Center for Data Innovation Blog

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support innovation, free digital services, and Europe’s competitiveness, policymakers must fundamentally overhaul the outdated consent model.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.

Senator Blackburn’s call to shut down Google’s AI over a false claim is misguided, as the error came from a small, open developer model not designed for factual accuracy, and the incident does not demonstrate political bias or systemic failure.

The EU’s move to bar major U.S. tech companies from participating in its new financial data-sharing framework (FiDA) is a protectionist proposal that would limit consumer choice, suppress innovation, and undermine FiDA’s potential benefits.

The UK’s refusal to formally designate China as a national security threat has undermined its ability to prosecute espionage, leaving its technology and innovation sectors vulnerable to Chinese infiltration and economic coercion.