1. 10 December 2025 - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025PC0836

EU Commission Proposes Digital Omnibus to Simplify AI Rules (EU) New Regulation to Amend AI Act for Better Implementation (EU) Digital Omnibus on AI: Streamlining Compliance in Europe (EU) Brussels Unveils Proposal to Ease AI Regulatory Burden (EU) EU Targets Harmonized AI Rules with New Legislation (EU) Commission Proposal 52025PC0836: The Future of AI Governance (EU) Simplifying AI Market Access: The Digital Omnibus Proposal (EU) Amendments to Regulation 2024/1689: A New AI Framework (EU) European Union Moves to Refine AI Standards and Safety (EU) Streamlining Innovation: The EU Digital Omnibus on AI (EU)

Source: Eur-Lex

Eur-Lex reports that the European Commission has published a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, identified as document 52025PC0836. This legislative proposal, known as the "Digital Omnibus on AI," aims to amend Regulations (EU) 2024/1689 and (EU) 2018/1139 to simplify the implementation of harmonized rules on artificial intelligence across the Union. The initiative seeks to streamline the regulatory landscape for AI developers and deployers, ensuring that the high standards of safety and fundamental rights protection established by the AI Act are maintained while reducing administrative burdens.

The proposal addresses the need for a more cohesive framework that integrates various digital regulations, facilitating easier market access for AI innovations. By adjusting the existing legal texts, the Commission intends to clarify compliance requirements and foster a more competitive environment for the European digital economy. The document outlines specific amendments designed to harmonize standards, thereby preventing fragmentation of the internal market and promoting legal certainty for stakeholders operating within the EU.

Italian version: Eur-Lex riferisce che la Commissione Europea ha pubblicato una proposta di Regolamento del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio, identificata come documento 52025PC0836. Questa proposta legislativa, nota come "Digital Omnibus sull'IA", mira a modificare i Regolamenti (UE) 2024/1689 e (UE) 2018/1139 per semplificare l'attuazione delle norme armonizzate sull'intelligenza artificiale in tutta l'Unione. L'iniziativa cerca di snellire il panorama normativo per gli sviluppatori e gli utilizzatori di IA, garantendo che gli elevati standard di sicurezza e protezione dei diritti fondamentali stabiliti dall'AI Act siano mantenuti pur riducendo gli oneri amministrativi.

La proposta affronta la necessità di un quadro più coeso che integri varie normative digitali, facilitando un più facile accesso al mercato per le innovazioni dell'IA. Adeguando i testi giuridici esistenti, la Commissione intende chiarire i requisiti di conformità e favorire un ambiente più competitivo per l'economia digitale europea. Il documento delinea modifiche specifiche progettate per armonizzare gli standard, prevenendo così la frammentazione del mercato interno e promuovendo la certezza del diritto per le parti interessate che operano all'interno dell'UE.

Legal Topic: European Union Law Administrative Law Economic Law or Law of Economics Public Law

2. 12 December 2025 - https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/policy-week-in-review-december-12-2025-5009393/

Trump Signs Executive Order Blocking State AI Regulations (USA) Federal Preemption of AI Laws: Trump’s New Executive Order (USA) President Trump Moves to Unify National AI Standards (USA) Executive Order Limits States from Enacting AI Rules (USA) White House Targets Patchwork of State AI Legislation (USA) New Federal Task Force to Challenge State AI Laws (USA) Ensuring American AI Leadership Through Deregulation (USA) Trump Administration Pushes for Single National AI Framework (USA) Barriers to Innovation: Executive Order Strikes Down State Rules (USA) Federal Policy Shift: Preempting State Control Over AI (USA)

Source: JD Supra

JD Supra reports that on December 11, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at limiting the authority of individual states to regulate artificial intelligence. The order's declared purpose is to ensure that American AI companies can innovate without the hindrance of cumbersome and disparate state regulations, thereby securing U.S. leadership in the sector. The President has directed the creation of an AI Litigation Task Force under the Attorney General, which will be responsible for challenging state laws that conflict with this new federal policy.

