Technology

Subscribe to Technology via RSS

One of many provisions in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, would place a 10-year “temporary pause” on states’ ability to regulate artificial intelligence (AI). Initially called a moratorium, Senate Republicans changed the characterization of the prohibition to ensure the provision’s passage during the reconciliation process. The changes were at least partially successful, as the proposed “temporary pause” overcame a procedural hurdle when the Senate parliamentarian concluded that it satisfies the “Byrd Rule” and may remain in the bill. The bill now heads to the Senate floor. If enacted, the temporary pause would mark the most significant federal action (or inaction) related to AI.

In this episode of the Regulatory Oversight podcast, Stephen Piepgrass welcomes David Navetta, Lauren Geiser, and Dan Waltz to discuss the $51.75 million nationwide class settlement involving Clearview AI and its broader implications. The conversation focuses on Clearview AI’s facial recognition software, which has sparked controversy due to its use of publicly available images to generate biometric data.

On June 2, the Texas legislature passed the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, (TX AI Act or bill) which heads to the governor for his signature or veto. The bill will take effect January 1, 2026, if the governor signs it into law. It is the most comprehensive piece of AI governance legislation to pass a state legislature to date. If enacted, Texas will become the fourth state after Colorado, Utah, and California to pass AI-specific legislation.

Introduction

On Thursday, March 20, a federal judge in the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval to a settlement agreement under which Clearview AI (Clearview) agreed to pay an estimated $51.75 million to a nationwide class if one of several contingencies takes place. This approved settlement agreement resolves In Re: Clearview AI, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-00135 (N.D. Ill.), a multidistrict suit alleging that the company’s automatic collection, storage, and use of biometric data violated various privacy laws, including Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The unorthodox settlement not only preserves Clearview’s business model, but may also insulate Clearview from subsequent or parallel regulatory investigations without requiring the company to jeopardize the liquidity necessary for continued growth. Ultimately, this settlement seems to represent a good outcome for the company, especially in light of the fact that that it was achieved over the objections from 23 state attorneys general (AG). U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman stated that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

METRC, Inc., the predominant provider of seed-to-sale tracking software used by state regulatory bodies overseeing legal cannabis markets across the U.S., faces serious allegations detailed in a recent lawsuit filed in Oregon. The lawsuit, brought by a former executive at METRC, accuses the company of whistleblower retaliation and wrongful termination under Oregon law. Central to the plaintiff’s complaint are allegations that METRC knowingly ignored substantial compliance violations within its tracking systems in California, potentially facilitating illegal diversion of cannabis products. The litigation raises critical concerns for cannabis regulatory compliance, not only in Oregon and California but also in the 25 other jurisdictions that rely on METRC’s systems.

On February 4, the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General (AG) released its second Report on Emerging Technology and Its Effect on Youth Well-Being, outlining the effects young Minnesota residents allegedly experience from using social media and artificial intelligence (AI). The report highlights alleged adverse effects that technology platforms have on minors and claims that specific design choices exacerbate these issues.

State attorneys general (AGs) continue to play a pivotal role as innovators, shaping the regulatory environment by leveraging their expertise and resources to influence policy and practice. The public-facing nature of AG offices across the U.S. compels them to respond to constituent concerns on abbreviated timetables. This political sensitivity, combined with the AGs’ authority to address both local and national issues, underscores their significant influence in the current regulatory environment.

In a recent interview, Karen White, the executive director of the Attorney General Alliance (AGA), discussed the organization’s impactful partnership with PBS, its involvement in the Bipartisan Leadership Project, and its proactive stance on artificial intelligence (AI). Originally a regional group, the AGA has grown into a significant force addressing complex issues through bipartisan collaboration and innovative partnerships.

Published in Law360 on January 22, 2025. © Copyright 2025, Portfolio Media, Inc., publisher of Law360. Reprinted here with permission.

In the first installment of this two-part article, state attorneys general across the U.S. took bold action in 2024 to address what they perceived as unlawful activities by corporations in several areas, including privacy and data security, financial transparency, children’s internet safety, and other overall consumer protection claims.