U.S. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco signaled robust future enforcement by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against crimes involving, and aided by, artificial intelligence (AI) in her remarks at Oxford University last week and reiterated shortly thereafter at the Munich Security Conference.
Policymakers around the world took significant steps toward regulating artificial intelligence (AI) in 2023. Spurred by the launch of revolutionary large language models such as OpenAI’s GPT series of models, debates surrounding the benefits and risks of AI have been brought into the foreground of political thought. Indeed, over the past year, legislative forums, editorial pages, and social media platforms were dominated by AI discourse. And two global races have kicked into high gear: Who will develop and deploy the most cutting-edge, possibly risky AI models, and who will govern them? In this article, published by the Lawfare Institute in cooperation with Brookings, Sidley lawyers Alan Charles Raul and Alexandra Mushka suggest that “the United States intends to run ahead of the field on AI governance, analogous to U.S. leadership on cybersecurity rules and governance—and unlike the policy void on privacy that the federal government has allowed the EU to fill.”
On 23 January 2024, the UK government published its draft Cyber Governance Code of Practice (the “Code”) to help directors and other senior leadership boost their organizations’ cyber resilience. The draft Code, which forms part of the UK’s wider £2.6bn National Cyber Strategy, was developed in conjunction with several industry experts and stakeholders – including the UK National Cyber Security Centre. The UK government is seeking views from organizations on the draft Code by 19 March 2024.
Last week, the U.S. Department of Commerce published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) implementing Executive Orders (EO) 13984 and 14110 to prevent “foreign malicious cyber actors” from accessing U.S. infrastructure as a service products1 (IaaS Rule). The IaaS Rule seeks to strengthen the U.S. government’s ability to track “foreign malicious cyber actors” who have relied on U.S. IaaS products to steal intellectual property and sensitive data, engage in espionage activities, and threaten national security by attacking critical infrastructure.
The staff of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is seeking public comment (the Request for Comment) on the risks and benefits associated with use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the commodity derivatives markets. According to the Request for Comment, the staff “recognizes that use of AI may lead to significant benefits in derivatives markets, but such use may also pose risks relating to market safety, customer protection, governance, data privacy, mitigation of bias, and cybersecurity, among other issues.”
On 22 January 2024, an unofficial version of the (presumed) final EU Artificial Intelligence Act (“AI Act”) was released. The AI Act reached political agreement early December 2023 (see our blog post here) and had undergone technical discussions to finalize the text since. It was reported that the document was shared with EU Member State Representatives on 21 January 2024, ahead of a discussion within the Telecom Working Party, a technical body of the EU Council on 24 January 2024, and that formal adoption at the EU Member State ambassador level (i.e. COREPER) will likely follow on 2 February. On Friday 26 January 2024, the Belgian Presidency of the Council officially shared the (analysis of the) final compromise text of the AI Act with Member State representatives – clearly indicating that this text will be put forward for adoption.
Join Sidley and OneTrust DataGuidance for a reactionary webinar on the recently published, near-final text of the EU AI Act on February 5, 2024. This discussion with industry panelists will cover initial reactions to the text of the EU AI Act following finalization by EU legislators and examine the key points in the AI Act that businesses need to understand.
On January 17, 2024, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) entered into a consent order with Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd. (ICBC or the Bank), resolving a matter in which ICBC’s New York branch disclosed confidential supervisory information (CSI) without authorization. The order includes a civil monetary penalty of $30 million. Two days later, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) entered into a consent cease-and-desist order with ICBC and its New York branch that includes a fine of approximately $2.4 million for the unauthorized disclosure of CSI. The Federal Reserve specifically noted that its action was taken in conjunction with the prior action of NYDFS.