On June 4, 2025, Reddit, Inc. (“Reddit”) filed suit against Anthropic, PBC (“Anthropic”) in the Superior Court of California, alleging that Anthropic scraped and commercially exploited Reddit user data—including deleted posts—without consent or compensation.[1] Unlike recent enforcement efforts that have centered on establishing copyright infringement liability, Reddit’s complaint brings five causes of action—breach of
As we previously reported here, here, and here, employers must navigate a rapidly evolving legal landscape as artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform the modern workplace. From federal rollbacks to aggressive state-level regulation, the use of AI in employment decisions—particularly in hiring, performance management, and surveillance—has become a focal point for lawmakers,
In an interesting and somewhat unexpected turnabout over the last six months, FDA has pivoted its focus from regulating industry’s use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) to how the agency itself utilizes AI. This internal shift marks a departure from FDA’s development of AI guidance over the last few years.
On June 6, 2025, the Trump Administration released a new Executive Order (“EO”) on cybersecurity, Sustaining Select Efforts to Strengthen the Nation’s Cybersecurity and Amending Executive Order 13694 and Executive Order 14144.[1] The Executive Order itself will not impose new obligations on agencies; instead, it strikes, amends, and updates certain provisions in prior Executive
Congress is weighing a sweeping proposal that could significantly reshape how artificial intelligence (AI) is regulated across the United States. At the end of May, the United States House of Representatives passed, by a vote of 215-214, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation bill with a provision imposing a 10-year moratorium
The California Privacy Protection Agency recently released revised draft regulations that significantly scale back its proposed rules for Automated Decisionmaking Technology (ADMT). The updates narrow the reach of the ADMT rules, excluding technologies that merely assist (rather than replace) human decision-making. The new rules also ease risk assessment requirements for using personal data to train ADMT. You
California appears to be changing its approach to how it regulates artificial intelligence, likely reflecting its reaction to challenges seen recently in other states. Namely, the California Privacy Protection Agency recently released an update to its draft regulations which change how the Agency plans to regulate Automated Decisionmaking Technology, or ADMT. This comes after the
In a recent decision with important implications for artificial intelligence (AI) driven innovation, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied a patent for an AI-based medical tool.[1] The refusal was not because the invention was not new or inventive. Rather, the refusal was because the invention did not meet a fundamental rule of
M&A in the AI sector is redefining deal risk, especially when sensitive data is involved. As AI companies power breakthroughs in biotech, healthcare, defense, and critical infrastructure, the stakes for companies acquiring businesses handling proprietary data, biotech research, medical records, trade secrets, critical technology or government intelligence have never been higher. In an era where
For many reasons, existing open source licenses are not a good fit for AI. Simply put, AI involves more than just software and most open source licenses are designed primarily for software. Much work has been done by many groups to assess the open source license requirements for AI. For example, the OSI has published