Category: AI & Technology

As technology has evolved, tech giants and big tech regulations governing them have evolved alongside. Learn more today!

The term “Big Tech” won’t be new to most readers. It’s a phrase that describes the rise and influence of technology companies. Today, large tech companies play a large role in the use of consumer technology and the economy in the United States. As technology has evolved, tech giants and the regulations governing them have evolved alongside.

What Are Big Tech Organizations?

In a little over two decades, the big tech moniker has been pushed and pulled between a handful of companies. The first big tech grouping centered around the rise of the internet, with Google, Microsoft, and Apple among the first well-known tech companies. Big tech rapidly changed as tech has proliferated in our daily lives. This includes the rise of Facebook, now Meta and Apple’s launch and subsequent domination of smartphones and tablets. It extends to the rapid growth of Youtube and Amazon’s push into, well, every consumer service. The perpetual popularity of social media platforms underscore the role of Big Tech as well.

Today, Big Tech most commonly refers to a combination of Apple, Amazon, Meta (Facebook), Alphabet (Google) and Microsoft. The acronym FAANG is often used when talking about these tech companies. Netflix and Tesla are also sometimes included in big tech groupings. Each of these companies holds considerable market value:

• Apple controls 55% of U.S. smartphone sales. Its App Store contains 2.18 million apps to download to those iPhones.
• Microsoft controls 70% of the world’s computer operating systems. Six billion computers around the world run Windows.
• Alphabet’s Android mobile operating system controls a 71% share of the global smartphone market. Ninety-two percent of all search queries are performed on Google.
• Amazon has 39% of the U.S. e-commerce market, delivering over 4.75 billion packages per year in the U.S.
• Meta’s platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger, each have over one billion users. Seventy-seven percent of global internet users use at least one Meta product.

The History of Big Tech Regulations

Big tech regulations largely began with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. At this time, accessing information online was becoming increasingly widespread. The Act, referred to as a “digital free for all,” set the stage for the widespread growth of the internet.

Another key provision in big tech regulation is Section 230 under the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 has been used by websites, publishers, social media platforms to escape liability around the publication of third-party content.

Until recently, many regulations aimed to protect social media platforms and their operations. Social media platforms are hugely popular and play a key role in the economy. Today, regulations largely aim to do the opposite.

Types of Regulations

Big tech regulations have shifted with the growth and popularity of social media platforms. Today, many regulations focus on disinformation, misinformation, and standards for requiring fact-checking. This has given way to stricter state and federal laws around protections for minors.

Other regulations include lawsuits over monopolistic business practices and anti-competitive actions. Big tech companies often buy their competitors. This monopolistic activity forces consumers and small business owners to use their services. It also changes default use of search engines and software on our devices.

Many lawsuits are led by state attorneys general. Federal agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or the Department of Justice (DoJ) also play a role.

Current Events in Big Tech Regulation

Big Tech regulation has advanced since 1996. In that time, telecommunications have also largely been deregulated. Currently, regulation primarily focuses on the TikTok ban, minors’ safety, and consumer protections.

The TikTok Ban

In April, President Biden signed a law requiring TikTok’s owner, ByteDance, to sell the app within one year. If ByteDance fails to do so, it will face a ban in the U.S.

TikTok allegedly spent more than $7 million lobbying Congress to prevent the bill from becoming law. While not among the usual group of Big Tech companies, TikTok is one of the fastest growing social media platforms. The app reports a monthly user count of 1.5 billion.  

Talk of a TikTok ban has floated around the federal government since President Trump was in office. Despite this, many were surprised by the seemingly sudden ban. This action signifies a shift in the approach to regulating social media companies.

Minors’ Safety on Meta Platforms

But TikTok isn’t the only social media app in the crosshairs of government regulation. Minors’ mental health and online exploitation are dominating public policy. In February, Big Tech CEOs sat before Congress to testify about the safety of minors using social media platforms. This included X (formerly Twitter), Meta, Discord, Snap, and TikTok. The testimony followed a 2023 lawsuit brought by 42 states, alleging that Meta engaged in a decade-long pattern of harming young adults while claiming both Instagram and Facebook were “safe.”

