The dust is beginning to settle from the raft of AI-related bills Governor Newsom signed last month in California. (See for example, our post about neural data.) Most of the provisions will not go into effect for another few months. Before they do, it is worth examining the impact they will have on companies’ privacy
The New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) recently published guidance on managing cyber risks related to AI for the financial services and insurance industry. Though the circular letter does not introduce any per se “new” obligations, the guidance speaks to the Agency’s expectations for addressing AI within its existing cybersecurity regulations.
The FTC’s staff report summarizes how it views the operations of social media and video streaming companies. Of particular interest is the insight it gives into potential enforcement focus in the coming months, and into 2025. Of particular concern for the FTC in the report, issued last month, were the following:
Illinois recently updated its employment law, the Illinois Human Rights Act to prohibit discriminatory uses of AI. Artificial intelligence as defined by the amendment will cover generative artificial intelligence, not just traditional AI. The amendments are set to take effect on January 1, 2026.
The Children’s Advertising Review Unit recently settled with KidGeni – a generative art platform intended for children- for allegedly violating both CARU’s guidelines and COPPA. According to CARU, which is a self-regulatory organization that audits the privacy practices of companies in the child space, KidGeni collected personal information without first getting parental consent. CARU began its
As we enter the end of the summer, the AI regulatory steam is not slowing down. Colorado is now the first US state to have a comprehensive AI law (going into effect February 1, 2026), and the EU published its sweeping AI law in July (with rolling applicability between February 2025 and August 2026).
Tennessee recently amended its 1984 right of publicity statute with passage of the ELVIS Act. The existing law already protected individuals’ rights in their image and likeness. As amended, the statute will specifically call out voice as another protected element. It will become the first right of publicity statute to address copying someone’s likeness or
The Utah legislature has been busy, with another law effective May 1. This one is “privacy adjacent” but worth keeping in mind. The law, the Artificial Intelligence Policy Act, was signed into law in March. Among other things, it will require companies to respond “clearly and conspicuously” to an individual who asks if they are
Earlier this month, accompanying an update to a rule prohibiting the impersonation of businesses and governments, the FTC sought comments on extending the rule to prohibit impersonation of individuals. The agency indicated that it is considering expanding the rule as the result of rising complaints around “impersonation fraud,” especially those generated by AI. Comments are
The FCC reminded companies this month that calls containing “artificial or prerecorded voices” are regulated by TCPA. And, that the FCC considers AI-generated voices to be just the kind of “artificial” that fall within the TCPA’s regulations. This announcement was made in a declaratory ruling issued by the FCC at the start of the month.