Search results

[…] enacted. Although no new states ha ve joined the ranks, lawmakers have continued to evolve existing laws, as California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Montana, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Virginia all amended their respective laws in 2025. This report summarizes that legislative landscape, compares and contrasts the prevailing models for state laws, and identifies the critical […]

[…] the year. While this Forum is open to the broader community, members are encouraged to attend, and each event will have its own registration. This event is free for FPF Advisory Board members. What to Expect When top experts in data protection convene from various corners of the globe, spanning diverse sectors such as […]

[…] Future of Privacy Forum Jordan Wrigley Data and Policy Analyst for Health & Wellness, Future of Privacy Forum AUTHORS All FPF materials that are released publicly are free to share and adapt with appropriate attribution. Learn more . The Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) is a non-profit organization that serves as a catalyst for […]

[…] 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 […]

[…] 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 […]

[…] to opt-out, and appeal adverse decisions. It would also prohibit use of a high-risk AI system that produces algorithmic discrimination or has not passed an independent audit. Virginia HB 2094 (Veto’ed by Governor) Del. Maldonado (D) High-Risk AI / Automated Decisionmaking Would regulate AI systems used in consequential decisions, requiring entities to use reasonable […]

[…] strong concern that replicating the EU AI Act could create regulatory overreach. However, civil society groups argue that even comprehensive frameworks like the Colorado AI Act or Virginia’s HB 2094 (vetoed) are significantly narrower in scope and that highlighting that superficial similarities with the EU AI Act, such as shared definitions or structural references, […]

[…] including subscription-based and enterprise pricing models. As personalized AI systems increasingly replace, or are integrated into, online search, they will impact online content that has largely been free and ad-supported since the early Internet. However, it is not clear that personalized AI systems can, or should, adopt compensation strategies that follow the same historical […]

[…] through user-generated input. For example, a 2015 claim against Snap, Inc. survived Section 230 dismissal following a claim that a specific “Speed Filter” Snapchat feature (since discontinued) promoted reckless driving.  In other cases, the personalization of a system through demographic-based targeting that causes harm may also implicate tort and product liability law when organizations […]

[…] of their risk classification. For AI systems in general, Brazil’s proposal includes:  The right to prior information about an interaction with an AI system, in an accessible, free of charge, and understandable format.  The right to privacy and the protection of personal data, following the Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais (LGPD) and […]