The Digital Consumer Protection Commission Act

Currently, the responsibility of regulating digital platforms is shared among many federal agencies. The Digital Consumer Protection Commission Act proposes a change to this structure. In short, the Act would charter a commission with sole discretion over the regulation and governing of digital platforms. The new federal commission would regulate digital platforms, investigating and addressing issues like transparency, competition, privacy, consumer protection, national security, and digital platform licensing.

Other Federal Level Efforts

Protecting Minors’ Safety Online

Several federal efforts aim to protect kids’ and teens’ safety online. The Kids Online Safety Act is a sweeping example of such efforts. The Act would require companies to adopt:

• A strong standard for kids privacy protections
• Dedicated mechanisms for reporting harmful online behavior
• Standards around mitigating dangerous content to minors and independent audits
• Research about the impact of social media to kids and teens.

The Children and Teens Online Privacy Act is a similar proposal. The Act would update a 1998 provision that prohibits collection of internet data from teens without consent or notice. 

Addressing Amazon

Regulatory actions are also being taken beyond social media. The FTC and other agencies are continuing a long-standing lawsuit against Amazon. The lawsuit challenges Amazon’s pricing, advertising, and logistics services.

State-Level Big Tech Regulations

Like Congress, states are not waiting around to regulate Big Tech. Several states have passed big tech regulations. Overall, many laws allow legal action against tech companies. Others deny minors access to social media accounts.

• Florida passed a law that requires social media companies to delete accounts held by minors under 14-years-old. It also requires parental consent for some teens to create an account.  
• Utah passed amendments to the Social Media Regulation Act that allow parents to sue social media platforms if they believe their children’s mental health has been impacted.
• In 2023, Arkansas passed The Social Media Safety Act. The Act was later blocked by a federal judge. It required third-party validation of social media account holder ages and parental consent.
• California has introduced the Social Media Addiction Bill. The bill would ban online platforms from sending “addictive social media feeds” to minors without their consent.

International Action

In March of 2024, the European Union passed a comprehensive law addressing many key big tech concerns. The law:

• Changed how Google displays search results
• Modified how Microsoft provides default search engine tools
• Increased access to payment software and rival apps in Apple’s App Store.

Top public policy teams trust Plural for their legislative tracking needs.

Plural makes it easier than ever to discover big tech regulations. With Plural, you’ll:

• Access superior public policy data 
• Be the first to know about new bills and changes in bill status
• Streamline your day with seamless organization features
• Harness the power of time-saving AI tools to gain insights into individual bills and the entire legislative landscape
• Keep everyone on the same page with internal collaboration and external reporting all in one place

Create a free account or book a demo today!

More Resources for Public Policy Teams

One of the most exciting parts about building top-notch legislative intelligence tools is seeing all the creative ways that people use them. Our customers use Plural to enrich their knowledge of the legislative process, and we’re proud to support efforts to make American democracy easier to understand.

Right now, our team is watching the Brown University Center for Technological Responsibility, Reimagination, and Redesign (CNTR) with great interest. The CNTR @ Brown advocates for deeper understanding of and better policy around AI’s role in government. They aim to promote technology that “actively seeks to promote human well-being and flourishing.” It’s a vital goal, one that pairs well with Plural’s mission to use technology to make democracy more transparent and participatory.

