The EU AI Act is the world’s first horizontal and standalone law governing the commercialization and use of AI, and a landmark piece of legislation for the EU. Among the various provisions of the EU AI Act, the “AI literacy” principle is an often overlooked but key obligation which requires organizations to ensure that staff who are involved in the operation and use of AI have the necessary skills, knowledge and understanding to adequately assess AI-related risks and opportunities (e.g., through training and hiring staff with the appropriate background and skillset). This obligation – which applies from February 2, 2025 – is one of the few obligations under the EU AI Act that applies to all AI systems i.e., irrespective of the level of risk that the AI system presents. Indeed, by introducing AI literacy as one of the first provisions of the AI Act (Article 4), the EU legislators appear to underscore the significance of this requirement.
https://datamatters.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/12/MN-24013-Data-Matters-Blog-Imagery-Refresh_A_13.jpg606833Francesca Blythehttps://datamatters.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/09/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngFrancesca Blythe2024-12-16 10:40:352024-12-16 10:40:35EU AI Act: Are You Prepared for the “AI Literacy” Principle?
On October 28, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) released the Final Rule for its new regulations prohibiting or requiring notification of U.S. outbound investments in certain Chinese-affiliated companies in the semiconductor and microelectronics, quantum information technology, and artificial intelligence (AI) sectors. The Final Rule will take effect on January 2, 2025.
Recent enforcement actions by both state and federal law enforcement signal that companies that make or use artificial intelligence products are facing increased scrutiny under existing unfair and deceptive acts and practices laws. Several late-2024 examples present important insights for companies navigating how to effectively and legally implement artificial intelligence technologies in their businesses.
https://datamatters.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/10/MN-18359_Data-Matters_833x606-04-1.jpg607833Colleen Theresa Brownhttps://datamatters.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/09/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngColleen Theresa Brown2024-12-10 10:57:462024-12-10 11:00:57Rising AI Enforcement: Insights From State Attorney General Settlement and U.S. FTC Sweep for Risk Management and Governance
Enacted in 2008, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) regulates the collection and possession of biometric data by private entities operating in Illinois. Biometric data includes, for example, fingerprints, voiceprints, eye scans, and face/hand scans. Notably, BIPA establishes a private right of action, allowing any person to seek damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief if the person has been aggrieved by a BIPA violation. The statutory damages for BIPA violations are steep, including $1,000 to $5,000 per violation, attorneys’ fees and costs, and the possibility of injunctive relief.
In its 2024 fiscal year, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission brought over 130 enforcement actions against investment advisers and their representatives. This post highlights the key areas of focus and notable actions and litigation from the past fiscal year.
For the past few years, hundreds of companies have been caught in a wave of privacy class actions relying on decades-old wiretapping laws to attack modern website technologies and business tools. Last week, Massachusetts’s highest court engaged in a thorough assessment of that state’s wiretap law and rejected plaintiff’s argument that commonly used website advertising and analytical tools intercepted “communications” in violation of the law. The basis for the suit is not novel — hundreds of similar cases have been filed in the past few years. But the Supreme Judicial Court’s willingness to engage in a deep analysis of the wiretapping law early in the case is noteworthy.
https://datamatters.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/09/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Amy P. Lallyhttps://datamatters.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/09/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngAmy P. Lally2024-10-30 09:45:592024-10-30 09:45:59Massachusetts’ Highest Court Signals Willingness to Scrutinize State Wiretapping Laws and Knock Out Claims at the Pleading Stage
On October 22, 2024, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a final rule under Section 1033 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.1 The final rule includes several important changes from the proposed rule. This client alert focuses on those changes. For an analysis of the proposed rule, please see our Sidley Update here. The final rule also includes hundreds of pages of Supplementary Information that provide important insights into the manner in which the CFPB will enforce the final rule.
