Center for Data Innovation Blog

The GRID Act misdiagnoses the problem of rising electricity costs by treating data centers as inherently extractive and imposing punitive requirements, rather than addressing flawed market design. A better approach is a flexibility-first model that rewards adjustable AI demand, allowing data centers to support grid stability while protecting households from price spikes.

The India AI Impact Summit will test whether the United States can position itself as a credible AI partner to emerging economies by advancing collaboration with India on adoption, compute equity, and governance to deliver secure, scalable, and impactful AI deployment.

The EU’s “payment sovereignty” push is a misdiagnosed, protectionist project that would benefit incumbent banks rather than consumers. Europe should instead pursue regulatory reform and use existing tools like interchange caps and PSD2 to promote competition and lower costs.

New York’s AI safety law claims alignment with California, but its small deviations create duplicative state requirements that fragment U.S. AI policy and increase compliance costs without improving safety.

The Internet may be forever, but regulatory frameworks should not be. Decisions made today about web crawling will help determine where the next generation of AI leadership emerges—whether in Europe, the United States, or elsewhere.

The European Commission’s proposed tweaks to the ePrivacy Directive offer only minor relief from intrusive cookie prompts, but to truly support innovation, free digital services, and Europe’s competitiveness, policymakers must fundamentally overhaul the outdated consent model.

The DMA’s forced interoperability undermines platform differentiation, weakens security and reliability, and ultimately leaves European consumers with degraded versions of global technologies.

The EU’s digital rulebook, often praised as global leadership, instead forces many non-EU countries into costly regulatory alignment that stifles local innovation and entrenches global digital inequality, underscoring the need for more flexible, locally tailored frameworks.

Fifty conflicting state AI laws create a fragmented, innovation-crushing patchwork, which federal preemption can solve by establishing a single, coherent national framework for AI regulation.

The proposed AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act would create misleading, unhelpful data and unfairly stigmatize AI adoption, diverting attention from more effective ways to measure technology’s real impacts and support workers.