Artificial Intelligence Regulation Since April, and Why It Won’t Be Settled Soon

Not a lot has changed this year in the laws around AI, but we’ve spent eight months getting into position for what could be a big year for that. 

First, a look at “Where the legal battle stands around copyright and AI training” (Patrick Kulp, Emerging Tech Brew, April 21^st).  The short answer is unsettled, as although the Supreme Court will probably eventually hear a related case, “intellectual property lawyers say there aren’t yet many signs of where courts will land.”  As Anthropic seems to have used at least one of my books without permission, I was offered membership in a group to be compensated in a “$1.5 Billion Proposed Class Action Settlement.”  This may go through, and there may be similar resolutions offered by other AI companies.

Next, “Why the A.I. Race Could be Upended by a Judge’s Decision on Google” (David McCabe, The New York Times, May 1^st).  Although “a federal judge issued a landmark ruling last year, saying that Google had become a monopolist in internet search,” that did not resolve whether it “could use its search monopoly to become the dominant player in A.I.”  A hearing had started in April 2025 to settle that issue; at its conclusion four months later, in the views of Kate Brennan of Tech Policy Press, the “Decision in US vs. Google Gets it Wrong on Generative AI” (September 11^th).  The judge of the hearing considered AI, unlike search engines, to be a competitive field, and rejected “many of the Department of Justice’s bold, structural remedies to unseat Google’s search monopoly position.”  That could be a problem, as “Google maintains control over key structural chokepoints, from AI infrastructure to pathways to the consumer.”  This conflict, though, may not be completely settled, as the extent to which that company can absorb more of the AI field with its Gemini product is unknown.

In “Trump Wants to Let A.I. Run Wild.  This Might Stop Him” (Anu Bradford, The New York Times, August 18^th), we see that our presidential administration produced an “A.I. Action Plan, which looks to roll back red tape and onerous regulations that it says paralyze A.I. development.”  The piece says that while “Washington may be able to eliminate the rules of the road at home… it can’t do so for the rest of the world.”  That includes the European Union, which follows its “A.I. Act,” which “establishes guardrails against the possible risks of artificial intelligence, such as the loss of privacy, discrimination, disinformation and A.I. systems that could endanger human life if left unchecked.”  If Europe “will take a leading role in shaping the technology of the future” by “standing firm,” it could effectively limit AI companies around the world.

From there, “Status of statutes” (Patrick Kulp, Jordyn Grzelewski, and Annie Sanders, Tech Brew, October 3^rd) told us that that week California passed “major AI legislation… establishing some of the country’s strongest safety regulations” there, which “will require developers of the most advanced AI models to publish more details about safety steps taken in development and create more protections for whistleblowers at AI companies.”  Comments, both ways, were that the law “is a good start,” “doesn’t necessarily go far enough,” and “is too focused on large companies.”  It may, indeed, be changed, and other states considering such efforts will learn from California’s experience.

Weeks later, “N.Y. Law Could Set Stage for A.I. Regulation’s Next ‘Big Battleground’” (Tim Balk, The New York Times, November 29^th).  It “became the first state to enact a law targeting a practice, typically called personalized pricing or surveillance pricing, in which retailers use artificial intelligence and customers’ personal data to set prices online.”  Companies using such in New York will now need to post “THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.”  As of article time, there were “bills pending in at least 10 states that would either ban personalized pricing outright or require disclosures.”  Expect more.

After a “federal attempt to halt state AI regulations,” “State-level AI rules survive – for now – as Senate sinks moratorium despite White House pressure” (Alex Miller, Fox News, December 6^th).  Although “the issue of a blanket AI moratorium, which would have halted states from crafting their own AI regulations, was thought to have been put to bed over the summer,” it “was again revived by House Republicans.”  Would this be constitutional, as AI is not mentioned as an area to be overseen by the federal government?  Or would it just be another power grab?

The latest article here, fittingly, is “Fox News Poll:  Voters say go slow on AI development – but don’t know who should steer” (Victoria Balara, Fox News, December 18^th).  “Eight in ten voters favor a careful approach to developing AI,” but “voters are divided over who should oversee the new technology, splitting between the tech industry itself (28%), state governments (26%), and Congress (24%).” Additionally, 11% “think the president should regulate it… while about 1 in 10 don’t think it should be regulated at all.”  That points up how contentious the artificial intelligence regulation issue is – and tells us that, urgent need or not, it may take longer to be resolved than we may think.  We will do what we can, but once again it won’t be easy.

Merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, happy Kwanzaa, and happy new year.  I’ll see you again on January 2^nd.