This in-depth analysis by Eric Dinallo, Avi Gesser, Matt Kelly, Samuel J. Allaman, Melyssa Eigen, Ned Terrace, Stephanie Thomas, and Mengyi Xu examines Colorado’s proposed amendment to extend its AI governance and risk-management regulations—originally for life insurers—to auto and health insurance providers. Highlighting key updates like bias evaluations, board-level oversight, clear consumer explanation of adverse AI-driven decisions, and mandated human oversight in healthcare determinations, the authors draw attention to near-term compliance deadlines in 2025. It underscores a shift, showing how state regulators are preemptively integrating AI into sector-specific governance, offering legal and compliance teams concrete preparation steps. This matters to legal professionals because it signals growing state-level enforcement of AI accountability in insurance, helping counsel advise insurers on bridging internal policies with emerging regulatory frameworks.

This analysis—authored by Megan K. Bannigan, Christopher S. Ford, Samuel J. Allaman, and Abigail Liles—breaks down a pivotal February 2025 ruling in Tremblay v. OpenAI, where a U.S. federal court ordered OpenAI to produce its full training dataset for GPT‑4 in a copyright infringement case. The ruling underscores that courts are now treating training data as central to proving direct AI‑related copyright claims, even amidst the tension between discovery obligations and trade‑secret protection. For legal professionals, this marks a significant escalation in e‑discovery strategy: practitioners must now advise AI developers on balancing transparency, litigation readiness, and data security under protective orders. By spotlighting emerging standards for dataset disclosure, the article offers invaluable insight for litigators, in‑house counsel, and compliance teams managing AI‑driven legal risk.

This detailed analysis from Debevoise & Plimpton explores how the European Union’s AI Act intersects with insurance industry practices, offering a risk-tiered framework that directly impacts underwriting, fraud detection, and customer service AI tools. The article contrasts the EU's prescriptive regime with the UK's more flexible, principles-based oversight, helping legal and compliance teams understand diverging global regulatory landscapes. A standout insight is that many insurer AI use cases may fall outside the AI Act’s strictest categories—but existing frameworks like Solvency II, DORA, and the IDD already impose significant governance and transparency expectations. With August 2026 compliance deadlines looming, this piece provides insurers and their counsel with a practical roadmap to prepare for cross-jurisdictional AI oversight.

This analysis from Annie Dulka explores how AI applications in international human rights law are reshaping legal frameworks—from refugee protection and due‐process to surveillance governance. It outlines both innovative benefits (e.g., enhanced monitoring, rapid documentation) and legal risks (e.g., bias in asylum decisions, privacy violations), arguing that robust oversight and principled deployment are essential to align AI tools with international human rights norms. This matters significantly for legal professionals navigating cross-border AI use, as it offers a practical roadmap for integrating AI ethics into treaty interpretation, case law, and compliance mechanisms. Engaging and authoritative, the piece encourages lawyers and policymakers to proactively shape AI deployment in human rights contexts—making it a compelling entry-point for those advising on global AI governance.

This report reflects on the evolution of AI-related litigation in 2024, detailing how plaintiffs diversified beyond copyright claims into new fronts like trademark dilution, false advertising, right of publicity, and unfair competition. It emphasizes a key insight: while early copyright lawsuits faltered, savvy plaintiffs are adapting strategies and naming broader defendant classes—signaling a sharp uptick in legal complexity for AI developers. This trend matters to legal professionals because it marks a shift from isolated disputes to systemic risk exposure, making proactive counsel and strategic defense critical as new cases continue to roll in. Offering forward-looking clarity on forthcoming U.S. Copyright Office guidance and potential court rulings, the piece equips IP litigators and in-house counsel with practical foresight to navigate 2025’s AI‑driven legal terrain.

This article delivers a comprehensive set of consumer‑centric principles for governing AI personal assistants, emphasizing how clear terms of service, transparent data use, and specified delegation boundaries empower users and shape responsible AI deployment. It outlines critical protections—like explicit privacy terms, opt‑out training clauses, and liability limits—that matter deeply to legal professionals advising on AI‑driven user interfaces and compliance. By spotlighting real‑world risks—such as privacy erosion, unauthorized spending, and overreach of autonomous agents—the piece drives home why robust contract design and regulatory alignment are essential now. With actionable clarity and legal foresight, the article urges practitioners to draft AI terms that safeguard consumer rights while fostering innovation.