While speaking at the annual conference of the National Advertising Division on September 19, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a generative AI (“AI”) policy that is consistent with Chairwoman Khan’s focus on the perceived harms to consumers from large technology companies, fully embracing a plan to regulate AI swiftly, aggressively, and proactively. 

The agency began its remarks on AI by observing that its purported policy decision to allow technology companies to self-regulate during the “Web 2.0” era was a mistake. Self-regulation, according to the FTC, was a failure that ultimately resulted in the collection of too much power and too much data by a handful of large technology companies. 

In the FTC’s opinion, self-regulation would be equally, if not more, ineffective in the AI space because AI has the potential to dramatically increase “Big Tech’s” alleged assaults on privacy, competition, and misinformation. The FTC will, accordingly, look to existing laws and legislation to attempt to confront the perceived ills created by AI. Importantly, its overall approach to AI will be guided by three principles:

First, the FTC believes that markets must be fair, open, and competitive so that “fledgling upstarts … have the chance to compete with the incumbents who became dominant in the era of Web 2.0.” On that front, the FTC claimed that it was making significant progress, including its recent successful obstruction of the largest semiconductor merger in US history.

Second, the FTC will continue to use its tools, especially enforcement, to challenge unfair and deceptive practices involving AI. It pointed to its recent securement of a temporary restraining order against AutomatorAI – which allegedly promised that its AI-boosted tools would ensure profitability for consumers who agreed to invest in online stores – as one example of such enforcement action. 

Third, the FTC will continue to push for market-wide rules to address harms from AI, including the “Impersonator Rule” which would enable the agency to seek civil and monetary penalties against those entities that use voice-cloning and other technologies to allegedly defraud the public.

According to the FTC, “[w]hat should be clear from these principles is” that the agency is not going to sit back and “let consumers fend for themselves, or let those looking to monetize AI write their own rules.” The agency made explicit that it “will use every tool” available to protect the public and, to the extent those tools fall short, it “will be upfront with Congress” about what is needs to accomplish its consumer protection objectives.

In short, the FTC has announced that it stands ready to regulate in this space using not only existing enforcement tools but also additional powers requested from Congress, including the ability to take certain proactive steps, such as by defining permissible use of AI up-front rather than waiting to take enforcement action after consumer harm has allegedly occurred from a particular use of the technology. 

Notably, less than one week after the FTC’s speech, some members of Congress proposed the “Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023” which would give the FTC more resources and authority to regulate companies’ use of AI. It remains to be seen how this Act, or any other future proposed regulations focused on AI, will fare in a split Congress.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Nolan Goldberg Nolan Goldberg

Nolan M. Goldberg is a partner in the Litigation Department, co-head of the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Litigation Group, and a member of the Patent Law Group. His practice focuses on technology-centric litigation, arbitration (including international arbitrations), investigations and counseling, covering a range…

Nolan M. Goldberg is a partner in the Litigation Department, co-head of the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Litigation Group, and a member of the Patent Law Group. His practice focuses on technology-centric litigation, arbitration (including international arbitrations), investigations and counseling, covering a range of types of disputes, including cybersecurity, intellectual property, and commercial.  Nolan’s understanding of technology allows him to develop defenses and strategies that might otherwise be overlooked or less effective and enhances the “story telling” that is critical to bringing a dispute to a successful conclusion.

Nolan is a registered patent attorney before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office; and an International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) Certified Information Privacy Professional, United States (US CIPP) and Certified Information Privacy Technologist (US CIPT).

Cybersecurity

Nolan’s electrical engineering background, coupled with a litigation and risk management-centric focus, allows him to assist companies in all phases of incident response. Nolan often acts as a bridge between the technical and legal response teams (both inside and outside forensic consultants). Nolan uses this deep familiarity with the company and its systems to defend the company in litigations, arbitrations and regulatory investigations, including before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and before various State’s Attorneys General, including Multi-State investigations.

Nolan has worked on incidents that range from simple phishing attacks on e-mail accounts by cyber-criminals to intrusions by (formerly) trusted inside employees to complex technical breaches of hosted systems by state-sponsored advanced persistent threats (APTs). These incidents have involved both client systems, and systems of a vendor of a client that hosted its data.

It is often the case (both in response to an incident and for other reasons) that a company will want to undertake an assessment of its security posture, but has concerns about the discoverability of any such analysis.  Accordingly, Nolan also frequently assists companies’ scope and conduct privileged security assessments, including “dual purpose” assessments where privileged analysis are also used for ordinary-course purposes.

Commercial Disputes

Nolan also assists companies with commercial disputes, particularly in cases where there is a technology component, including disputes arising from hosted software agreements; outsourcing and managed services agreements; software and technology development agreements and the dissolution of joint ventures.  When these disputes cannot be amicably resolved, Nolan has litigated them in State and Federal Court and in arbitrations, including international arbitrations.

Intellectual Property

Nolan’s work has included numerous patent and trade secret litigations and negotiations, primarily in cases involving computer and network-related technologies. In particular, the litigations have involved at least the following technologies: hosted software; telecommunications, computer networking; network and computer-related security hardware and software; microprocessors, voice-over Internet protocol (“VoIP”); bar code scanners  financial business methods and software, including securities settlement, fail management and trade execution and reporting software; data compression; handheld computers; pharmaceuticals; cardiac electro-stimulatory devices and prosthetics.

Nolan also has experience prosecuting patent applications before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in encryption, CMOS, HDTV, virtual private networks (“VPN”), e-commerce, XML/XSL, financial instruments, semiconductor electronics, medical device technology, inventory control and analysis, cellular communications, Check 21 and business methods. Nolan also has conducted numerous freedom-to-operate searches, written opinions, and counseled clients in the areas of bar code scanners, imaging, book publishing, computer networking, business methods, Power Over Ethernet (“PoE”), and digital content distribution.

He has assisted in evaluating patents for inclusion in patent pools involving large consumer electronics and entertainment companies concerning CD and DVD technology.

Computer Forensics and Electronic Discovery

Nolan is often called upon to develop e-discovery strategies to be used in all types of litigations, with a particular focus on selecting appropriate tools, developing proportionate discovery plans, cross border electronic discovery, managing the overall burden and cost of the electronic discovery process, and obtaining often overlooked electronic evidence, including computer forensics. He also assists clients to develop and implement information management programs to reduce expense and risk, meet compliance obligations, and tame e-discovery burdens.

Thought Leadership

Nolan has authored numerous articles and given numerous presentations on emerging issues and trends in both technology and law, and has often been called upon to comment on various media outlets including Business Week, IPlaw360, IT Business Edge, CIO.com, Forbes, and The National Law Journal.

Prior to practicing law, Nolan was a computer specialist at Underwriters Laboratories (UL).

Photo of Michelle M. Ovanesian Michelle M. Ovanesian

Michelle Ovanesian is an associate in the Litigation Department, where she focuses on intellectual property and life sciences. Michelle has worked on a range of matters in federal district courts, including serving on the successful trial team in the Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi

Michelle Ovanesian is an associate in the Litigation Department, where she focuses on intellectual property and life sciences. Michelle has worked on a range of matters in federal district courts, including serving on the successful trial team in the Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi remand jury trial in the District of Delaware.

In addition to intellectual property and life sciences, Michelle’s practice has encompassed a variety of other legal matters, including privacy and cybersecurity, and bankruptcy litigation. Most recently, Michelle was part of the litigation team that represented the Financial Oversight and Management Board in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy proceedings.

Michelle maintains an active pro bono practice, with a focus on immigration law and civil rights. As part of her pro bono work, Michelle has filed an amicus brief in state court supporting the constitutionality of executive orders.