CNTR @ Brown’s Overview of Proposed AI Legislation Using Plural

The team at CNTR recently published an overview of proposed AI legislation across all 50 states. It identified 610 bills on AI in general, and 114 bills that would regulate state governments’ use of AI. CNTR used Plural to find, track, and categorize these bills for analysis. The analysis identified areas where states may have gaps in AI policy, as well as opportunities to better “harmonize” a given AI procurement policy with federal guidelines. With so many states enacting new rules for AI all at the same time, avoiding unnecessarily conflicting rules through harmonization efforts could make those rules more clear and likely to be followed. The CNTR summary explains:

CNTR’s overview is self-described as “quick and dirty.” The group plans to publish a deeper analysis of trends in this corpus of bills later this year. However, it’s clear that they’ve already found some interesting trends that policymakers should be aware of. They’ve published detailed methods as well as code for their analysis on Github.

The CNTR @ Brown is led by Suresh Venkatasubramanian. Venkatasubramanian helped co-author the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, an Executive Branch publication that creates guidelines for the implementation of AI and automated decision-making systems in a more safe and equitable way.

Get Started With Plural

Are you interested in joining the community of researchers, journalists, and advocates who use Plural to better understand public policy? Create a free account or book a consultation today.

More Tech & AI Resources

Cybersecurity laws and regulations play a key role in our day-to-day lives. These important policies ensure that our information is protected from cyber threats. Nearly every aspect of our daily lives has been digitized. This includes everything from storing health information to water infrastructure and corporate emails. Unfortunately, this means that our information and infrastructure could be impacted by a cyber attack. Cyber attacks are among the greatest risks to government, companies, and individuals alike in the United States. Attacks are increasing in frequency and pose a danger to physical infrastructure, privacy, and financial systems. In 2023, IBM found that the average global cost of data breach was more than $4 million. Costs increase in industries like healthcare, where the average cost of a data breach was $11 million.

Effective cybersecurity laws protect users from cyber attacks. This includes protections from phishing schemes, ransomware attacks, identity theft, data breaches, and financial losses. On both the state and national levels, cybersecurity laws aim to strengthen the tracking, prevention, and mitigation of cyber threats. They bolster the cybersecurity efforts undertaken by private companies and the government itself. For consumers, cybersecurity and data protections make up the foundations of online data privacy. Laws like HIPAA, the GDPR in Europe, and CCPA in California govern how personal data is transferred and processed.

U.S. Government Approaches to Cybersecurity

Cybersecurity is especially sensitive for the United States government. Bad actors may use cyber threats to gain access to sensitive information, government employees’ data. Further, a ransomware attack could have grave impacts. National security, the military, and critical infrastructure are all at risk.

Threats to America’s digital infrastructure necessitate government adoption of cybersecurity best practices. Best practices should also extend to public agencies, companies, and private corporations. These efforts include:

• Presidential strategies
• Cybersecurity laws and regulations passed by Congress
• Directives and initiatives by federal agencies

The Role of Government Agencies 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security plays a leading role in cybersecurity. The agency aims to strengthen cybersecurity resilience across key infrastructure sectors. One key department under Homeland Security is The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA.) CISA leads efforts to understand, manage, and reduce risks to our cyber and physical infrastructure. It serves two key roles. CISA serves as the operational lead for federal cybersecurity efforts. It also acts as a national coordinator for critical infrastructure security and resilience.

Many other federal executive roles and agencies play key roles in cybersecurity policymaking. This includes advising the White House and ensuring that existing regulations, laws, and executive orders are followed. This includes:

• The National Cyber Director, who advises the White House on cybersecurity policy and strategy.
• The National Cybersecurity Strategy, which President Biden signed into law in March of 2023. The Strategy is less a cybersecurity law and more a blueprint documenting challenges and best practices in sectors reliant on cybersecurity.
• The Cyber Safety Review Board, which operates under CISA. The Board is a public-private-partnership that reviews significant cybersecurity threats in both the public and private sector.
• The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which approves and enforces information security requirements under federal law for “federal systems.” OMB also oversees the Chief Information Officers Council. The Council consists of the chief information officers for each federal agency.
• The U.S. Department of Justice handles most enforcement and prosecution. It works with other agencies like the Secret Service and Department of Defense to handle certain intelligence, law enforcement, or military-related investigations.