Furthermore, the executive order instructs federal agencies to review their grant programs and consider withholding funds from states that enact AI regulations deemed obstructive to the national policy. The order specifically mandates the Secretary of Commerce to issue a policy notice within 90 days regarding the eligibility of states for Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) funding, making it conditional on their alignment with the federal deregulation stance. This move is seen as a direct response to the proliferation of AI legislative proposals in various state legislatures, which the administration views as undermining national economic and security goals.

Italian version: JD Supra riporta che l'11 dicembre 2025 il Presidente Donald Trump ha firmato un ordine esecutivo volto a limitare l'autorità dei singoli stati di regolamentare l'intelligenza artificiale. Lo scopo dichiarato dell'ordine è garantire che le aziende americane di IA possano innovare senza l'ostacolo di normative statali gravose e disparate, assicurando così la leadership degli Stati Uniti nel settore. Il Presidente ha ordinato la creazione di una Task Force per il Contenzioso sull'IA sotto la guida del Procuratore Generale, che sarà responsabile di impugnare le leggi statali che entrano in conflitto con questa nuova politica federale.

Inoltre, l'ordine esecutivo istruisce le agenzie federali a rivedere i loro programmi di sovvenzione e a considerare la sospensione dei fondi agli stati che emanano normative sull'IA ritenute ostative alla politica nazionale. L'ordine incarica specificamente il Segretario al Commercio di emettere un avviso politico entro 90 giorni riguardante l'ammissibilità degli stati ai finanziamenti per la Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD), rendendola condizionata al loro allineamento con la posizione di deregolamentazione federale. Questa mossa è vista come una risposta diretta alla proliferazione di proposte legislative sull'IA in varie legislature statali, che l'amministrazione considera minacciose per gli obiettivi economici e di sicurezza nazionali.

Legal Topic: Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public Law Commercial Law

3. 12 December 2025 - https://wtvbam.com/2025/12/12/trumps-ai-order-faces-political-and-legal-hurdles/

Legal Hurdles Mount for Trump’s AI Executive Order (USA) States Prepare to Challenge Federal AI Preemption (USA) Trump’s AI Order Faces Dormant Commerce Clause Test (USA) Broadband Funding at Risk in Fight Over AI Regulation (USA) Tech Industry Wins as Trump Blocks State AI Laws (USA) Constitutional Battle Looms Over State AI Authority (USA) DOJ Tasked with Suing States Over AI Regulations (USA) Federal vs. State Power: The Battle for AI Oversight (USA) Legal Experts Question Enforceability of Trump’s AI Order (USA) Political Opposition Rises Against Federal AI Deregulation (USA)

Source: WTVB

WTVB reports that President Trump's recent executive order designed to bar state laws on artificial intelligence is expected to face significant political and legal opposition. While the order is hailed as a victory for tech companies arguing against a patchwork of state regulations, legal experts warn of obstacles in its implementation. Specifically, the administration's plan to withhold $42 billion in Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funding from states with "onerous" AI regulations may be challenged in court, as judges will consider whether the AI laws are sufficiently related to the purpose of the broadband statute.

The report highlights that the Department of Justice is tasked with challenging state laws on the grounds that they violate the Constitution's "dormant commerce clause" by interfering with interstate commerce. However, experts note that courts have previously rejected similar attempts to block state privacy legislation using this argument. The legal analysis suggests that unless state laws treat out-of-state businesses differently than in-state ones, the dormant commerce clause argument may be weak. Additionally, Republican governors in states like Arkansas and Florida have previously expressed opposition to federal interference in state legislative matters, indicating potential intra-party conflict.

