On August 11, 2026, the Colorado Attorney General proposed rules to “clarify and implement” the Colorado AI Act. For organizations and other deployers of AI tools that have previously considered most state AI regulation as not particularly relevant to their operations, the Colorado law’s hybrid approach should feel different.
Back…
On March 20, 2026, the White House announced a comprehensive national legislative framework (the “Framework”) that tracks with its December 2025 AI Preemption Executive Order and its July 2025 AI Action Plan and takes aim at hot-button AI policy topics such as child safety and privacy, AI training and copyright, liability protections and preemption of state laws that the Trump administration believes are necessary to maintain America’s leadership in AI innovation. The Administration set an ambitious deadline, calling on Congress to turn this policy blueprint into law by year’s end (some administration advisors are cautiously optimistic that a bipartisan solution based on the Framework is within reach). At the same time, Senator Marsha Blackburn released a 291-page discussion draft for national AI legislation, or “one federal rulebook for AI,” that would generally codify White House policy, but also diverges in several important ways.
At this juncture – with doubts about whether Congress can form a consensus around AI regulation even as state legislatures step up to fill the void – developers and deployers are left to watch and wait. For now, a patchwork of state AI laws remains, covering everything from child protection, health and safety, transparency measures, and automated decisionmaking.
A recently-filed federal court complaint tests the enforceability of restrictive terms in a data license against the use of licensed data for generative AI purposes. The outcome of this case may turn on interpreting broad terms such as training, internal research, distribution and publication.
UPDATE: On December 18, 2025, the court denied defendant Alexi Technologies Inc.’s (“Alexi”) motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) based on Alexi’s contention that it would suffer irreparable harm without access to Fastcase’s updated data and lose revenue and customers and suffer reputational damage. In a brief order, the court found that Alexi’s harm is “too speculative and is not sufficiently corroborated to merit emergency relief at this time.”
On November 26, 2025, legal research platform Fastcase, Inc. (“Fastcase”) sued legal AI company Alexi Technologies Inc. (“Alexi”) in a District of Columbia district court, alleging that Alexi used licensed “Fastcase Data” (i.e., a sophisticated, extensively tagged legal research database) to train and power a commercial AI legal research product in violation of a 2021 data license agreement.(Fastcase, Inc. v. Alexi Technologies Inc., No. 25-04159 (D.D.C. Filed Nov. 26, 2025)).
The complaint is particularly interesting as it involves a 2021 agreement – entered into before generative AI was a generally known technology – and thus presents the age-old question of interpreting the terms of an agreement to a technology not known at the time the agreement was entered into.
Regardless of the outcome of this case, the complaint highlights the importance of precise license drafting – for both licensors and licensees – in the age of AI. Parties should focus on well-defined understandings of how data can be used, shared and commercialized at a time where every company is seeking to leverage AI. As this complaint illustrates, vague terms can lead to uncertainty and legal disputes.[1]
Of course, we do not know if this litigation will proceed to summary judgment or trial, but if it does, we may have an opportunity to see how a court will interpret and potentially enforce broad and general restrictions in a data license (e.g., no publication, distribution, commercial use, competitive use, use for internal research purposes only) in the context of generative artificial intelligence.[2]
On May 19, 2025, President Trump signed the bipartisan-supported Take it Down Act into law. The law prohibits any person from using an “interactive computer service” to publish, or threaten to publish, nonconsensual intimate imagery (NCII), including AI-generated NCII (colloquially known as revenge pornography or deepfake revenge pornography). Additionally, the law requires that, within one year of enactment, social media companies and other covered platforms implement a notice-and-takedown mechanism that allows victims to report NCII. Platforms must then remove properly reported imagery (and any known identical copies) within 48 hours of receiving a compliant request.
In May 2024, we released Part I of this series, in which we discussed agentic AI as an emerging technology enabling a new generation of AI-based hardware devices and software tools that can take actions on behalf of users. It turned out we were early – very early – to the discussion, with several months elapsing before agentic AI became as widely known and discussed as it is today. In this Part II, we return to the topic to explore legal issues concerning user liability for agentic AI-assisted transactions and open questions about existing legal frameworks’ applicability to the new generation of AI-assisted transactions.
Background: Snapshot of the Current State of “Agents”[1]
“Intelligent” electronic assistants are not new—the original generation, such as Amazon’s Alexa, have been offering narrow capabilities for specific tasks for more than a decade. However, as OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman commented in May 2024, an advanced AI assistant or “super-competent colleague” could be the killer app of the future. Later, Altman noted during a Reddit AMA session: “We will have better and better models. But I think the thing that will feel like the next giant breakthrough will be agents.” A McKinsey report on AI agents echoes this sentiment: “The technology is moving from thought to action.” Agentic AI represents not only a technological evolution, but also a potential means to further spread (and monetize) AI technology beyond its current uses by consumers and businesses. Major AI developers and others have already embraced this shift, announcing initiatives in the agentic AI space. For example:
Beyond these examples, other startups and established tech companies are also developing AI “agents” in this country and overseas (including the invite-only release of Manus AI by Butterfly Effect, an AI developer in China). As a recent Microsoft piece speculates, the generative AI future may involve a “new ecosystem or marketplace of agents,” akin to the current smartphone app ecosystem. Although early agentic AI device releases have received mixed reviews and seem to still have much unrealized potential, they demonstrate the capability of such devices to execute multistep actions in response to natural language instructions.
Like prior technological revolutions—personal computers in the 1980s, e-commerce in the 1990s and smartphones in the 2000s—the emergence of agentic AI technology challenges existing legal frameworks. Let’s take a look at some of those issues – starting with basic questions about contract law.
With the second Trump Administration set to take power in January 2025, one can expect a pendulum swing in many aspects of technology policy. For example, while it is expected that President Trump will will continue efforts by the Biden Administration to limit China’s access to advanced semiconductor technology, the…
After several weeks of handwringing about the fate of SB 1047 – the controversial AI safety bill that would have required developers of powerful AI models and entities providing the computing resources to train such models to put appropriate safeguards and policies into place to prevent critical harms – California…
On September 17, 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2602 into California law (to be codified at Cal. Lab. Code §927). The law addresses the use of “digital replicas” of performers. As defined in the law, a digital replica is:
a computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable…
On March 21, 2024, in a bold regulatory move, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security (“ELVIS”) Act (Tenn. Code Ann. §47-25-1101 et seq.) – a law which, as Gov. Lee stated, covers “new, personalized generative AI cloning models and services that enable human…
Proskauer and our platform provider LexBlog each use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze traffic. Each of us also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. If you are happy for us to store these cookies on your device please click ‘Accept Cookies.' For more information, please see here and here.
