Source: WilmerHale

As federal and state lawmakers create a growing patchwork of artificial intelligence legislation, Matthew Benedetto and Matthew Lewis set out a practical framework for general counsel to determine whether their companies fall within those new regimes or remain governed by existing sector-specific rules. Their approach identifies a threshold inquiry focused on whether a company’s AI activities occupy the regulatory gap the new laws aim to fill, and draws on the authors’ litigation and securities regulatory experience to guide decision-makers. The authors published this guidance in a Law360 Expert Analysis piece titled “How GCs Can Assess The Risks Of Emerging AI Laws,” and present it as a tool for counsel advising companies that deploy AI-enabled products. The piece stresses that coverage depends on statutory definitions and factual predicates rather than a one-size-fits-all label.

The text examines recent AI measures in California, New York and Illinois alongside two bipartisan federal bills introduced July 23 — the Frontier Act and the AI Kill Switch Act — and then specifies the statutory tests counsel should apply. Those tests begin with how a law defines “developer,” “deployer,” “foundation model” and “frontier model,” and extend to thresholds for computing power, revenue and jurisdiction that determine coverage. Benedetto and Lewis caution that counsel should treat coverage under evolving AI laws as a continuing inquiry and should keep a documented coverage analysis current as rulemaking advances and products evolve. The authors position this ongoing documentation and reassessment as central to advising clients about whether they are subject to new AI-specific regimes.