Privacy laws in the EU and at the state level in the U.S. serve as a basis for building an AI regulation regime, Morrison Foerster’s Marian Waldmann Agarwal and Marijn Storm said during a webinar about the intersection of privacy and AI last week. The partners discussed recent AI regulatory developments and their intersection with privacy obligations.
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a case about a Texas age-verification law aimed at preventing minors from accessing adult websites. However, in addition to First Amendment implications, the case could become much broader, centering on technology that verifies the ages of website visitors younger and older than 18 and whether that process infringes on their rights.
In what may be the first state enforcement action under a comprehensive privacy law, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) sued Allstate for the alleged unlawful collection, use and sale of the location data from Texans’ cellphones through software secretly embedded into mobile apps like Life360. Allstate and its subsidiary data analytics company Arity used the data to raise insurance rates, Paxton alleged at the Texas District Court of Montgomery County.
The number of cases alleging violations of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act has risen in recent years and seems likely to continue to grow after an October decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, privacy lawyers said in interviews. The VPPA was intended to protect the privacy of an individual’s video store rentals. However, in the past decade or so, its reach has widened to include streaming services, said Matthew Wolfe, a Shook Hardy privacy attorney.
A U.S. District Court of Northern California ruling last week in NetChoice v. Bonta, which involved a law regulating addictive social media feeds for minors, will likely hold up and pave the way for approval of similar state laws, supporters of such laws said. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is set to consider an appeal of the Dec. 31 decision rejecting NetChoice's motion to stop the law from taking effect the next day.