Cybersecurity Laws and Regulations for Protecting Sensitive Information

There are many cybersecurity laws and regulations that govern the United States. This legislative framework consists of state, federal, and international measures.

U.S. Federal Laws

The federal government has taken significant action on cybersecurity spanning decades. Read below to learn about three key laws.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)

Passed in 1996, HIPAA is one of the first data regulation laws. HIPAA focuses solely on healthcare data. It created national standards to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent or knowledge. HIPAA has also evolved alongside technological advancements. The law now reflects the digitization of healthcare data, what with the implementation of electronic medical records and digital patient data.

HIPAA also set forth reporting requirements for cybersecurity breaches. It imposes fines depending on the severity of the incident. Federal agencies like the Federal Trade Commission are also involved with investigating and collecting fines related to cyber breaches.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

Passed in 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act regulates cybersecurity practices in the financial industry. It requires financial institutions offering products or services like loans, investment advice, or insurance to explain their information-sharing practices to their customers. Financial institutions must also take steps to safeguard sensitive data. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act created three main rules:

1. A privacy rule that ensures the protection of consumers’ personal financial information
2. A safeguards rule requiring security measures to prevent data breaches
3. A provision that prohibits deceptive methods of obtaining personal financial information

The Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA)

FISMA was passed as part of the 2002 Homeland Security Act. The law requires the Director of the OMB to oversee federal agency information security policies and practices. FISMA also requires each agency to provide information on their information security practices. The Act has been amended several times since its passage in 2002. In 2014, it added Homeland Security as a key partner in federal cybersecurity efforts.

State and International Law(s)

Beyond federal cybersecurity laws and regulations, several key state and international measures govern cybersecurity best practices in the United States.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

Created in 2016 and launched in 2018, GDPR is the European Union’s (EU) cybersecurity law. GDPR created regulations and standards about collecting, storing, and managing data on companies. Any company in the world that targets or collects data related to people in the EU is subject to GDPR. GDPR also created fines against those who violate privacy and security standards. The largest fine imposed by the EU was 1.2 billion euros against Meta in 2023.

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)

The CCPA became law in response to GDPR. It serves as a de-facto national data privacy law. The law applies to any company – inside or outside of the state – that collects data from California citizens. The CCPA standardized privacy rights around consumer data. It includes rights for consumers to opt-out of sharing their data and personal information to websites and apps. These include:

• The Right to Know
• The Right to Delete
• The Right to Opt-Out of Sale
• The Right to Correct
• The Right to Limit
• The Right to Non-Discrimination

The Importance of Understanding Cybersecurity Policy

Cybersecurity is a key interest for national security and companies large and small. Preventing cybersecurity threats is a key aspect of CISA’s 16 critical infrastructure sectors. Any cybersecurity threat could jeopardize these critical industries and sectors, endangering Americans and our infrastructure.

The same can be said for protecting individual data. With almost all of our data online, the risk of unwanted parties accessing and using personal, sensitive information is a almost a given. The current patchwork of laws and regulations help ensure that the public and private sectors follow cybersecurity best practices.

Cybersecurity policy in itself is often complicated. Federal cybersecurity laws mix with international and state compliance, presidential strategic initiatives, and specific regulations in crucial sectors. Overall, cybersecurity laws and policy will continue to evolve. Best practices and emerging technologies like artificial intelligence will shape the course of this evolution.

Plural for Insights Into Cybersecurity Laws

Plural is the legislative tracking tool of choice for those seeking to monitory cybersecurity laws and regulations. With Plural, you’ll:

• Access superior public policy data 
• Be the first to know about new bills and changes in bill status
• Streamline your day with seamless organization features
• Harness the power of time-saving AI tools to gain insights into individual bills and the entire legislative landscape
• Keep everyone on the same page with internal collaboration and external reporting all in one place

Create a free account or book a demo today!

