Matthew Benedetto and Matthew Lewis Outline How Companies Can Test Their Exposure to New AI Legislation

Matthew Benedetto and Matthew Lewis Outline How Companies Can Test Their Exposure to New AI Legislation

Publication

Related Solutions

Clients rely on our team of experienced regulatory litigators and former high-level Department of Justice and other agency officials to handle all aspects of administrative law litigation—from submitting comments to agencies and analyzing potential litigation challenges, to bringing and defending challenges in federal court.
Providing a strategic, multidisciplinary approach to help clients develop and use AI and to navigate the landscape of Big Data.
We help companies protect data, comply with evolving regulations, and respond to investigations and litigation.
Critical industry insight and formidable strength across key practices.

As federal and state lawmakers weave together a fast-growing patchwork of artificial intelligence legislation, WilmerHale partner Matthew Benedetto and senior associate Matthew Lewis are helping general counsel determine whether their companies fall inside the new regimes or remain governed by the sector-specific rules they already know.

In "How GCs Can Assess The Risks Of Emerging AI Laws," published in Law360's Expert Analysis section, Benedetto and Lewis offer a practical framework for legal decision-makers at companies deploying AI-enabled products. Drawing on their litigation and securities regulatory experience, they argue that the threshold question is whether a company's AI activities occupy the regulatory gap these laws were written to fill.

The article examines recent AI measures in California, New York and Illinois alongside two bipartisan federal bills introduced July 23: the Frontier Act, which would create a risk-based oversight framework for advanced models, and the AI Kill Switch Act, which would require developers to retain the ability to shut covered systems down. Benedetto and Lewis then set out the statutory tests counsel should apply. Those start with how a law defines "developer," "deployer," "foundation model" and "frontier model," and extend to the computing power, revenue and jurisdictional thresholds that determine whether a company is covered.

They caution against treating the analysis as a one-time exercise. "Counsel should treat coverage under evolving AI laws as a continuing inquiry," Benedetto and Lewis write, encouraging companies to keep a documented coverage analysis current as rulemaking advances and products evolve.

Read the full article here (subscription required).

Authors

Notice

We appreciate your interest in WilmerHale. While we are pleased to have you contact us, please keep in mind that merely contacting WilmerHale does not create an attorney-client relationship. Such a relationship will not arise until the Firm agrees in writing to represent you in connection with a particular matter. Importantly, unless and until this has occurred, you should not provide us with any confidential information, and we have no duty to keep confidential any information that we may receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.

I Accept Cancel