The European Commission has published draft guidelines to clarify the definition of an AI system under the EU AI Act, aiming to assist providers in understanding when a software system qualifies as an AI system. The definition includes seven key elements that reflect the complexity and diversity of AI technologies, ensuring alignment with the Act’s objectives.
As states race to regulate artificial intelligence in the absence of a federal framework, Utah and Montana are proposing consumer-centric policies that prioritize innovation and accountability. These approaches focus on empowering consumers while ensuring that businesses are held responsible for any harm caused by their AI products.
The California legislature’s SB 1047, aimed at regulating artificial intelligence systems to ensure public safety, was recently vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom. The governor expressed concerns that the bill could hinder innovation in California’s AI industry and emphasized the need for regulations based on empirical evidence rather than conjecture.
State lawmakers are considering a diverse array of AI legislation, with hundreds of bills introduced in 2025. These proposals focus on key areas such as consumer protection, sector-specific regulations, chatbot oversight, and generative AI transparency.
The EU AI Act establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for artificial intelligence that may hinder innovation in the sector by imposing strict regulations and compliance costs on AI companies. Critics argue that these burdensome regulations could drive AI development out of the EU and widen the technological gap with the US and China.
On November 25, 2024, Bulgaria’s Sofia District Court requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU regarding automated decision-making under the AI Act, citing concerns over transparency and fairness in a telecoms company’s fee calculation method. The court seeks clarification on 17 legal questions pertaining to consumer rights and the interpretation of Article 86(1) of the AI Act.
The European Union is facing backlash over its proposed AI Act, which critics claim includes a significant copyright loophole that could allow companies to use copyrighted material without proper compensation. As concerns grow over the potential impact on intellectual property rights, advocacy groups are urging lawmakers to amend the legislation to ensure fair remuneration for content creators.
The post discusses the importance of effective governance for businesses in navigating the regulatory frameworks of the EU GDPR and the EU AI Act, especially given the rapid development of AI technologies. It highlights key differences between the two regulations, with the EU AI Act focusing on product safety and the EU GDPR emphasizing individuals’ rights regarding personal data.
The European AI Act, which took effect on February 2, 2025, requires employers to have an AI policy ensuring employee AI literacy and prohibits the use of certain AI systems that violate fundamental rights. Non-compliance could result in significant fines, making it essential for businesses operating in Europe to understand and adapt to these regulations.
The EWC, ESCA, CEATL, and EU MEPs criticized the AI Act’s Code of Practice for neglecting the rights of cultural and creative professionals. Nina George, president of honour at the European Writers Council, described the TDM exemption as “devastating,” indicating a harmful shift in intellectual property rights.