Italian version: WTVB riferisce che il recente ordine esecutivo del Presidente Trump, progettato per bloccare le leggi statali sull'intelligenza artificiale, dovrebbe affrontare una significativa opposizione politica e legale. Sebbene l'ordine sia salutato come una vittoria per le aziende tecnologiche che argomentano contro un mosaico di normative statali, gli esperti legali avvertono degli ostacoli nella sua attuazione. In particolare, il piano dell'amministrazione di trattenere 42 miliardi di dollari di finanziamenti per la Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) dagli stati con normative sull'IA "onerose" potrebbe essere impugnato in tribunale, poiché i giudici valuteranno se le leggi sull'IA siano sufficientemente correlate allo scopo dello statuto sulla banda larga.

Il rapporto evidenzia che il Dipartimento di Giustizia è incaricato di impugnare le leggi statali sulla base del fatto che violano la "clausola dormiente del commercio" della Costituzione interferendo con il commercio interstatale. Tuttavia, gli esperti notano che i tribunali hanno precedentemente respinto tentativi simili di bloccare la legislazione statale sulla privacy utilizzando questo argomento. L'analisi legale suggerisce che, a meno che le leggi statali non trattino le imprese fuori dallo stato diversamente da quelle all'interno dello stato, l'argomento della clausola dormiente del commercio potrebbe essere debole. Inoltre, i governatori repubblicani in stati come l'Arkansas e la Florida hanno precedentemente espresso opposizione all'interferenza federale nelle questioni legislative statali, indicando un potenziale conflitto all'interno del partito.

Legal Topic: Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public Law Institutions or Foundations of Public Law Commercial Law

Link 4: https://wkzo.com/2025/12/12/trumps-ai-order-faces-political-and-legal-hurdles/ DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage is so short (LESS THAN 10 LINES) that summary cannot be effected (Duplicate content of Link 3).

Link 5: https://www.pressreader.com/france/euronews-french-edition/20251213/281809995227355 DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage is truncated and requires a subscription to be fully read.

6. 11 November 2025 - https://www.mondaq.com/australia/copyright/1718270/getty-images-v-stability-ai-court-considers-ai-training-and-copyright

UK High Court Rules on Getty Images vs Stability AI (UK) No Secondary Infringement in AI Model Training Case (UK) Stable Diffusion Model Not an 'Infringing Copy' Says Court (UK) Landmark Ruling: AI Weights Are Not Copies of Training Data (UK) Getty Images Fails in Secondary Copyright Claim Against Stability AI (UK) Court Distinguishes Between Image and AI Model Information (UK) Legal Victory for AI: Training Data Not 'Stored' in Model (UK) Technological Neutrality Applied to AI Copyright Disputes (UK) Implications of Getty v Stability for Generative AI Law (UK) High Court Rejects Claim That AI Models Are Infringing Articles (UK)

Source: Mondaq

Mondaq reports on the significant judgment delivered by the High Court of England and Wales in the case of Getty Images v Stability AI. The Court dismissed Getty's claim of secondary copyright infringement, ruling that Stability AI's "Stable Diffusion" model was not an "infringing copy" of Getty's works. The judge determined that while the model was trained on copyrighted images, the model itself—comprised of parameters and weights—does not "store" or contain the original images in a manner that constitutes a copy under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA).

The ruling clarified that the creation of model weights represents the "creation of information" rather than the reproduction of the images themselves. Consequently, the importation and distribution of the software in the UK did not amount to secondary infringement. The Court rejected the notion that an article could be an infringing copy merely because it was produced with the benefit of a copyrighted work. While the primary infringement claim regarding the training process (which occurred outside the UK) was not the focus of this specific judgment, the decision sets a critical precedent for how AI models are treated under intellectual property law, distinguishing between the information derived from works and the works themselves.

Italian version: Mondaq riferisce sulla significativa sentenza emessa dall'Alta Corte di Inghilterra e Galles nel caso Getty Images v Stability AI. La Corte ha respinto la richiesta di Getty per violazione secondaria del copyright, stabilendo che il modello "Stable Diffusion" di Stability AI non era una "copia contraffatta" delle opere di Getty. Il giudice ha determinato che, sebbene il modello sia stato addestrato su immagini protette da copyright, il modello stesso — composto da parametri e pesi — non "memorizza" né contiene le immagini originali in un modo che costituisca una copia ai sensi del Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA).