More Resources for Public Policy Teams

There are many good reasons to centralize data. Storing data in a single location makes it easier for an organization to access, organize, and update said data. The analyses gleaned from highly consolidated databases are more likely to be comprehensive and consistent. Administrators of centralized servers can more readily look for evidence of data quality issues and security breaches. Finally, centralizing data allows applications to operate in a cost-effective and efficient manner.

There are also less desirable outcomes from data centralization. Concentrated power, sacrificed privacy, reduced accountability, and curbed competition are a few. We know this because the internet has become increasingly centralized over the last 25 years. This process began when a handful of companies created user-friendly applications. These apps and websites made the world wide web highly accessible. Now, the vast majority of internet activity ends up recorded in databases owned by Google, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft, and others.

Blockchain technology is a response to the negative side effects of data centralization. It is an alternative approach to structuring digital information. Blockchain technology allows data to be stored across multiple computers in a network. The nature of blockchain means that individual computers can reliably verify the authenticity of the information received from other “nodes” in the blockchain network. Every time data on a blockchain is shared, the transaction is automatically recorded in a distributed ledger. The distributed ledger cannot be modified.

Helpful explanations of blockchain have been published by government entities like the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the National Institute for of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Homeland Security.

Blockchain’s Most Prominent Application: Cryptocurrency 

Blockchains can store virtually any kind of data, but the initial use cases enabled the creation of cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency, was launched in 2009. Since then, cryptocurrencies have allowed people to conduct secure financial transactions. Cryptocurrency transactions are completed without the involvement of a national authority, such as a central bank.

Early on, critics argued that only criminal actors would benefit from such a system. Cryptocurrency has potential to fund extremist groups as well as facilitate money laundering and dark web transactions. While threats remain, cryptocurrency has many benefits. These include:

• Increasing participation in the global economy, particularly for people from developing countries
• Reducing the risks associated with conducting business in new markets
• Facilitating more efficient transactions at a lower cost
• Protecting private citizens from corrupt government seizure of their assets
• Reducing security risks of identity theft
• Preserving personal privacy and individual autonomy

For better or worse, policymakers appear to be coming to terms with the fact that cryptocurrencies are “here to stay.” Policymakers have moved beyond attempting to ban the technology or ignoring it altogether. Rather, they’re now focusing on figuring out how to approach responsible crypto-asset regulation.

Crypto and Public Policy: Multiple Dimensions of Financial Regulation

The prospects for Congressional action on cryptocurrency remain murky. This is in part because of the sheer number of pertinent issues that must be addressed. Issues range from ensuring the stability of financial markets to determining the legal implications of smart contracts.

Currently, at least four federal regulatory authorities are involved in managing cryptocurrency risks. This includes the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Features Trading Commission (CFTC), the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Department of the Treasury. Each organization would take a different approach to a comprehensive regulatory framework. Below, we examine the enforcement priorities of each.

SEC: Protecting Investors and Closing Loopholes

The foundation of all SEC regulation is reporting requirements. These requirements are intended to help investors make sound decisions. Companies that sell shares or “securities” are required by the SEC to file a registered public offering statement prior to distributing to investors. Additionally, organizations that facilitate the buying and selling of securities, including stock exchanges and certain types of investment firms, must register as national securities exchanges. 

From the SEC’s perspective, many cryptocurrency offerings are effectively the same as securities sales. This means that cryptocurrency companies must comply with the same investor protection standards that govern publicly-traded companies. This includes regular disclosures related to corporate governance and susceptibility to market risks.

The SEC also seeks to classify certain cryptocurrency companies as securities exchanges. This is because they allow users to trade in their digital assets for traditional currencies. As an example, in its ongoing complaint against Coinbase, Inc., the SEC charges that the organization has been operating as an unregistered national securities exchange since 2019.

