AI rulemaking heats up
U.S. and European policymakers moved this week: Senator Marsha Blackburn released a national AI policy discussion draft covering federal standards, research partnerships, child protection, copyright and transparency. (blackburn.senate.gov) State and regional efforts are following fast — Colorado's task force published a legal framework that reopened fights between consumer advocates and tech firms, while EU negotiators face pressure to water down protections amid industry lobbying. (denverpost.com) (techpolicy.press) The net effect: standards, procurement choices and security carve-outs are starting to shape how AI is governed in practice, and analysts warn the political split risks a patchwork of rules rather than a single U.S.–EU model. (iapp.org) (singularityhub.com)
Blackburn’s discussion draft would impose a statutory “duty of care” requiring developers to “exercise reasonable care” to prevent “reasonably foreseeable” harms and would explicitly sunset Section 230 platform immunity. (govtech.com: rollcall.com: ) The draft creates a private right of action for harms to minors tied to defective design or failure-to-warn claims and would require covered entities to quarterly disclose AI-related workforce impacts to the Department of Labor, with civil penalties reportedly up to $1 million per violation. (iapp.org: cfodive.com: ) On intellectual property and likenesses, Blackburn’s framework would treat unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted works for model training as non‑fair use and folds in the No Fakes Act and Kids Online Safety Act to strengthen attribution, watermarking and takedown rules. (deadline.com: blackburn.senate.gov: ) Colorado’s governor‑convened working group released a March 17 framework to rewrite the state’s 2024 AI law, shifting key enforcement questions toward courts and proposing a repeal‑and‑replace path before the legislature’s May session. (content.leg.colorado.gov: statescoop.com: ) Brussels negotiators are under heavy industry pressure to soften rules—analyses cite a digital industry lobbying budget that has risen to roughly €151 million and a Commission proposal that delayed “high‑risk” obligations to December 2027 as part of a wider simplification package. (business-humanrights.org: euronews.com: ) Procurement rules and security carve‑outs are already filling regulatory gaps: OMB and GSA guidance now sets government AI acquisition standards and lifecycle controls, while analysts warn the U.S. is increasingly governing AI “by contract” and supply‑chain designations that can bar vendors from markets regardless of statutory law. (iapp.org: gsa.gov: lawfaremedia.org: ) Experts say those divergent moves — a U.S. mix of federal drafts, state rewrites and procurement mandates versus a softening EU regime — are hardening into competing rulebooks that could force multinationals to comply with at least three different regulatory regimes. (controlrisks.com: cacm.acm.org: )