La sentenza ha chiarito che la creazione dei pesi del modello rappresenta la "creazione di informazioni" piuttosto che la riproduzione delle immagini stesse. Di conseguenza, l'importazione e la distribuzione del software nel Regno Unito non ammontavano a violazione secondaria. La Corte ha respinto la nozione che un articolo possa essere una copia contraffatta semplicemente perché prodotto con il beneficio di un'opera protetta da copyright. Sebbene la richiesta di violazione primaria riguardante il processo di addestramento (avvenuto fuori dal Regno Unito) non fosse il fulcro di questa specifica sentenza, la decisione stabilisce un precedente critico per il modo in cui i modelli di IA sono trattati ai sensi della legge sulla proprietà intellettuale, distinguendo tra le informazioni derivate dalle opere e le opere stesse.

Legal Topic: Intellectual Property Law Civil Law Digital Governance Legal Technology - Law-Tech

Link 7: https://katv.com/news/nation-world/the-national-news-desk-weekend-edition-12-12-2025 DISCARDED - Reason: The webpages is so short (LESS THAN 10 LINES) that summary cannot be effected.

Link 8: https://www.google.com/search?q=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/5376011.pdf%3Fabstractid%3D5376011%26mirid%3D1 DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage indicates restrictions to be summarized (PDF delivery not retrieved directly/requires session).

9. 12 December 2025 - https://www.kark.com/news/arkansas-courts/arkansas-supreme-court-questions-attorney-about-ai-use-establishes-rule-governing-ai/

Arkansas Supreme Court Adopts Order 25 Regulating AI in Courts (USA) Attorneys Must Verify AI Confidentiality Under New Rule (USA) Protecting Client Data: Arkansas Sets Strict AI Guidelines (USA) New Administrative Order Mandates AI Awareness for Lawyers (USA) Arkansas Judges Question Attorney on AI Usage in Filings (USA) Generative AI and Court Records: A New Legal Framework (USA) Duty to Verify: Lawyers Responsible for AI Data Retention (USA) Arkansas Supreme Court Leads on AI Governance in Judiciary (USA) Confidentiality Risks in AI: Arkansas Implements Safeguards (USA) Judicial Oversight of AI: Order 25 Takes Effect Immediately (USA)

Source: KARK

KARK reports that the Arkansas Supreme Court has formally adopted Administrative Order No. 25, establishing new rules governing the use of artificial intelligence by attorneys and court personnel. The order, which follows a comment period that began in June 2025, requires anyone participating in the court system to be mindful of data privacy when using generative AI tools. Specifically, attorneys must verify whether the AI systems they use retain confidential or sealed information to build their databases. This move comes as the court seeks to protect sensitive client and case data from inadvertent disclosure through public Large Language Models (LLMs).

During oral arguments on December 11, 2025, justices questioned an attorney regarding his use of AI in preparing a brief, highlighting the judiciary's increasing scrutiny of the technology. The new order mandates that legal professionals must determine if an AI tool is a "public" system that learns from inputs or a "private" one with data safeguards. Failure to protect confidential information could result in violations of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct and other statutes limiting access to court records. The order also creates a mechanism for the court's Automation Committee to approve research projects related to AI use in the justice system.

Italian version: KARK riferisce che la Corte Suprema dell'Arkansas ha formalmente adottato l'Ordine Amministrativo n. 25, stabilendo nuove regole che governano l'uso dell'intelligenza artificiale da parte di avvocati e personale giudiziario. L'ordine, che segue un periodo di commenti iniziato nel giugno 2025, richiede a chiunque partecipi al sistema giudiziario di prestare attenzione alla privacy dei dati quando utilizza strumenti di IA generativa. Nello specifico, gli avvocati devono verificare se i sistemi di IA che utilizzano conservano informazioni riservate o sigillate per costruire i loro database. Questa mossa arriva mentre la corte cerca di proteggere i dati sensibili dei clienti e dei casi dalla divulgazione involontaria attraverso Large Language Models (LLM) pubblici.

