
Christopher D. Warren
Partner
212-390-8060 cwarren@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Christopher D. Warren
Date: January 21, 2025
Partner
212-390-8060 cwarren@sh-law.comThe rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) has regulators scrambling to craft new laws to govern the technology. Businesses that develop AI solutions, as well as the companies that deploy them, should keep a close eye on regulatory developments.
Under a recent bi-partisan proposal, AI companies could lose key protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that other Internet companies enjoy. Separately, the attorneys general of several states are calling for a regulatory framework that addresses the risks associated with AI without hampering the development of trustworthy applications.
The proposed “No Section 230 Immunity for AI Act” seeks to clarify that Section 230 immunity will not apply to claims based on generative AI. The bi-partisan legislation was introduced by Senators Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), the Ranking Member and the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, on June 14, 2023.
“AI companies should be forced to take responsibility for business decisions as they’re developing products — without any Section 230 legal shield,” Sen. Blumenthal said in a statement. “This legislation is the first step in our effort to write the rules of AI and establish safeguards as we enter this new era. AI platform accountability is a key principle of a framework for regulation that targets risk and protects the public.”
As discussed in greater detail in prior articles, Section 230 provides:
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
In basic terms, the far-reaching law shields online platforms from being sued for content posted by a third-party user.
The “No Section 230 Immunity for AI Act” would amend the statute to add the following:
Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit any claim in a civil action or charge in a criminal prosecution brought under Federal or State law against the provider of an interactive computer service if the conduct underlying the claim or charge involves the use or provision of generative artificial intelligence by the interactive computer service.
The legislation defines the term “generative artificial intelligence” as an artificial intelligence system that is capable of generating novel text, video, images, audio, and other media based on prompts or other forms of data provided by a person.’’ ChatGPT, Dall-E and Bard are currently among the most well-known generative AI interfaces.
On June 12, 2023, a coalition of 23 attorneys general (AGs) wrote a letter to the chief counsel for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), calling for the creation of a risk-based regulatory framework for AI. The letter was drafted by the AGs of Colorado, Connecticut, Tennessee, and Virginia and joined by their colleagues from other states, including California, New York, and New Jersey.
The AGs emphasized the importance of fostering the proper development of dynamic and trustworthy tools without hampering innovation. “This means, for example, that a prescriptive regulatory regime may not be best suited to this challenge,” the letter states. “By contrast, commitments to robust transparency, reliable testing and assessment requirements, and after-the-fact enforcement is a very promising approach.”
The AGs recommended a risk-based approach to regulation, highlighting that some AI use cases (e.g., routes for package delivery) present lower risks compared to others (e.g., health care delivery options). They also emphasized the need for nuanced evaluation of risks in the context of AI.
The AGs specifically called for NTIA to establish independent standards for transparency, including:
1. Testing
2. Assessments
3. Audits of AI solutions
Additionally, the AGs argued for states to enjoy concurrent enforcement authority in a federal AI regulatory regime:
“Significantly, State AG authority can enable more effective enforcement to redress possible harms. Consumers already turn to state Attorneys General offices to raise concerns and complaints, positioning our offices as trusted intermediaries that can elevate concerns and take action on smaller cases.”
Since the introduction of the “No Section 230 Immunity for AI Act,” the debate has intensified.
Support from Consumer Advocacy Groups: Many consumer advocacy organizations support limiting Section 230 protections for AI companies, arguing it is necessary to hold companies
accountable for the risks posed by AI-generated content, including misinformation and bias. According to John Davison, director of the Center for AI Accountability:
The lack of accountability for AI outputs risks leaving consumers unprotected from harmful or misleading information. This legislation is an important step in closing that gap.
Industry Pushback: AI companies argue that stripping Section 230 protections could stifle innovation and lead to an avalanche of litigation, potentially hampering the development of new AI applications. OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman recently stated:
While accountability is important, overly broad legislation risks discouraging startups and smaller players from entering the field. This is a space where thoughtful, balanced regulation is critical.
Broader AI Regulation Proposals: In addition to federal legislation, various states are exploring AI-specific regulatory frameworks, further complicating the compliance landscape for businesses. For example, California’s proposed “AI Accountability Act” would require AI developers to publicly disclose the datasets used to train their systems and submit regular bias audit reports.
Like most emerging technologies, AI has enormous risks and benefits. How regulators will strike a balance between protecting the public and fostering innovation remains to be seen, despite the clear need for regulatory developments at both the federal and state levels that do not stifle innovation.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Over the past year, brick-and-mortar stores have closed their doors at a record pace. Fluctuating consumer preferences, the rise of online shopping platforms, and ongoing economic uncertainty continue to put pressure on the retail industry. When a retailer seeks bankruptcy protection, a myriad of other businesses are often impacted. Whether you are a supplier, customer, […]
Author: Brian D. Spector
Since his inauguration two months ago, Donald Trump’s administration and the Congress it controls have indicated important upcoming policy changes. These changes will impact financial services policies and priorities. The changes will particularly affect cryptocurrency, as well as banking rules and regulations. Key Regulatory Changes in Cryptocurrency For example, in the burgeoning cryptocurrency business environment, […]
Author: Dan Brecher
The retail sector has experienced a wave of bankruptcy filings over the last year. Brick-and-mortar businesses in financial distress include big-name brands like Big Lots, Party City, The Container Store, and Vitamin Shoppe. When large retailers seek bankruptcy protection, they are not the only businesses impacted. Landlords can be particularly hard hit. While commercial landlords […]
Author: Brian D. Spector
The bankruptcy legal landscape presents both challenges and opportunities for businesses navigating financial distress. Understanding current bankruptcy trends can help businesses make more informed and strategic decisions. Corporate Bankruptcy Filings Trending Upwards Bankruptcy filings continued to trend upwards in 2024. According to statistics released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, personal and business […]
Author: Brian D. Spector
In December, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced charges against two privately held companies for failing to file a Form D notice, which is generally utilized for exempt securities offerings. Here, the SEC’s enforcement sends a strong message: compliance with regulatory requirements is not optional and failure to comply can have significant consequences. […]
Author: Kenneth C. Oh
On February 14, 2025, the Office of General Counsel (OGC) of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued Memorandum 25-05, “New Process for More Efficient, Effective, Accessible and Transparent Case handling.” The Memorandum rescinds nearly all of the Memoranda issued by his direct predecessor, Jennifer Abruzzo, setting the […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!