In April 2021, the European Commission released its proposed Regulation Laying Down Harmonized Rules on Artificial Intelligence (the “Regulation”), which would establish rules on the development, placing on the market, and use of artificial intelligence systems (“AI systems”) across the EU. The proposal, comprising 85 articles and nine annexes, is part of a wider package of Commission initiatives aimed at positioning the EU as a world leader in trustworthy and ethical AI and technological innovation.

The Commission’s objectives with the Regulation are twofold: to promote the development of AI technologies and harness their potential benefits, while also protecting individuals against potential threats to their health, safety, and fundamental rights posed by AI systems. To that end, the Commission proposal focuses primarily on AI systems identified as “high-risk,” but also prohibits three AI practices and imposes transparency obligations on providers of certain non-high-risk AI systems as well. Notably, it would impose significant administrative costs on high-risk AI systems of around 10 percent of the underlying value, based on compliance, oversight, and verification costs. This blog highlights several key aspects of the proposal.


Continue Reading European Commission Proposes New Artificial Intelligence Regulation

Last week, the Ninth Circuit ruled in Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., No. 20-55295 (May 4 2021), that 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”) did not bar a claim of negligent product design against Snap, Inc., reversing and remanding a lower court ruling.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Denies Section 230 Defense in Products Liability Case

A number of legislative proposals to amend Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”) have already been introduced in the new Congress.  Section 230 provides immunity to an owner or user of an “interactive computer service” — generally understood to encompass internet platforms and websites — from liability for content posted by a third party.

On February 8, 2021, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) introduced the Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism, and Consumer Harms Act (“SAFE TECH Act”), cosponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI).  The bill would narrow the scope of immunity that has been applied to online platforms.  Specifically, the SAFE TECH Act would amend Section 230 in the following ways:
Continue Reading SAFE TECH Act Would Limit Scope and Redesign Framework of Section 230 Immunity

On October 9, 2020, the French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) issued guidance on the use of facial recognition technology for identity checks at airports (available here, in French).  The CNIL indicates that it has issued this guidance in response to a request from several operators and service providers of airports in France who are planning to deploy this technology on an experimental basis.  In this blog post, we summarize the main principles that the CNIL says airports should observe when deploying biometric technology.

Continue Reading French Supervisory Authority Releases Strict Guidance on the Use of Facial Recognition Technology at Airports

On June 16, 2020, the First Circuit released its opinion in United States v. Moore-Bush.  The issue presented was whether the Government’s warrantless use of a pole camera to continuously record for eight months the front of Defendants’ home, as well as their and their visitors’ comings and goings, infringed on the Defendants’ reasonable expectation of privacy in and around their home and thereby violated the Fourth Amendment.  The appeal followed the district court’s decision in June 2019 in favor of Defendants’ motions to exclude evidence obtained via the pole camera.  The Government, without obtaining a warrant, had installed a pole camera on a utility pole across the street from Defendants’ residence.  The pole camera (1) took continuous video recording for approximately eight months, (2) focused on the driveway and the front of the house, (3) had the ability to zoom in so close that it can read license plate numbers, and (4) created a digitally searchable log.

In their motions to exclude, the Defendants, relying on Katz v. United States, argued they had both a subjective and objective reasonable expectation of privacy in the movements into and around their home, and that the warrantless use of the pole camera therefore constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.  The Government relied on an earlier First Circuit case, United States v. Bucci, which held that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a person’s movements outside of and around their home—“An individual does not have an expectation of privacy in items or places he exposes to the public.”  Thus, Bucci held that use of a pole camera for eight months did not constitute a search.
Continue Reading United States v. Moore-Bush: No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Around the Home

Reflecting the heightened interest in 5G and related cybersecurity concerns, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested public comment on the implementation of its National Strategy to Secure 5G.  Stakeholders with interests in telecommunications infrastructure and security—and any parties interested in 5G generally—currently have the opportunity to provide input on the plan that will carry out the Administration’s 5G strategy.

From now until June 18, 2020, the NTIA will accept public comments as part of its efforts to develop a rollout for its National Strategy to Secure 5G.  This implementation plan is being developed per the Secure 5G and Beyond Act of 2020, which President Trump signed into law on March 23.  The NTIA published its National Strategy the same day.
Continue Reading Administration Seeks Public Input on Rollout of 5G Strategy

On March 31st, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed into law SB 6280, a bill aimed at regulating state and local government agencies’ use of facial recognition services.  An overview of the law’s provisions can be found here.

Notably, Governor Inslee vetoed Section 10 of the bill, which aimed to establish a legislative

On March 12, 2020, Washington’s state legislature passed SB 6280, a bill that will regulate state and local government agencies’ use of facial recognition services (“FRS’s”).  The bill aims to create a legal framework by which agencies may use FRS’s to the benefit of society (for example, by assisting agencies in locating missing or deceased persons), but prohibits uses that “threaten our democratic freedoms and put our civil liberties at risk.”
Continue Reading Washington State Passes Bill Limiting Government Use of Facial Recognition

In this final instalment of our series of blogs on the European Commission’s plans for AI and data, announced on 19 February 2020, we discuss some potential effects on companies in the digital health sector. As discussed in our previous blog posts (here, here and here), the papers published by the European Commission cover broad concepts and apply generally — but, in places, they specifically mention healthcare and medical devices.

The Commission recognizes the important role that AI and big data analysis can play in improving healthcare, but also notes the specific risks that could arise given the effects that such new technologies may have on individuals’ health, safety, and fundamental rights. The Commission also notes that existing EU legislation already affords a high level of protection for individuals, including through medical devices laws and data protection laws. The Commission’s proposals therefore focus on addressing the gap between these existing rules and the residual risks that remain in respect of new technologies. Note that the Commission’s proposals in the White Paper on AI are open for public consultation until 19 May 2020.


Continue Reading European Commission’s Plans for AI and Data: Focus on Digital Health (Part 4 of 4)

On 19 February 2020, the new European Commission published two Communications relating to its five-year digital strategy: one on shaping Europe’s digital future, and one on its European strategy for data (the Commission also published a white paper proposing its strategy on AI; see our previous blogs here and here).  In both Communications, the Commission sets out a vision of the EU powered by digital solutions that are strongly rooted in European values and EU fundamental rights.  Both Communications also emphasize the intent to strengthen “European technological sovereignty”, which in the Commission’s view will enable the EU to define its own rules and values in the digital age.  The Communications set out the Commission’s plans to achieve this vision.

Continue Reading European Commission’s plans on data and Europe’s digital future (Part 3 of 4)