On June 5, 2025, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) launched its new AI and biometrics strategy. The strategy aims to increase its scrutiny of AI and biometric technologies focusing on three priority situations, namely where: stakes are high; there is clear public concern for the technology; and regulatory clarity can provide immediate impact.

The ICO identified three areas of focus in its strategy:

  1. Transparency and explainability, i.e., when and how the technologies affect people;
  2. Bias and discrimination, particularly where the technologies have been trained on “flawed, incomplete or unrepresentative information”; and
  3. Rights and redress, i.e., making sure that systems are accurate, appropriate safeguards are in place to protect people’s rights, and that there are ways to challenge and correct outcomes that result in harm.

Continue Reading The ICO’s AI and biometrics strategy

Federal legislation to “pause” state artificial intelligence regulations will not become law—for now—after the Senate stripped the measure from the budget reconciliation package, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1).

The Senate voted 99–1 to strike the moratorium language from the bill during a marathon 27-hour “vote-a-rama” on July 1. The Senate voted 51–50, with Vice President J.D. Vance breaking the tie, to pass the bill (without the moratorium) and send it back to the House.  The House passed the Senate-amended bill on July 3 by a vote of 218–214, with all Democrats and two Republicans voting against.  President Trump signed the bill into law on July 4.Continue Reading Senate Nixes State AI Enforcement Moratorium, For Now

On June 22, Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) signed the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (“TRAIGA”) (HB 149) into law.  The law, which takes effect on January 1, 2026, makes Texas the second state to enact comprehensive AI consumer protection legislation, following the 2024 enactment of the Colorado AI Act.  Unlike the…

Continue Reading Texas Enacts AI Consumer Protection Law

On June 17, the Joint California Policy Working Group on AI Frontier Models (“Working Group”) issued its final report on frontier AI policy, following public feedback on the draft version of the report released in March.  The report describes “frontier models” as the “most capable” subset of foundation models, or a class of general-purpose technologies…

Continue Reading California Frontier AI Working Group Issues Final Report on Frontier Model Regulation

Updated June 27, 2025.  Originally posted May 28, 2025.

At an Open Meeting in May, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)  unanimously adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that proposes to permit more intensive and efficient use of the 12.7 GHz and 42 GHz bands by satellite communications, either as an alternative or complement to terrestrial wireless.  Chairman Carr emphasized that, if adopted, the Proposed Rule would make 20,000 megahertz of spectrum available for satellite-based services, which Chairman Carr characterized as a necessary step for U.S. leadership in spectrum and a clear sign to China.  Carr stated that the additional spectrum, in conjunction with other actions the FCC is taking across multiple spectrum bands, would protect American technological leadership.  Comments may be filed on or before July 28, 2025, and reply comments may be filed on or before August 26, 2025, as set forth in today’s Federal Register.

The FNPRM builds upon the FCC’s recent requests for comments on providing increased access to spectrum for terrestrial wireless services.  This FNPRM expands upon that record to contemplate authorizing satellite communications in the 12.7 GHz and 42 GHz bands and seeks comment on the feasibility of allowing satellite communications in those bands in both the Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth directions.Continue Reading FCC Seeks Comment on Opening Up Spectrum for Satellite Broadband

Today, the Supreme Court issued its decision in FCC v. Consumers’ Research (No. 24-354), upholding the constitutionality of the Universal Service Fund (“USF”).  The Court in a 6-3 majority opinion penned by Justice Kagan explained that the USF does not violate the “public nondelegation doctrine” or the “private nondelegation doctrine” because Congress provided adequate guideposts and guardrails for the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) to implement the USF, and because the FCC had not impermissibly subdelegated its implementation authority to a private entity.  Because the Court upheld the USF, it is unlikely that there will be any immediate implications for the telecommunications industry more broadly.  That said, in analyzing the legal issues, the Court clarified several limits on the FCC’s USF authority, which could constrain the scope of the USF program in the future, and likewise could serve as the basis for future legal challenges should the FCC transgress those limits.

Consumers’ Research Decision

This case involved the FCC’s authority to subsidize programs designed to further “universal service.”  Those subsidies are paid for by telecommunication carriers, who are each required to contribute an amount equal to a percentage of their projected annual revenues.  A not-for-profit corporation established by the FCC (the “Universal Service Administrative Company” or “USAC”) calculates and recommends this quarterly contribution percentage (or “contribution factor”), which the FCC then reviews and approves.  Consumers’ Research challenged this structure as violating both the nondelegation doctrine—a legal doctrine that generally prevents Congress from delegating legislative authority to federal agencies—and the private-delegation doctrine—which prohibits federal agencies from delegating their sovereign authorities to private individuals or entities.  In earlier proceedings, the Fifth Circuit held that the USF was unconstitutional and relied on a novel theory that the combination of Congress’s delegation to the FCC and the FCC’s sub-delegation to USAC was unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court reversed that ruling in today’s decision.Continue Reading Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of the Universal Service Fund

On 24 June 2025, the European Commission published its “roadmap” for ensuring lawful and effective access to data by law enforcement (“Roadmap”). The Roadmap forms a key part of the Commission’s internal security strategy, which was announced in April, and follows on from the November 2024 recommendations of the High-Level Group on Access to Data for Effective Law Enforcement.

Of most immediate relevance to electronic communications service (“ECS”) providers, the Commission intends to propose new data retention requirements, is considering changes to better enable cross-border live interception of communications, and will support the development of tools enabling law enforcement authorities (“LEAs”) to access encrypted data. We describe these proposals, and other elements of the Roadmap, in more detail below.Continue Reading European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data

On June 12, the New York legislature passed the Responsible AI Safety & Education (“RAISE”) Act (S 6953), a frontier model public safety bill that would establish safeguard, reporting, disclosure, and other requirements for large developers of frontier AI models.  If signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul (D), the RAISE Act would…

Continue Reading New York Legislature Passes Sweeping AI Safety Legislation

The European Commission has opened a consultation to gather feedback on forthcoming guidelines “on implementing the AI Act’s rules on high-risk AI systems”.  (For more on the definition of a high-risk AI system, see our blog post here.)  The consultation is open until July 18,  2025, following which the Commission will publish a summary of the consultation results through the AI Office.

For context, the AI Act contemplates two categories of “high-risk” AI systems:

  1. Products—or safety components of products—covered by the EU product safety legislation identified in Annex I, where the product or safety component is subject to a third-party conformity assessment (Art. 6(1)); and
  2. Certain systems that fall within eight categories of use cases identified in Annex III, namely, (1) biometrics; (2) critical infrastructure; (3) education and vocational training; (4) employment, workers’ management and access to self-employment; (5) access to and enjoyment of essential private services and essential public services and benefits; (6) law enforcement; (7) migration, asylum and border control management; and (8) administration of justice and democratic processes (Art. 6(2)). Only certain use cases within each category are considered high-risk—not the entire category itself. In addition, with one exception, the AI systems must be “intended to be used” for the particular use case, e.g., “AI systems intended to be used for emotion recognition”—a use case within biometrics (category one) (id., emphasis added).

Continue Reading The European Commission opens public consultation on high-risk AI systems

In a surprise move, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that a proposed moratorium on state and local AI laws satisfies the Byrd Rule, the requirement that reconciliation bills contain only budgetary provisions and omit “extraneous” policy language.  While MacDonough’s determination allows the Senate Commerce Committee’s version of the moratorium to remain in the bill, its…

Continue Reading Senate Parliamentarian Clears Revised State AI Enforcement Moratorium for Reconciliation Bill, But Passage Remains in Doubt