EU’s New Plan for Regulating Artificial Intelligence: What US Companies Should Know
Brian Higgins Blogs
Latest from Brian Higgins
Artificial Intelligence, Risk Disclosures, and a New SEC Materiality Test
When Microsoft shared in 2018 that certain “deficiencies” surrounding its artificial intelligence practices could “subject[] us to competitive harm, legal liability, and brand or reputational harm,” it set the stage for other companies to self-report perceived risks associated with developing, using and producing AI technologies. Disclosing risks–a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requirement imposed on public companies since 2005–raises a number of important considerations for both public as well as private companies, including transparency, accuracy,…
First They Wanted Data, Now Cyber Thieves Are After Deep Learning Models: Legal Response Options
Imagine you’ve spent months developing and deploying a revenue-generating deep neural network model only to discover that an attacker has stolen the model’s knowledge and will soon offer a service that will steer potential users away from yours. Flashes of late nights and weekends spent collecting and cleaning data cross your mind, accompanied by a sinking feeling when you think about the significant monetary investment made in computation power. The joy you felt finding just…
Recent Court Decisions Boost the Outlook for Artificial Intelligence Patents
Machine learning enthusiasts have long touted the technology’s ability to perform–and sometimes exceed–human mental endeavors, such as identifying objects in images, generating a portrait painting, deciding to grant a loan application, optimizing a route to a destination, and efficiently responding to website visitor or customer queries. In recent years, such computerized “mental processes” have been denied patent protection, a trend underscored by U.S. federal district and Federal Circuit patent decisions issued in the wake of…
Distributed Artificial Intelligence Systems, Edge Computing, and the Extraterritoriality Doctrine: Testing the Reach of State Privacy Laws
In Patel v. Facebook, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granting class certification to users of Facebook who alleged that Facebook’s collecting and storing of their face scans using facial recognition technology violated Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). In doing so, the panel, based in San Francisco, relied on BIPA’s legislative history to…
Does Illinois’ Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Bill Fully Address Biometric Data Privacy Concerns?
California Court Agrees With Autonomous Driving Company’s Source Code Misappropriation Claims, Issues Preliminary Injunction
Civil Litigation Discovery Approaches in the Era of Advanced Artificial Intelligence Technologies
Congress, States Introduce New Laws for Facial Recognition, Face Data – Part 2
In Part I, new proposed federal and state laws governing the collection, storage, and use of face (biometric) data in connection with facial recognition technology were described. If enacted, those new laws would join Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), California’s Consumer Data Privacy Act (CCPA), and Texas’ “biometric identifier” regulations in the governance of face-related data. It is reasonable for businesses to assume that other state laws and regulations will follow, and with them…
Congress, States Introduce New Laws for Facial Recognition, Face Data – Part I
Companies developing artificial intelligence-based products and services have been on the lookout for laws and regulations aimed at their technology. In the case of facial recognition, new federal and state laws seem closer than ever. Examples include Washington State’s recent data privacy and facial recognition bill (SB 5376; recent action on March 6, 2019) and the federal Commercial Facial Recognition Privacy Act of 2019 (S. 847, introduced March 14, 2019). If…