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:
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.
It is a well-known fact that operating an online business necessitates adherence to a complex array of state, federal, and international regulations. Below is an overview of key regulatory areas to consider:
1. State Regulations
California:
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
A government agency such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) cannot wiretap a private citizen’s phone without probable cause or legal authority since it would violate constitutional and statutory protections. Wiretapping without lawful authority is illegal and can lead to significant consequences for law enforcement officials who overstep their bounds.
1. Fourth Amendment Protections
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, including, but not limited to, electronic surveillance. This means:
On January 2, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered a significant ruling and blocked the Biden administration’s efforts to reinstate net-neutrality regulations. The court determined that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacked the legal authority to reclassify broadband services under Title II of the Communications Act, a move essential for enforcing net neutrality rules.
Net Neutrality’s Background
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must treat all data on the internet equally, without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. In 2015, during the Obama administration, the FCC classified broadband internet as a Title II telecommunications service, establishing regulations to enforce net neutrality. These rules were repealed in 2017 under the Trump administration, reclassifying broadband as a Title I information service, which subjected it to less stringent regulation.
The Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) under Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a legal right that allows individuals to request the deletion of their personal data by data controllers (organizations that collect and manage personal data). It is also known as the right to erasure. Article 17 aims to empower individuals by giving them control over their personal information, particularly in the context of the digital world where data can be easily accessible and long-lasting.
Key Elements of Article 17 (Right to Erasure):
1. Right to Request Erasure: Individuals can request the deletion of their personal data from a data controller if one of the following conditions applies:
Internet Lawyer Blog