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
On June 4, 2026, Representatives Jay Obernolte and Lori Trahan released a discussion draft of the Great American Artificial Intelligence Act of 2026 (GAAIA). The GAAIA is the latest federal attempt at timely and coherent technology-based regulations.
This bill, however, takes a notably different approach. Narrow enough to be effective, GAAIA sidesteps the pitfalls that have plagued federal privacy law efforts by limiting scope and preemption. Not yet formally introduced, this nearly 270-page discussion draft seems to mostly target the big players (the large AI companies building foundational AI models) and is centered around transparency and innovation.
This article covers the key provisions of GAAIA, what organizations are actually in the crosshairs, and how it fits alongside the June 2nd Executive Order related to artificial intelligence.
Continue Reading The Great American Artificial Intelligence Act: An Attempt to Federally Regulate AI
Connecticut’s Governor Ned Lamont announced on May 29, 2026 that he had ratified sweeping artificial intelligence legislation in Senate Bill 5, titled “An Act Concerning Online Safety.” The law is unique in its breadth among the growing list of state AI laws, in that it regulates several distinct applications or categories of AI.
Specifically, the law addresses: 1) subscription-based AI services; 2) frontier AI models; 3) automated employment-related decision technology; 4) AI companions; and 5) AI in social media. Below, we summarize certain requirements pertaining to each regulated topic.
Continue Reading Connecticut Enacts Sweeping AI Legislation
On May 14, 2026, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed SB 26-189, the new Colorado artificial intelligence statute which goes into effect January 1, 2027. SB 26-189 replaces SB 24-205, the controversial AI statute that had not yet become effective.
SB 26-189 was the result of several years of negotiations between groups seeking more regulation of AI, particularly with respect to consumer protection, and those concerned that SB 24-205 would impose significant costs and burdens on companies with employees, customers or other stakeholders in Colorado.
Many technology industry participants would rather kiss a Wookiee than comply with SB 24-205 and expressed concern that SB 24-205 would cause technology companies to avoid Colorado due to its burdensome requirements.
Continue Reading Colorado Act Legislation: The AI Strikes Back