Durante le argomentazioni orali dell'11 dicembre 2025, i giudici hanno interrogato un avvocato riguardo al suo uso dell'IA nella preparazione di una memoria, evidenziando il crescente scrutinio della magistratura sulla tecnologia. Il nuovo ordine impone ai professionisti legali di determinare se uno strumento di IA sia un sistema "pubblico" che apprende dagli input o uno "privato" con garanzie sui dati. La mancata protezione delle informazioni riservate potrebbe comportare violazioni delle Regole di Condotta Professionale dell'Arkansas e di altri statuti che limitano l'accesso ai documenti giudiziari. L'ordine crea anche un meccanismo affinché il Comitato per l'Automazione della corte approvi progetti di ricerca relativi all'uso dell'IA nel sistema giudiziario.

Legal Topic: Civil Procedure Law Legal Informatics AI in Judicial Activities Ethics and Philosophy of Law

10. 12 December 2025 - https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/trump-blocks-state-ai-regulation-days-before-texas-law-takes-effect/

Trump’s Order Blocks Texas AI Law Days Before Enactment (USA) Texas Responsible AI Governance Act in Federal Crosshairs (USA) Conflict Between Texas AI Law and Trump Executive Order (USA) Federal Preemption Halts Texas Regulations on Algorithmic Bias (USA) Texas AI Law TRAIGA Set for January 1 Implementation Blocked (USA) State Rights vs Federal Dominance: Texas AI Clash (USA) Trump Voids Texas Rules on AI Manipulation and Social Scoring (USA) Uncertainty for Texas Tech Sector as Federal Order Drops (USA) Protecting Innovation or Risking Safety? Texas AI Law Stalled (USA) Legal Showdown: Texas AI Regulation vs White House Order (USA)

Source: KXAN

KXAN reports that President Trump's new executive order aiming to create a "single national framework" for AI has effectively blocked the implementation of the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA), which was set to take effect on January 1, 2026. The Texas law was designed to outlaw the use of AI for manipulating human behavior, unlawful discrimination, and social scoring, with penalties of up to $200,000 for violations. The federal order directs agencies to pressure states to abandon such regulations by withholding federal funding or challenging them in court.

Texas State Senator Amy Shorey, a proponent of the state law, expressed concern that the executive order would leave the public vulnerable to AI errors and bias without adequate local oversight. While Trump argues that state regulations hinder innovation and American competitiveness, critics in Texas argue that the "wild west" approach benefits big tech at the expense of consumer safety. The conflict highlights the tension between the state's attempt to act as a "laboratory" for AI policy—addressing issues like biometric data privacy and automated decision-making in healthcare—and the federal administration's push for deregulation and a unified national standard.

Italian version: KXAN riferisce che il nuovo ordine esecutivo del Presidente Trump, che mira a creare un "quadro nazionale unico" per l'IA, ha effettivamente bloccato l'attuazione del Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA), che sarebbe dovuto entrare in vigore il 1° gennaio 2026. La legge del Texas era stata progettata per vietare l'uso dell'IA per manipolare il comportamento umano, la discriminazione illegale e il punteggio sociale, con sanzioni fino a 200.000 dollari per le violazioni. L'ordine federale istruisce le agenzie a fare pressione sugli stati affinché abbandonino tali normative trattenendo i fondi federali o impugnandole in tribunale.

La senatrice statale del Texas Amy Shorey, sostenitrice della legge statale, ha espresso preoccupazione per il fatto che l'ordine esecutivo lascerebbe il pubblico vulnerabile agli errori e ai pregiudizi dell'IA senza un'adeguata supervisione locale. Mentre Trump sostiene che le normative statali ostacolano l'innovazione e la competitività americana, i critici in Texas sostengono che l'approccio da "far west" avvantaggia le grandi aziende tecnologiche a spese della sicurezza dei consumatori. Il conflitto evidenzia la tensione tra il tentativo dello stato di agire come "laboratorio" per la politica sull'IA — affrontando questioni come la privacy dei dati biometrici e il processo decisionale automatizzato nella sanità — e la spinta dell'amministrazione federale per la deregolamentazione e uno standard nazionale unificato.

