With no unified federal AI legislation in the U.S., companies are facing a regulatory patchwork reminiscent of early privacy laws. While states like California have taken the lead, the broader national strategy is largely reactive.
At the ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting, panelists contrasted the U.S. approach with the EU AI Act, which applies uniformly across industries and member states. That contrast highlighted the growing complexity of cross-border legal strategy for companies deploying AI solutions.
Key Takeaways:
- California is setting the pace, with 18 pieces of legislation regulating AI across healthcare, entertainment, and consumer protection.
- The EU AI Act bans or restricts AI used in high-risk areas and mandates transparency when users interact with AI systems like chatbots.
- The U.S. federal government is taking a “case-by-case” enforcement route, primarily using existing laws like the Sherman Act or consumer protection statutes.
Example of Regulatory Tension:
A healthtech company using AI diagnostic tools may be fully compliant under current U.S. law but face violations under the EU AI Act, especially if the tools involve “high-risk” applications. Meanwhile, California’s rules may require patient notifications that aren’t necessary in other U.S. states.
Looking Ahead:
With AI regulation continuing to evolve in an uncoordinated fashion, legal and compliance teams must stay nimble. A dynamic, jurisdiction-specific playbook will be crucial to avoid enforcement blind spots.
