Articles Posted in Government

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the workplace. From résumé screeners to video interview tools and performance monitoring software, automated decision-making promises speed and efficiency. But for employers, these tools carry serious legal risks. When algorithms affect who gets hired, promoted, or fired, employers remain responsible under federal, state, and local laws. Missteps can trigger discrimination lawsuits, regulatory enforcement, and reputational damage. In this article, we’ll break down the federal employment laws, state and local AI regulations, recent lawsuits and enforcement actions, and a compliance framework employers can use to stay ahead.

Why Is Automated Hiring/Firing Legally Risky?

AI systems can unintentionally replicate or amplify human bias. For example:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming industries anywhere from personalized marketing to predictive healthcare and automated decision-making. However, as always, with innovation come legal challenges and questions such as how to handle personal data ethically and legally in compliance with privacy regulations.

If your AI system processes, stores, or trains on personal data, you are subject to data protection laws such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), its amendment California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This article breaks down what businesses need to know about AI and data privacy compliance.

1. Why AI Raises Unique Privacy Concerns

This article includes a legal and regulatory perspective on AI behavior and technology, covering U.S. and international frameworks, legal risks, compliance requirements, and the evolving landscape of AI law.

What Is “AI Behavior” in Legal Terms?

In legal contexts, “AI behavior” refers to the outputs or actions of an AI system (e.g., decisions, recommendations, predictions, content generation) and the implications of those actions for:

This article constitutes an analysis of California’s Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act (SB 976), covering its provisions, intent, and legal challenges.

What SB 976 Covers

Definition of “Addictive Feed”: SB 976 defines an “addictive feed” as any sequence of user-generated media (text, images, audio, or video) that is recommended or prioritized to a user based on past behavior, device data, or preferences—unless it falls within specified exceptions like private messages, manual selections, or predictable sequences.

This article is an overview of recent legislation in the United States and California focused on social media regulation and protections for children such as state statutes, federal proposals, court cases, and policy debates:

1. California’s Landmark SB 976: Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act

• Signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 20, 2024, California’s SB 976 sought to curb addictive design features targeted at minors by requiring:

California’s anti-doxing statute, which is codified under California Civil Code § 53.8, is a law designed to protect individuals from the intentional, malicious publication of their personal identifying information, which is commonly known as “doxing” when done with the intent to cause harm, harassment, or to incite violence.

Assembly Bill 1979

Assembly Bill 1979 entitled as the “Doxing Victims Recourse Act” discusses the relevant rules and regulations. Civil Code Section 1708.89(c) outlines the victim’s rights and states, in part, that: A prevailing plaintiff who suffers harm as a result of being doxed in violation of subdivision (b) may recover any of the following: (1) economic and noneconomic damages proximately caused by being doxed, including, but not limited to, damages for physical harm, emotional distress, or property damage; (2) statutory damages of a sum of not less than one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) but not more than thirty thousand dollars ($30,000); (3) punitive damages; and (4) upon the court holding a properly noticed hearing, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing plaintiff.

The Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is a landmark Illinois law that regulates the collection, use, and storage of biometric data. Enacted in 2008, BIPA provides some of the most stringent protections for biometric privacy in the United States. With the increasing use of biometric technology—such as fingerprint scanning, facial recognition, and retina scans—lawsuits under BIPA have surged, leading to significant rulings in both state and federal courts. This article explores the key rules and regulations of BIPA, recent court cases, and the broader implications of biometric data privacy enforcement.

Key Rules and Regulations Under BIPA

1. Scope of the Law

Blockchain and cryptocurrency rules and regulations vary widely across jurisdictions with some countries embracing digital assets and others imposing strict restrictions. The following article includes an overview of the current legal landscape in the United States, European Union, China, and other key jurisdictions.

United States

1. SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) Regulations