Sasha Kiosse

1. Introduction

The Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law has been concluded by the Council of Europe (CoE) Committee on Artificial Intelligence on March 24, 2024, finally landing a decisive blow with a provisional agreement on the text of a treaty on artificial intelligence and human rights (Treaty).

This Treaty is the first of its kind and aims to establish basic rules to govern AI that safeguard human rights, democratic values and the rule of law among nations. As a CoE treaty, it is open for ratification by countries worldwide. It is worth noting that in this epic battlefield, apart from the CoE members in one corner of the global arena, on the opposite corner, representing various nations like the US, the UK, Canada and Japan, we have the observers, eyeing the proceedings, ready to pounce with their influence. Although lacking voting rights, their mere presence sends shockwaves through the negotiating ring, influencing the very essence of the Treaty.Continue Reading Heavyweight Fight, Did the US or EU KO the AI Treaty?

This week, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Chair Maria Cantwell (D-WA) unveiled their bipartisan, bicameral discussion draft of the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA draft).[1] Chair Rodgers’ and Chair Cantwell’s announcement of the APRA draft surprised many congressional observers after comprehensive privacy legislation stalled in 2022.Continue Reading April’s APRA: Could Draft Privacy Legislation Blossom into Law in 2024?

In 2023, we analyzed the laws in Arkansas, Texas and Utah that require age verification and parental consent before allowing minors to create accounts on social media and other interactive platforms.  A similar law – Secure Online Child Interaction And Age Limitation (SOCIAL) Act – was passed in Louisiana, which has an in-force date of July 1, 2024.  Ohio legislators also enacted the Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act (Ohio Act).  All of these laws have requirements that are similar to the proposed federal law titled Kids Online Safety Act” (KOSA), which we explain in a companion post).Continue Reading Protecting Kids Online – Part II

Protection for minors online continues to top the list of U.S. regulatory and legislative priorities in 2024. So far in 2024, legislators in California introduced several bills focused on minors; Congress held hearings and advanced federal legislation protecting minors online; and constitutional challenges to 2023 state laws focused on minors’ social networking accounts advanced in the Courts. Congress and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are looking to update the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and corresponding Rule, as detailed in another post. However, the proposals explained in this post extend far beyond online privacy concerns, and we believe more focus on minors’ online safety is on the way.Continue Reading Protecting Kids Online: Changes in California, Connecticut and Congress – Part I

The first month of 2024 brought two new state privacy laws. On January 18, the New Hampshire legislature passed the 15th US state consumer privacy law (notably, still subject to some procedural requirements and signature by Governor Chris Sununu before it is officially law). The New Hampshire law was passed a few days after New Jersey’s new consumer privacy law (Approved P.L.2023, c.266) was signed into law on January 16. 

Both new state consumer privacy laws follow the now-familiar format, offering consumer privacy rights and requiring role-based data processing agreements, but with a few notable differences. A more detailed comparison follows.Continue Reading New Jersey and New Hampshire Pass Consumer Privacy Laws – and 11 Other States Are Considering Similar Laws

On October 10, 2023, Governor Newsom signed into law SB 362, known as the “California Delete Act” or “Delete Act”, which had been passed by the legislature at the end of the 2023 legislative session on September 14. The Delete Act amends California’s existing Data Broker Registration law (Cal. Civ. Code Section 1798.99.80 et. seq). Among other things, the law imposes additional registration requirements on top of those that already exist, doubles the administrative fine for failure to register, requires the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to set up a one-stop shop deletion mechanism that allows consumers to make requests to all registered data brokers, and obligates data brokers to access the mechanism every 45 days and process each and every deletion request made by consumers within a prescribed timeframe (including directing all service providers and contractors of the request).Continue Reading California Delete Act Imposes New Obligations on Data Brokers

Since our July 13 post about the European Commission’s formal adoption of the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (EU DPF), members of our Data Privacy, Cybersecurity & Digital Assets Practice have been hard at work helping clients prepare for and complete the certification process. We prepared for our readers answers to some of the most frequently asked questions we have received over the past few months.Continue Reading You have Questions, We have Answers: Data Privacy Framework FAQs

Until late August 2023, California’s data protection law, the California Consumer Privacy Act, or “CCPA,” only provided for future rulemaking on automated decision-making, including profiling, on risk assessments, and on cybersecurity audits. However, during a board meeting it held this past Friday, September 8th, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA” or “Agency”), which shares enforcement authority of the CCPA with the California Attorney General, discussed a new set of draft regulations (“Regs”) it released for Agency discussion purposes in late August 2023. While not yet part of the official rulemaking, the draft and the discussions around it provides direction on its upcoming rulemaking on these topics. We will refer to the draft and related commentary as the “Roadmap.” Most notably, the Roadmap proposes that condensed versions of assessments and audits completed by businesses pursuant to their CCPA obligations be filed with the CPPA and sets forth detailed obligations surrounding such assessments and audits. The implication of this is that it may become obvious to the Agency which companies are or are not conducting assessments or audits and thus complying with their CCPA obligations. It may also provide the Agency an easily accessible way to review the evaluate businesses’ practices, especially with regard to higher risk processing activities. Furthermore, the Agency’s Roadmap suggests assessment requirements that not only incorporate, but exceed, what is required in the Colorado regulations, including risk / harm assessments of any monitoring of personnel or students, or monitoring of consumers in public places. We will be co-hosting a webinar with Ankura to take a deeper dive into what companies should be doing regarding assessments and audits. Register here to join us on October 18 to learn more.Continue Reading California’s Potential Approach to Regulations on Risk Assessments and Cybersecurity Audits Could Be a Game Changer

On July 10, the European Commission formally adopted the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (DPF). The Commission’s adequacy decision (and the documentation package accompanying it, including the FAQ) brings welcome news: for certified DPF participants, personal data can flow between the European Economic Area (EEA) and the United States (U.S.

With Gov. Abbot’s recent signing of the Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act (SCOPE Act), Texas joins Arkansas and Utah (see our blogs here and here) in requiring age verification and parental consent before allowing minors to create accounts on social media platforms. Two key differences among these laws are (i) the SCOPE Act’s scope, which is broader than the other two state laws; and (ii) the duty imposed by the SCOPE Act to prevent harm to minors by preventing their exposure to “harmful material.”  To define “harmful material,” the SCOPE Act borrows from a different Texas law which defines it as material that “taken as a whole” (i) appeals to the prurient interest of a minor in sex, nudity, or excretion, (ii) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors, and (iii) is utterly without redeeming social value for minors.Continue Reading Texas Two-Steps into the Childrens Privacy Dance: The Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act