https://datamatters.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/10/MN-24013-Data-Matters-Blog-Imagery-Refresh_A_2.jpg606833Joel D. Feinberghttps://datamatters.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/09/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJoel D. Feinberg2024-10-28 16:04:302024-10-28 16:04:30CFPB Releases Final Rule on Personal Financial Data Rights
Yesterday, in Salazar v. National Basketball Association, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s dismissal of a putative class action under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), offering an interpretation of the VPPA’s definition of “consumer” that differs from how the majority of courts have used that term.
https://datamatters.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/09/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Amy P. Lallyhttps://datamatters.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/09/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngAmy P. Lally2024-10-17 14:03:452024-10-17 14:03:45Second Circuit Offers Guidance on Meaning of “Consumer” Under the U.S. Video Privacy Protection Act
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
EU AI Act: Are You Prepared for the “AI Literacy” Principle?
The EU AI Act is the world’s first horizontal and standalone law governing the commercialization and use of AI, and a landmark piece of legislation for the EU. Among the various provisions of the EU AI Act, the “AI literacy” principle is an often overlooked but key obligation which requires organizations to ensure that staff who are involved in the operation and use of AI have the necessary skills, knowledge and understanding to adequately assess AI-related risks and opportunities (e.g., through training and hiring staff with the appropriate background and skillset). This obligation – which applies from February 2, 2025 – is one of the few obligations under the EU AI Act that applies to all AI systems i.e., irrespective of the level of risk that the AI system presents. Indeed, by introducing AI literacy as one of the first provisions of the AI Act (Article 4), the EU legislators appear to underscore the significance of this requirement.
(more…)
Francesca Blythe
London
fblythe@sidley.com
Lauren Cuyvers
Brussels
lcuyvers@sidley.com
Matthias Bruynseraede
London
mbruynseraede@sidley.com
U.S. Treasury Issues Final Rule Restricting Outbound Investments in Chinese-Affiliated Entities
On October 28, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) released the Final Rule for its new regulations prohibiting or requiring notification of U.S. outbound investments in certain Chinese-affiliated companies in the semiconductor and microelectronics, quantum information technology, and artificial intelligence (AI) sectors. The Final Rule will take effect on January 2, 2025.
(more…)
James Mendenhall
Washington, D.C.
jmendenhall@sidley.com
Carys Golesworthy
Washington, D.C.
cgolesworthy@sidley.com
Lloyd Lyall
Washington, D.C.
lloyd.lyall@sidley.com
Rising AI Enforcement: Insights From State Attorney General Settlement and U.S. FTC Sweep for Risk Management and Governance
Recent enforcement actions by both state and federal law enforcement signal that companies that make or use artificial intelligence products are facing increased scrutiny under existing unfair and deceptive acts and practices laws. Several late-2024 examples present important insights for companies navigating how to effectively and legally implement artificial intelligence technologies in their businesses.
(more…)
Colleen Theresa Brown
Washington, D.C.
cbrown@sidley.com
Christina C. Koenig
Dallas
christina.koenig@sidley.com
Benjamin M. Mundel
Washington, D.C.
bmundel@sidley.com
Lauren Freeman
San Francisco
lfreeman@sidley.com
Garrett Lance
Washington, D.C.
glance@sidley.com
Biometric Litigation Risks Endure Even Post BIPA Amendment
Enacted in 2008, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) regulates the collection and possession of biometric data by private entities operating in Illinois. Biometric data includes, for example, fingerprints, voiceprints, eye scans, and face/hand scans. Notably, BIPA establishes a private right of action, allowing any person to seek damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief if the person has been aggrieved by a BIPA violation. The statutory damages for BIPA violations are steep, including $1,000 to $5,000 per violation, attorneys’ fees and costs, and the possibility of injunctive relief.
(more…)
Kathleen Carlson
Chicago
kathleen.carlson@sidley.com
Lawrence P. Fogel
Chicago
lawrence.fogel@sidley.com
Colleen Theresa Brown
Washington, D.C.
cbrown@sidley.com
Andrew F. Rodheim
Chicago
arodheim@sidley.com
FY2024 in Review: SEC Enforcement Actions Against Investment Advisers to Private Funds, Registered Funds, and Retail Clients
In its 2024 fiscal year, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission brought over 130 enforcement actions against investment advisers and their representatives. This post highlights the key areas of focus and notable actions and litigation from the past fiscal year.
