Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The temperature of legal risk continues to rise for companies who provide online interactive features such as social media or mobile applications to minors, particularly in the 11th Circuit states of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. On October 14, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated and reversed[1] a preliminary injunction on a Florida social media law, House Bill 3 of 2024 (more on the law below).

The decision comes alongside two related developments in the Eleventh Circuit. A day later on October 15, the Eleventh Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction[2] against a Georgia social media law, Senate Bill 351 of 2024, and returned the case to the district court. Meanwhile, Alabamaʼs House Bill 161 of 2026 is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027. These laws share a child protection objective, but their coverage, age thresholds, and compliance requirements differ substantially.

Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Developments: Decisions on Florida and Georgia Social Media/Minor Laws and New Alabama Law
anthropic image

On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) ruled that the Department of War (DoW) reasonably concluded Anthropic poses a supply chain risk under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act (FASCSA).

Continue Reading D.C. Circuit Rules Pentagon Can Exclude Anthropic from Supply Chain

Generative artificial intelligence is no longer on the sidelines of litigation.

Used thoughtfully, it can sharpen how attorneys manage complex matters, accelerate routine tasks, synthesizing disparate record evidence to identify common themes, patterns, and connections, and enhance trial readiness without compromising legal judgment. Used carelessly, it can hallucinate citations, expose proprietary information, and hand opposing counsel privileged content on a silver platter.

The upside is real. So is the downside.

Continue Reading Beyond the Prompt: The AI Sandwich and Other Practice Tips for Litigators

In the last few months, California and New Jersey enacted legislation to protect children online: California’s 13-bill package targets risks to children arising from emerging technologies, while New Jersey’s 3-bill package includes an age-appropriate design code. Despite their differences, these laws share a common focus on protecting children as technology evolves.

This post summarizes the key provisions of these new laws.

Continue Reading New Laws Target Youth-Facing AI and Online Services

We have all become accustomed to seeing pop-up notices on our video calls saying that an AI-powered technology is recording us. Sometimes the AI service even appears as a participant. Notwithstanding how commonplace these features have become, a recent decision from a federal court in California may signal that such call transcription services present a risk of class action lawsuits.

Continue Reading AI-Powered Call Transcription Tools Present Class Action BIPA Risk

This is the third installment in our coverage of the Anthropic/Department of War dispute. Our first alert addressed the Trump administration’s February 27 directives barring federal contractors from using Anthropic and its Claude platform, including Secretary Hegseth’s designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk to national security and the resulting requirement that all DoW contractors sever commercial ties with the company. Our second alert covered the March 26 preliminary injunction, in which Judge Lin found Anthropic had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and was suffering irreparable harm from the challenged actions. This post covers where things stand now following the latest Federal Court ruling.

The Ruling

On August 27, 2026, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin of the Northern District of California granted summary judgment largely in favor of Anthropic PBC, ruling that the DoW’s designation of the company as a supply chain risk to national security was “illegal and baseless.” In a 59-page order, Judge Lin concluded that the designation was not based on any credible threat, but was instead retaliation for Anthropic’s public criticism of the Trump administration’s position during contract negotiations over the use of its AI model, Claude.

Continue Reading Federal Court Rules Government’s Anthropic Supply Chain Designation Was Unlawful Retaliation: What Government Contractors Need to Know

In Mid-August, Taft published the latest edition of The Big Long List of U.S. AI Laws. The list now includes over 60 entries focused on the commercial regulation of AI by the states.

Persistent rumors to the contrary, AI law compliance is anything but a detail and triviality.

There is nothing particularly glamorous about notifying your job applicants of your AI, putting disclaimers on your chat bot, conducting risk assessments, disclosing data sources, developing policies, or ensuring contracting standards. But, increasingly, requirements such as these are required or advisable under law for a growing number of particular AI applications. Businesses which develop and deploy AI without considering the growing list of compliance issues carefully do so at their own risk.

Continue Reading Big Long List of AI Laws – Notable Updates

On August 2, 2026, the EU AI Act (the AI Act) entered a new implementation phase with two key developments: (i) the European Commission’s AI Office and Member State authorities began enforcing applicable AI Act requirements, including the rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models; and (ii) the AI Act’s Article 50 (transparency obligations) also took effect, requiring certain providers and businesses using AI to disclose when people are interacting with AI. Although the AI Act entered into force over two years ago, August 2026 marks a new chapter in its implementation. Businesses should expect increased regulatory oversight and scrutiny of AI developed, offered, or used in the EU.

Continue Reading Enforcement and Transparency Obligations Under the EU AI Act are Now in Effect

Clients, recent speaking engagements, the explosion of state AI regulation and guidance from financial authorities have all forced me to think and re-think how companies should practically approach their AI governance.

On the one hand, AI-powered tools promise to advance productivity for most tech-powered companies, and most companies find themselves eager to harness the power of these solutions. On the other hand, the regulatory, legal, and reputational risks are increasingly non-trivial, including the potential for private litigation and enforcement, failed customer engagement strategy, and other challenges.

Continue Reading Internalizing AI Governance: The Practical Thinking So Far

Last week, I had the pleasure of taking the main stage at CincyAI Week in Cincinnati, Ohio to talk with entrepreneurs, business leaders, academics, and artificial intelligence enthusiasts about the current state of AI policy, privacy, and compliance across the United States.

Here are the key takeaways from the presentation.

Continue Reading The State of AI Policy, Privacy, and Compliance in the United States