CFTC: Deterring Market Manipulators and Stopping Scams

The CFTC is concerned with curbing fraud and other deceptive behaviors in derivatives markets. Derivatives are financial investment contracts. Their value comes from the market price of an underlying asset, such as a currency or a commodity.  Commodities have historically included resources like wheat, gold, and oil, and, since 2015, Bitcoin.

For nearly a decade, the CFTC has sought to regulate Bitcoin and other digital currencies. In that time, the agency has primarily focused on bringing cases against market manipulators. Mitigating the abuses brought by market manipulators is particularly important with cryptocurrency regulation. Once a person falls victim to a scam, transactions function like digital contracts that cannot be reversed or disputed. Blockchains also make it easy for scammers to hide their real identity, acting quickly to withdraw their ill-earned gains as cash before disappearing.

DoJ: Prosecuting Fraud and Curbing Illicit Finance

A key aspect of the DoJ’s approach to cryptocurrency is targeting criminals who use crypto to conduct nefarious activities, like funding terrorist groups and committing cyber crimes. In 2021, the DoJ’s Criminal Division announced the launch of the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team (NCET). As a subdivision of the Fraud Section, the NCET’s aim was to combat the use of cryptocurrency as an illicit tool. It focuses on instances of extortion, fraud, and money laundering.

The DoJ goes beyond combatting criminal crypto activity. The Department also targets crypto exchanges that turn a blind eye to such crimes. The prosecution of former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhoa is an example of such efforts. Zhoa’s prosecution centered on his failure to implement an effective anti-money laundering program.

Department of the Treasury: Interpreting and Enforcing Tax Law

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sits within the Department of the Treasury. In its capacity to regulate cryptocurrency, the IRS evaluates crypto assets within the context of the tax code. Typically, the money an individual gains or loses from securities and commodities transactions over the course of a given year are reported to the IRS by their broker. This standard reporting practice helps deter tax evasion.

The decentralized and private nature of cryptocurrency presents challenges for the IRS. Since crypto is inherently decentralized, determining who qualifies as a broker is challenging. The privacy-preserving nature of blockchain also complicates compliance logistics for digital asset monitoring.

Looking Ahead: A Push to Fill in Gaps in Federal Cryptocurrency Regulation

Many arms of the federal government are actively involved in cryptocurrency regulation. Despite this, each has also issued calls for Congressional action. No matter how creative or involved enforcement agencies may get, gaps will remain. Regulators are unable to fully mitigate the unique risks associated with blockchain. Comprehensive blockchain regulation is still

Cryptocurrency regulation is multifaceted. It’s important for observers to keep in mind the wide range of legislative proposals. As an example, bills have been introduced to:

• Dictate new CFTC reporting requirements for digital asset trading platforms (HR.5966) 
• Expand the applicability of existing federal anti-money laundering laws to cover digital assets (S.2669)
• Require crypto advertisements to disclose when celebrity spokespeople have been paid for their endorsements (S.1358)
• Direct agencies to study the environmental impacts of cryptocurrency mining (S.661)

Opinions on cryptocurrency regulation don’t fall along clear party lines. In the absence of obvious partisan signals, monitoring the details of competing proposals is especially important.

Plural for Cryptocurrency Regulation

Plural is the policy tracking tool of choice for those engaged in the cryptocurrency regulation space. With Plural, you’ll:

• Access superior public policy data 
• Be the first to know about new bills and changes in bill status
• Streamline your day with seamless organization features
• Harness the power of time-saving AI tools to gain insights into individual bills and the entire legislative landscape
• Keep everyone on the same page with internal collaboration and external reporting all in one place

Create a free account or book a demo today!

More Resources

Artificial intelligence (AI) captivated the attention of the public in 2023. Conversations about AI’s capabilities were sparked by the rollout of ChatGPT in late 2022. These discussions were quickly followed by debates among lawmakers over how to regulate AI. Given the rapid advancement in AI technology and the slow progression of policymaking, especially at the federal level, it’s unsurprising that these discussions are still ongoing. We find ourselves in 2024 with many of the same questions about the future of the AI policy that we had in 2023. 

