Search results

[…] narrowly focused than the first one analyzed above, is based on the contention that AI systems’ decision-making processes may have “significant adverse effects on individuals’ rights and freedoms” if there is no “meaningful human oversight” of system decision-making and thus no effective recourse for an impacted individual to challenge such a decision. This is […]

C om para tiv e ta b le : EU AI Act – Sou th Kore a AI Act – Ja p an AI Pro m otio n Act E uro p ean Unio n A I Act S ou th Kore a A I Fra m ew ork Act J a p an A […]

[…] our congressional testimony, FPF considers that the typical regulatory course is to be silent about fees between business parties, which can be addressed via contract and the free market. However, FPF recognizes the unique challenges raised in the open banking context since the data provider holds the information needed by the consumer and third […]

[…] State AI Report. From a compliance perspective, disclosure standards provide tangible obligations for developers to operationalize. From a consumer protection standpoint, legislators view them as tools to promote transparency, prevent deception, and curb excessive engagement by reminding users, especially minors, that they are interacting with an AI system. B. Safety Protocols and Risk Mitigation […]

[…] the means to reasonably identify the individuals: if they do not process personal data, the GDPR does not apply.  On the other hand, pseudonymization is not a free pass. A dataset may still qualify as personal data: (1) if the recipient has reasonable means to re-identify the individual; (2) for the controller who holds […]

[…] May 2025.  Finally, reform must further the EU’s values. As Article 2 and 3(1) TEU set out, the EU was founded on values such as “human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights”, which are also at the heart of the GDPR (see Recital 4). Any reform must […]

[…] heightened risk of harm to a consumer. C.R.S. § 6-1-1309(1). Where a type of processing is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons. Art. 35(1). DPAs are required where processing activities pose some heightened risk of harm. A key difference between these regulations is whether that […]

G en era ti ve AI fo r Org an iz a ti on al Use : I n te rn al Polic y Cons id era tio ns F u tu re of Priv a cy Fo ru m , up d ate d Ju ne 20 24 C O NSID ER ATIO NS […]

[…] role in shaping “well-balanced AI policies beyond our borders—especially in the absence of a comprehensive federal framework.” Supporters view the bill as a critical first step toward promoting transparency and reducing serious safety risks, while critics argue its requirements could be unduly burdensome on AI developers, potentially inhibiting innovation. These debates come as New […]