Please click here to view the full Sidley Update.
W. Hardy Callcott
San Francisco
wcallcott@sidley.com
Stephen L. Cohen
Washington, D.C., Boston, ...
scohen@sidley.com
Chuck Daly
New York, Boston
cdaly@sidley.com
Ranah Esmaili
Washington, D.C.
resmaili@sidley.com
Lara Mehraban
New York
lmehraban@sidley.com
Ashley C. Pfeiffer
New York
apfeiffer@sidley.com
Sarah K. Gromet
New York
sgromet@sidley.com
Massachusetts’ Highest Court Signals Willingness to Scrutinize State Wiretapping Laws and Knock Out Claims at the Pleading Stage
For the past few years, hundreds of companies have been caught in a wave of privacy class actions relying on decades-old wiretapping laws to attack modern website technologies and business tools. Last week, Massachusetts’s highest court engaged in a thorough assessment of that state’s wiretap law and rejected plaintiff’s argument that commonly used website advertising and analytical tools intercepted “communications” in violation of the law. The basis for the suit is not novel — hundreds of similar cases have been filed in the past few years. But the Supreme Judicial Court’s willingness to engage in a deep analysis of the wiretapping law early in the case is noteworthy.
(more…)
Amy P. Lally
Century City
alally@sidley.com
Jack W. Pirozzolo
Boston
jpirozzolo@sidley.com
Ian M. Ross
Miami
iross@sidley.com
Colleen Theresa Brown
Washington, D.C.
cbrown@sidley.com
Sheri Porath Rockwell
Century City
sheri.rockwell@sidley.com
Kseniya K. Belysheva
Los Angeles
kbelysheva@sidley.com
CFPB Releases Final Rule on Personal Financial Data Rights
On October 22, 2024, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a final rule under Section 1033 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.1 The final rule includes several important changes from the proposed rule. This client alert focuses on those changes. For an analysis of the proposed rule, please see our Sidley Update here. The final rule also includes hundreds of pages of Supplementary Information that provide important insights into the manner in which the CFPB will enforce the final rule.
(more…)
Joel D. Feinberg
Washington, D.C.
jfeinberg@sidley.com
David E. Teitelbaum
Washington, D.C.
dteitelbaum@sidley.com
Stanley J. Boris
Washington, D.C.
sboris@sidley.com
Second Circuit Offers Guidance on Meaning of “Consumer” Under the U.S. Video Privacy Protection Act
Yesterday, in Salazar v. National Basketball Association, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s dismissal of a putative class action under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), offering an interpretation of the VPPA’s definition of “consumer” that differs from how the majority of courts have used that term.
(more…)
Amy P. Lally
Century City
alally@sidley.com
Ian M. Ross
Miami
iross@sidley.com
Upcoming Events
Practical Steps for Complying With AI Literacy Obligations
Resources
Meet the Team
Kwaku A. Akowuah
kakowuah@sidley.com
Sheila A.G. Armbrust
sarmbrust@sidley.com
Francesca Blythe
fblythe@sidley.com
Colleen Theresa Brown
ctbrown@sidley.com
Thomas D. Cunningham
tcunningham@sidley.com
Sharon R. Flanagan
sflanagan@sidley.com
David A. Gordon
dgordon@sidley.com
Tomoki Ishiara
tishiara@sidley.com
Amy P. Lally
alally@sidley.com
David C. Lashway
dlashway@sidley.com
William RM Long
wlong@sidley.com
Joan M. Loughnane
jloughnane@sidley.com
Geeta Malhotra
gmalhotra@sidley.com
Rollin A. Ransom
rransom@sidley.com
Alan Charles Raul
araul@sidley.com
Jennifer B. Seale
jseale@sidley.com
Yuet Ming Tham
ytham@sidley.com
Jonathan M. Wilan
jwilan@sidley.com
John W. Woods Jr.
jwoods@sidley.com