As in recent ESG and data privacy debates, the European Union (EU) has raced ahead of the U.S. and other countries in developing AI policy. The EU’s proposed AI Act would apply reporting and transparency requirements broadly. It would also ban high-risk uses of AI. The Act will likely be approved this year, and will influence AI policymaking throughout the rest of the world. 

In the United States, no such measure has passed. While there is no national framework legislation regulating AI, actions and proposals at both the state and federal levels provide insight into the direction of AI policymaking in the United States. Following state and regulatory action on AI is key, given the low probability of robust federal action. Below we summarize the trends we have seen so far in AI policy proposals, and detail what may come next. 

Federal Approaches to AI Policy

In recent years, federal policymaking decisions have shifted away from Congress towards regulatory agencies and the courts. Since 2011, Congressional majorities have been slim and partisan divides have been significant. This has led to challenges in passing complex, robust legislation through Congress. As a result, recent administrations have aimed to effect change through rulemaking. Without the likelihood of shepherding a bill through Congress, federal lawmakers impact policy through statements, hearings, and bill introductions. The first year of active AI policymaking followed these trends. 

Trend 1: A Non-Legislative Approach to AI Policymaking

Especially in an election year, the Biden administration does not want to be perceived as inactive on such a hot-button issue such as AI. Over the summer in 2023, the administration secured voluntary commitments from leading AI companies to manage risk. The White House built on these commitments in October of that year with the release of an Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. The Executive Order directs the federal government to initiate rulemaking or policy changes. New rules or policies will increase transparency and reduce risk around the use of AI. They will also promote responsible use of the technology.

Following the release of the executive order, many of the advised actions taken place. The National Institute of Standards and Technology created a leadership group for its new AI Safety Institute. Another significant development was a Department of Commerce proposal that would require cloud providers to alert the government of foreign use of powerful AI models. 

While these developments are significant, it’s worth noting that there are limitations to a strictly regulatory approach to policymaking. Executive orders and many administrative actions are reversible by any subsequent administration. Additionally, these rulemaking processes can be slower than the legislative process and subject to their own uncertainties, including court cases. 

Trend 2: High-profile Hearings Drive Media Coverage

Just like Presidents, congressional leaders can also find themselves stymied by the challenge of passing legislation through a gridlocked Congress. Recently, many legislators have turned to high profile committee meetings with industry leaders to communicate their agenda. Some of the most closely covered committee hearings of the past decade have given legislators a highly-visible opportunity to question Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Bankman-Fried, and others.

This trend has continued with hearings on AI in 2023 and early 2024. Recent committee hearings have included a wide range of guests, including leaders from Microsoft and Nvidia as well as representatives of the music industry. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has been especially active in this regard. Senator Schumer has initiated a series of forums bringing together tech leaders, consumer rights groups, and civil rights advocates. Even if these conversations don’t directly lead to new policy, they help shape the debate on the use of AI in the U.S.

Trend 3: A focus on Discrimination, Misinformation, and Transparency

Executive Actions, committee hearings, and legislation proposals have made clear the areas of greatest concern for U.S. lawmakers in relation to AI. If significant action on AI does take place in 2024, it will likely relate to preventing discrimination and misinformation, or increasing transparency. 

AI’s risk of contributing to existing societal inequities is well-established and concerning. Some lawmakers have centered their concerns about AI around issues of bias and discrimination. The recently introduced S 3478 aims to account for this risk. The bill would require federal agencies that use algorithmic systems to have an office of civil rights focused on bias and discrimination. The White House and Senator Schumer have also centered race in their discussions of AI. They have aimed to incorporate diverse voices in the conversations shaping AI policy. 

Increased focus on AI is paired significant consternation about the safety of our democratic process. With 2024 being an election year, we can expect a focus on combating AI-related misinformation in the run up to November. In the fall of 2023, lawmakers proposed a bipartisan bill that would prohibit the distribution of deceptive AI-generated election-related content. Whether such a bill can become law, as well as whether it can be enforced, remains to be seen. 

