Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) regulation in the United States is evolving rapidly, with Colorado emerging as a pioneer in consumer protection measures with the Colorado Act Concerning Consumer Protections in Interactions with Artificial Intelligence Systems (the Colorado AI Act). This act, the first of its kind in the country, aims to reshape AI system deployment and development, setting a precedent for other jurisdictions. Scheduled to take effect on Feb. 1, 2026, the Colorado AI Act introduces a comprehensive framework aimed at addressing the potential risks associated with AI systems, particularly those making consequential decisions affecting consumers.
The Colorado AI Act has a broad scope, encompassing both developers and deployers of AI systems within the state. Developers refer to entities conducting business in Colorado engaged in the development or substantial modification of AI systems. Deployers are defined as entities operating within Colorado that deploy high-risk AI systems. Additionally, the scope of the Colorado AI Act extends to interactions with AI systems that have a material legal or similarly significant effect on various aspects of consumers' lives, including education, employment, financial services, government services, health care, housing, insurance and legal services. Unlike some consumer privacy laws, the Colorado AI Act does not establish a minimum threshold of consumers for its applicability, meaning that entities of any size engaging in covered activities are included. The act applies to interactions involving AI systems that have a material legal or similarly significant effect on various aspects of consumers' lives, including education, employment, financial services, government services, health care, housing, insurance and legal services. The term "consumer" refers specifically to Colorado residents.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.