On
The summit further showcased the
This post summarizes key takeaways from the event's remarks and panel discussions. For more updates and analyses of current developments in AI, data privacy and cybersecurity, please subscribe to the WilmerHale Privacy and Cybersecurity Law blog.
Key Takeaways
- The
- The
FTC is still getting its arms around the technology and its implications for consumers. Slaughter and Bedoya explained that theFTC is prepared to exercise its Section 6(b) authority in this area, which empowers the commission to require entities to provide information about their business practices. Such information, according to the commissioners, would further inform the agency's understanding of the AI landscape and future rules governing AI development. In fact, on the same day as the summit, theFTC issued Section 6(b) orders to five companies, requiring them to provide information regarding recent investments and partnerships involving generative AI companies and cloud service providers. - The
FTC remains focused on the potential for AI to facilitate discrimination and bias. The commissioners emphasized that theFTC , as well as other regulating agencies, must commit to curbing the possible discriminatory harms of AI, a core feature of the Biden-Harris administration's AI agenda. Bedoya explained the importance of knowing what data is used to train and develop AI systems. He highlighted a recent settlement between theFTC andRite Aid , which, according to theFTC , had been identifying suspected shoplifters by using facial recognition software that disproportionately misidentified minorities. Levine stated that firms should either undertake efforts to mitigate the discriminatory effects of their AI tools or stop using those tools altogether. - The
FTC will look to allocate liability away from users. According to Khan, theFTC is committed to pinpointing the firms whose activities are driving market concentration and unlawful use of data. She referenced theFTC's recent enforcement sweep of robocall companies, which focused on upstream entities that had been enabling unlawful telemarketing. These comments are consistent with other recent statements we have heard from theFTC indicating that the companies making and deploying AI should be held responsible for downstream consumer harms. - The
FTC is concerned with market concentration at the lower levels of the "tech stack." Though the commissioners did not directly address perceived market concentration at the chip and cloud layers of the AI production "stack," panelists—particularly those involved in the panel devoted to the role of chips and cloud infrastructure in the development of AI—expressed concerns that this market concentration can and will hinder AI innovation and cause consumer harms. Dominant entities at these base layers may prefer vertically integrated product lines, which can lead to increased prices and reduced quality. Panelists were vehement that customers must be able to move freely between different vendors at all levels of the stack if innovation and competition are to be encouraged. - Financial services regulators are also increasingly eyeing AI regulation. According to
Atur Desai , aConsumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) lawyer who participated as a panelist and spoke in his individual capacity, theCFPB has already issued two circulars announcing that companies relying on complex algorithms must provide specific and accurate explanations for denying applications. He explained that theCFPB , like other agencies, is prioritizing capacity-building around AI and appears poised to apply extant consumer financial laws where appropriate.
Associates
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
DC 20006
Tel: 6175266000
Fax: 6175265000
E-mail: laura.bulcher@wilmerhale.com
URL: www.wilmerhale.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2024 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source