TL;DR:
- Tech lobbyists are expanding their influence beyond Washington to shape AI regulations.
- California and other states are becoming pivotal battlegrounds for AI legislation.
- Concerns arise over industry dominance in shaping AI policies.
- The tech sector aims to preempt a fragmented landscape of state-level AI regulations.
- The industry’s proactive approach draws lessons from past battles over state privacy laws.
Main AI News:
In the ever-evolving landscape of AI regulation, tech lobbyists are strategically extending their reach beyond the nation’s capital. As Washington gears up to consider new AI laws this fall, lobbyists for the tech industry are not merely pressuring Congress. They are also fanning out to state capitals across the country to thwart potentially stringent restrictions on AI.
In California, these lobbyists are actively shaping the state’s primary AI legislation. Meanwhile, in Connecticut, they maintain frequent communication with a senator preparing a significant AI-related initiative. Lobbyists are also in discussions with interested legislators in New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois, all with the aim of influencing the conversation before AI bills even hit the floor.
The impetus for these new lobbying campaigns lies in the recognition that states often act more swiftly than Washington when it comes to tech issues and can sometimes impose tougher regulations on companies. If these efforts succeed, tech lobbyists could effectively quash stringent AI regulations and mitigate the threat of new state-level rules, regardless of the direction taken by Washington.
This trend has raised concerns among consumer advocates, who view states like California and New York as ideal places to establish model AI policies. Samantha Gordon, Chief Programs Officer at the California-based Tech Equity Collaborative, a progressive tech group, expresses apprehension, stating, “Generally, we are nervous that industry will be the dominant voice in this discussion. We don’t want that to happen.”
For the tech industry, this proactive approach serves as a means to avoid a fragmented patchwork of inconsistent laws nationwide, a potential outcome if Washington fails to pass a comprehensive AI law in the near term.
Drawing from the Privacy Playbook
Jordan Crenshaw, Head of the Technology Engagement Center at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, emphasizes that key sectors within the tech industry have learned to be “proactive” following a surge of state data privacy laws, which created a legal landscape that varies from state to state. He asserts that the industry aimed to present solutions before laws were crafted, citing the Chamber’s recent report on AI regulations as a model for the industry’s desired light-touch approach.
The tech industry’s strategy in shaping state-level AI legislation has been heavily influenced by previous battles over state privacy laws, many of which were enacted due to the absence of federal regulations. After California enacted a stringent privacy law in 2018, the lobbying efforts successfully mitigated the impact of similar laws in other states.
One tech lobbyist draws parallels between the current wave of AI activity on Capitol Hill and previous attempts to pass national data privacy legislation, which initially gained momentum but later stalled. As with data privacy, the absence of federal action on AI may prompt states to independently pass their own regulations.
California Takes the Lead
The tech industry’s early focus on state-level AI bills is yielding results, especially in California, where efforts to regulate the tech sector are taking center stage once again. While California Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, a Democrat, acknowledges the tech industry’s vested interests in her AI bill, she also sees their value in helping comprehend the rapidly evolving technology.
Bauer-Kahan notes that lobbyists from the enterprise software industry, including Workday and BSA, have been particularly instrumental in refining AB 331, the bill aimed at mandating impact assessments and notification requirements for AI systems involved in consequential decisions. However, not all tech lobbyists are cooperating; some, like Meta, have chosen not to engage on the bill.
Disagreements persist within the software industry, particularly regarding the inclusion of a private right of action, allowing Californians to sue AI companies directly for violations. This mirrors past conflicts between legislators and lobbyists over similar provisions in state privacy bills, where lobbyists have thus far held sway.
Bauer-Kahan’s AI bill is expected to be reintroduced by December, potentially paving the way for its passage. Lobbyists anticipate that other states will follow California’s lead in the coming year, regardless of Washington’s actions.
Conclusion:
The tech industry’s proactive lobbying efforts in state capitals signal a strategic move to influence AI regulations. As states take the lead in crafting AI policies, the industry seeks to preempt a patchwork of inconsistent laws, ensuring a more favorable environment for innovation and compliance. This underscores the significance of state-level battlegrounds in shaping the future of AI regulation in the market.