Legal Topic: Constitutional Law Public Law Consumer Law Personal Data Protection Law

Link 11: https://cbs6albany.com/news/local/trump-executive-order-targets-state-ai-laws-some-skeptical-of-legality DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage is so short (LESS THAN 10 LINES) that summary cannot be effected (Redundant).

12. 12 December 2025 - https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/251213-executive-order-state-ai-laws

Detailed Analysis: Trump’s Executive Order on State AI Laws (USA) Litigation Task Force Established to Challenge State AI Rules (USA) BEAD Funding Conditioned on AI Deregulation in New EO (USA) Federal Government Asserts Dominance Over AI Policy (USA) Executive Order Exempts Child Safety and Data Centers (USA) Preemption by Action: How the EO Targets State Laws (USA) Colorado and California AI Laws Specifically Targeted by EO (USA) Commerce Department to Evaluate State AI Barriers (USA) FTC Directed to Align Deceptive Practices with AI Deregulation (USA) Impact of Federal Preemption on State Privacy and Labor Laws (USA)

Source: MoFo

Morrison Foerster provides an in-depth legal analysis of the executive order signed by President Trump on December 11, 2025. The insight details the creation of an "AI Litigation Task Force" within the Department of Justice, solely responsible for challenging state AI laws deemed inconsistent with the administration's pro-innovation policy. The order also instructs the Secretary of Commerce to issue a Policy Notice within 90 days that conditions eligibility for Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) funding on states refraining from enacting conflicting AI regulations.

The analysis highlights that while the EO broadly targets state regulations as "barriers," it contains specific carve-outs for laws related to child safety, data center infrastructure, and state government procurement. However, it explicitly criticizes laws like Colorado's algorithmic discrimination ban, suggesting they force AI models to produce "false results" to achieve equity. The firm notes that the EO directs federal agencies to assess all discretionary grant programs for potential conditionality based on state AI laws. This comprehensive federal strategy aims to discourage states from passing reasonable protections regarding data privacy, transparency, and labor rights by leveraging significant infrastructure funding as a compliance tool.

Italian version: Morrison Foerster fornisce un'approfondita analisi legale dell'ordine esecutivo firmato dal Presidente Trump l'11 dicembre 2025. L'approfondimento dettaglia la creazione di una "Task Force per il Contenzioso sull'IA" all'interno del Dipartimento di Giustizia, unicamente responsabile di impugnare le leggi statali sull'IA ritenute incoerenti con la politica pro-innovazione dell'amministrazione. L'ordine istruisce inoltre il Segretario al Commercio di emettere un Avviso Politico entro 90 giorni che condiziona l'ammissibilità ai finanziamenti per la Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) al fatto che gli stati si astengano dall'emanare normative sull'IA contrastanti.

L'analisi evidenzia che, sebbene l'EO prenda di mira ampiamente le normative statali come "barriere", contiene specifiche esenzioni per le leggi relative alla sicurezza dei bambini, alle infrastrutture dei data center e agli appalti pubblici statali. Tuttavia, critica esplicitamente leggi come il divieto di discriminazione algoritmica del Colorado, suggerendo che costringano i modelli di IA a produrre "risultati falsi" per ottenere l'equità. Lo studio legale nota che l'EO dirige le agenzie federali a valutare tutti i programmi di sovvenzione discrezionali per una potenziale condizionalità basata sulle leggi statali sull'IA. Questa strategia federale globale mira a scoraggiare gli stati dall'approvare ragionevoli tutele riguardanti la privacy dei dati, la trasparenza e i diritti del lavoro sfruttando ingenti finanziamenti infrastrutturali come strumento di conformità.

Legal Topic: Administrative Law Constitutional Law Public Law Competition Law / Antitrust Law

Link 13: https://cbs6albany.com/news/local/trump-executive-order-targets-state-ai-laws-some-skeptical-of-legality DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage is so short (LESS THAN 10 LINES) that summary cannot be effected (Duplicate of Link 11).

