As the federal government continues to wrestle with the complex issue of regulating Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the wake of the release of President Biden’s Executive Order, states have already proposed or enacted AI regulation, and even more will attempt to tackle the issue in 2024. Two recent developments in AI regulation from California and New Hampshire highlight different approaches states are taking in the absence of federal preemption. In the meantime, the European Union is also proceeding with efforts to flesh out a regulatory framework for AI. Inconsistencies and operational challenges are already apparent in reviewing these frameworks. What does this mean for businesses and consumers? 

  • CPPA Releases Draft Automated Decisionmaking Technology Regulations
    • The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) has released draft Automated Decisionmaking Technology (ADMT) regulations. The CPPA Board discussed the proposal at its December 8 meeting, but formal rulemaking is not expected to begin until next year.

      As provided for in the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the draft ADMT regulations implement a consumer’s right to information about a business’s use of ADMT as well as the right to opt-out of a business’s use of the technology to process consumer data. The CPPA proposes to define ADMT as “any system, software, or process—including one derived from machine-learning, statistics, or other data-processing or artificial intelligence—that processes personal information and uses computation as whole or part of a system to make or execute a decision or facilitate human decisionmaking.” The CPPA also makes clear that the definition includes profiling. To read more about the expectations of the draft CCPA regulations, click here.
  • New Hampshire’s AI Code of Ethics
    • Earlier this year, New Hampshire released a Code of Ethics for the Use and Development of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) and Automated Decision Systems (ADS).  The Code broadly alludes to the benefits and use cases of GAI and ADS, but also acknowledges the risks that can be associated with the technology. To learn more about NH’s AI Code of Ethics including the fundamental rights, ethical principles, and technical/social requirements, click here
  • European Union: Automated Decisionmaking Case Law and AI Legislative Progress
    • The reaching of a political agreement on the EU AI Act was widely relayed in the media, but this is not the end of the saga regarding the European Union’s general legislation on artificial intelligence, as that political agreement still has to be translated into legal wording and technical annexes. Those details will be significant for the scope of the obligations with which businesses have to comply. To learn more about how businesses will be affected by the EU AI Act and how the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is already regulating decisionmaking, click here.

It is clear that the potential impact AI will have on consumers and employees is prompting discussions around the world on appropriate regulatory responses. While there are common themes and concerns, governments will likely differ in their approaches. That will create ongoing compliance challenges while policies are debated. The objectives for civil society remain to develop approaches for stakeholders to work together to identify and manage risks of AI while promoting innovation to realize the benefits and efficiencies it may also bring. For a detailed analysis of CCPA’s draft regulations, New Hampshire’s AI Code of Ethics, and the EU AI Act, click here