Finally, there does appear to be some consensus regarding the need for transparency in AI. President Biden’s executive order calls for the establishment of best practices regarding the detection and labeling of AI-generated content. Legislation calling for watermarking AI-generated content and encouraging training in the use and detection of AI for federal employees have also been introduced.

State Approaches to AI Policy

At the state level, lawmakers are often learning about AI as they begin to craft regulations. State activity in 2023 was widespread and it is expected that the pace of this work may increase in 2024. As “laboratories of democracy,” states play a crucial role in developing new policy to meet new needs. In an increasingly nationalized political environment, we also see policy trends moving from state-to-state more quickly. This has been seen in recent years with marijuana and gambling legalization efforts. Tracking AI policy trends across state governments is essential to ensuring compliance and in assessing what’s to come.

Trend 1: California Leads the Way

California is the largest sub-national economy in the world. It’s also home to one of the largest technology innovation hubs. Governor Newsom and California Democrats have shown an interest in being the first to act on hot-button issues like abortion, gun rights, and ESG regulations. It isn’t surprising that significant legislative action on AI is expected to occur in Sacramento this year. 

California has adopted measures requiring an inventory of current “automated decision system” use in state government. The legislature has also expressed support for President Biden’s approach to AI regulation. Efforts to come in 2024 are headlined by Senator Weiner’s proposed Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Systems Act. This bill would regulate the development and use of advanced AI systems. It would require AI developers to report to the state on testing protocols and safety measures.          

Trend 2: A Focus on Labor

One of the most common concerns associated with any new technology is its potential to cause job displacement. Because it simulates human cognition, AI poses a risk to disrupt certain industries and displace those working in them. While AI poses threats to oft-threatened industries like manufacturing, it is also places at risk industries not commonly thought of in this context. Organizations representing reporters, screenwriters, and lawyers have all sounded the alarm about the labor risks of AI. 

There is still much we don’t know about how AI will affect our workplaces. State responses to AI’s impact on labor show a desire to learn more while preventing some overreach. New Jersey’s A 5150 and New York’s A 7838 are both propose requiring their state’s Department of Labor to collect data on job losses due to automation. Massachusetts’s An Act preventing a dystopian work environment, perhaps the most interestingly named of the bills in this category, seeks to ban the use of AI in certain hiring and workplace productivity practices. 

Trend 3: Task Forces, Commissions, and Studies

When it comes to complex policymaking discussions, it’s worth remembering that the vast majority of state legislators don’t come from the field which they are regulating. This isn’t a dismissal of these legislators or their ability to regulate AI; however, it underscores the need for state legislators to study these issues before they act. As such, much of the AI legislation that has passed so far have established groups dedicated to studying its impact and making recommendations. It will be important to follow the work of these groups to anticipate what their impact on policymaking will be. 

Looking Ahead: AI Policy

As we anticipate what action on AI awaits us through the rest of 2024, upcoming elections stand out as a monumental factor. Along with the presidency, all House seats, 34 Senate seats, and a majority of state legislator seats are up for election in November. AI policymaking will be heavily impacted by these elections, both in the lead up to and aftermath of election day. 

As mentioned, AI poses a real risk to exacerbate the growing trend in the U.S. of election misinformation. Conversations about preventing this challenge have already begun, many focusing on preventing deep fakes or erroneous content. It seems likely that at least some misinformation will reach voters this fall. How the public and our elected officials react to it will shape any legislative action following the election.

There doesn’t yet appear to be consensus partisan positions on AI that the average voter will weigh in their decisions. However, the impact of AI should not be underrated as a campaign issue. After all, AI will have profound effects on healthcare, education, the economy, and civil rights; the issues that are perennially on the mind of the American electorate. 

More Resources for Public Policy Teams