Link 14: https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/251213-executive-order-state-ai-laws DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage is so short (LESS THAN 10 LINES) that summary cannot be effected (Duplicate of Link 12).

15. 13 December 2025 - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/dec/13/california-ai-executive-order-trump-gavin-newsom

Newsom Slams Trump’s AI Order as 'Grift and Corruption' (USA) California Vows to Fight Federal Preemption of AI Laws (USA) Governor Newsom Defends California’s AI Safety Legislation (USA) Clash of Visions: Trump’s Deregulation vs California’s Safety (USA) Child Safety Groups Rally Against Trump’s AI Executive Order (USA) California’s Innovation Economy Threatened by Federal Order (USA) State Attorney General Bonta to Examine Legality of AI Order (USA) Silicon Valley Split: Big Tech Wins, Safety Advocates Lose (USA) California Transparency Act for Frontier Models at Risk (USA) Democrats and Unions Unite Against Federal AI Interference (USA)

Source: The Guardian

The Guardian reports on the intense backlash from California Governor Gavin Newsom regarding President Trump's executive order to block state AI regulations. Newsom characterized the order as advancing "grift and corruption" rather than innovation, arguing it protects the interests of the President's associates over public safety. The Governor defended California's recent legislative efforts, such as the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, which mandates safety testing and reporting for powerful AI models. State officials view the federal order as a direct assault on California's sovereignty and its role as a global technology leader.

The article highlights that California Attorney General Rob Bonta is preparing to challenge the legality of the executive order, setting the stage for a constitutional showdown. Opposition to the order extends beyond politicians to include child safety organizations and labor unions, who fear that removing state safeguards will expose vulnerable populations to harms from unregulated AI chatbots and algorithmic bias. Critics argue that the Trump administration has failed to provide a comprehensive federal framework to replace the state laws it seeks to dismantle, effectively leaving the industry without meaningful oversight.

Italian version: The Guardian riferisce dell'intensa reazione del governatore della California Gavin Newsom riguardo all'ordine esecutivo del presidente Trump di bloccare le normative statali sull'IA. Newsom ha caratterizzato l'ordine come un avanzamento di "truffa e corruzione" piuttosto che innovazione, sostenendo che protegge gli interessi dei soci del Presidente rispetto alla sicurezza pubblica. Il Governatore ha difeso i recenti sforzi legislativi della California, come il Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, che impone test di sicurezza e report per i potenti modelli di IA. I funzionari statali vedono l'ordine federale come un assalto diretto alla sovranità della California e al suo ruolo di leader tecnologico globale.

L'articolo evidenzia che il Procuratore Generale della California Rob Bonta si sta preparando a contestare la legalità dell'ordine esecutivo, ponendo le basi per uno scontro costituzionale. L'opposizione all'ordine si estende oltre i politici per includere organizzazioni per la sicurezza dei bambini e sindacati, che temono che la rimozione delle tutele statali esporrà le popolazioni vulnerabili ai danni derivanti da chatbot di IA non regolamentati e pregiudizi algoritmici. I critici sostengono che l'amministrazione Trump non è riuscita a fornire un quadro federale completo per sostituire le leggi statali che cerca di smantellare, lasciando di fatto l'industria senza una supervisione significativa.

Legal Topic: Constitutional Law Public Law Consumer Law Labor Law or Employment Law

Link 16: https://www.bhfs.com/insight/trump-administration-issues-eo-advancing-federal-preemption-of-ai-laws/ DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage is so short (LESS THAN 10 LINES) that summary cannot be effected (Covered by Link 12).

Link 17: https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/251213-executive-order-state-ai-laws DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage is so short (LESS THAN 10 LINES) that summary cannot be effected (Duplicate of Link 12).

Link 18: https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/251213-executive-order-state-ai-laws DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage is so short (LESS THAN 10 LINES) that summary cannot be effected (Duplicate of Link 12).

