burdensome AI regulatory patchwork, compliance will remain complex given various state enforcement tools.
To keep you informed of recent activities, below are several of the most significant federal and state events that have influenced the Consumer Financial Services industry over the past week.
Federal Activities:
On December 12, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announced that it has conditionally approved five
It’s scary out there. Ethan Mollick is on the mark:
Where we are with AI is that continuous improvement seems to still be occurring at a fast pace, with no signs of a slowdown. However, since major AI releases have accelerated and seem to be happening monthly or faster, any one release can feel incremental,
Takeaways
As 2025 draws to a close, employers should be aware of new Illinois employment laws going into effect in January 2026.
Below is a summary of the upcoming changes to Illinois law:
The so-called “battle of seats” in international arbitration isn’t new, spanning over half a century. Various global capitals have developed favorable legal ecosystems—either through enacting legislation ensuring legal certainty or issuing court decisions viewed as favorable towards arbitration. This competition has helped to position arbitration as the preferred mechanism for resolving cross-border disputes.[1] The “rivalry” between London and Paris as arbitration seats is particularly noteworthy and has been put in display in cases where their courts have taken opposing approaches on the same issues. The fact that two of the world’s leading arbitration institutions –the LCIA and the ICC– are headquartered in London and Paris respectively further fuel this sustained competition.
Recent statistics and surveys confirm this phenomenon: Paris and London have long led the race for the top two global spots as the most frequently chosen arbitral seats[2] according to the ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics, with London claiming first place in certain years and Paris claiming the same in other years.[3] Similar results were reported in the 2024 International Arbitration Survey, which showed that London and Paris remain the preferred seats worldwide across virtually all regions.[4]
Streamline your ediscovery process with expert search techniques. Learn how to construct effective queries, manage document families, and leverage AI tools for faster, more accurate results.