Link 19: https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www.ijpr.org/science-technology/2025-12-13/trumps-new-order-against-ai-regulation-hits-california-especially-hard%253F_amp%253Dtrue DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage is so short (LESS THAN 10 LINES) that summary cannot be effected.

Link 20: https://www.cbsnews.com/video/what-comes-next-after-trump-signs-order-blocking-state-ai-rules/ DISCARDED - Reason: The constribution consists in a podcast or audio or video contribution.

Link 21: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/12/12/artificial-intelligence-executive-order-trump-preemption/ DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage is truncated and requires a subscription to be fully read.

Link 22: https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www.ijpr.org/science-technology/2025-12-13/trumps-new-order-against-ai-regulation-hits-california-especially-hard%253F_amp%253Dtrue DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage is so short (LESS THAN 10 LINES) that summary cannot be effected (Duplicate of Link 19).

Link 23: https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/president-trump-signs-ai-executive-order-aims-to-help-us-win-global-dominance-innovation-interior-secretary-doug-burgum-china-artificial-intelligence-iran-israel-democrats-republicans-congress DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage is so short (LESS THAN 10 LINES) that summary cannot be effected.

Link 24: https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20251214000500320 DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage is so short (LESS THAN 10 LINES) that summary cannot be effected (Covered by Link 29).

Link 25: https://www.facebook.com/newshour/posts/president-trump-has-signed-an-executive-order-that-would-block-states-from-enfor/1324804402848136/ DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage indicate any intellectual property warning or restriction to be linked, summarized or used on other websites (Login required/Facebook).

Link 26: https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10636006 DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage is so short (LESS THAN 10 LINES) that summary cannot be effected.

Link 27: https://www.google.com/search?q=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm%253Fabstract_id%253D5840082 DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage indicate any intellectual property warning or restriction to be linked, summarized or used on other websites (Access restrictions/PDF).

Link 28: https://www.wam.ae/en/article/15x5lsx-korea-sets-implement-law-next-month DISCARDED - Reason: The webpage is so short (LESS THAN 10 LINES) that summary cannot be effected.

29. 14 December 2025 - https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/business/tech-science/20251214/ai-law-set-to-be-implemented-next-month-amid-biz-concerns

South Korea to Implement Comprehensive AI Law in 2026 (South Korea) Framework Act on AI: Korea Sets New Standards for Trust (South Korea) Seoul Prepares for AI Regulation Amid Business Concerns (South Korea) High-Impact AI Systems Face Stricter Oversight in Korea (South Korea) Korea’s AI Basic Act: Balancing Innovation and Safety (South Korea) New Legal Obligations for Generative AI in South Korea (South Korea) Fines and Compliance: What Korea’s AI Law Means for Tech (South Korea) National AI Committee to Oversee New Regulatory Regime (South Korea) Korea Joins Global Push for Regulating Artificial Intelligence (South Korea) Implementation of AI Law Scheduled for January 2026 (South Korea)

Source: Korea Times

The Korea Times reports that South Korea is set to implement its new "Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of Trust Foundation" (AI Basic Act) starting January 22, 2026. The law, which was passed by the National Assembly in December 2024, aims to establish a comprehensive governance system for the AI industry while ensuring safety and protecting human rights. The Act distinguishes between general AI and "high-impact" AI, imposing stricter obligations on systems that significantly affect human life, safety, or fundamental rights, such as those used in healthcare, biometric analysis, and public decision-making.

Under the new legislation, businesses must notify users when they are interacting with generative AI and clearly label AI-generated content. Companies operating high-risk AI systems will be required to conduct risk assessments and implement management safeguards throughout the AI lifecycle. The law also mandates the designation of a local representative for foreign AI companies operating in the Korean market. While the government aims to support innovation through tax incentives and infrastructure investment, some industry stakeholders have expressed concern that the compliance requirements could burden smaller firms and startups. The Act includes penalties of up to 30 million won for non-compliance with notification and representation requirements.