AI governance is often treated as a policy problem: define approved uses, create an oversight framework, publish acceptable use rules, and document compliance. These steps matter, especially as increasingly more regulations are introduced that raise expectations for accountability, transparency, data governance, and lifecycle risk management. However, the harder question for many organizations is no longer

AI-enabled mental health tools are moving quickly from novelty to mainstream use, and regulators are starting to draw sharper lines around what those tools can and cannot claim to do. Recent lawsuits against Character Technologies Inc.,  the company behind Character.ai, allege that the platform hosted bots that mimicked licensed therapists, including one persona that allegedly

A new California federal lawsuit against AI notetaking provider Granola highlights a growing privacy risk for companies using meeting transcription tools: consent cannot be an afterthought. According to the complaint, Granola’s software allegedly recorded a virtual meeting participant without giving notice that an AI notetaker was present or seeking permission to record. The plaintiff claims

The White House is moving closer to a voluntary framework under which AI companies would submit their most advanced models to the federal government before public release. The White House’s Office of the National Cyber Director reportedly circulated the draft framework by to OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, and those companies jointly submitted edits. Although the review

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) proposed policy statement puts a new consumer-protection frame around AI model behavior: if an AI company represents that its system is designed to deliver accurate, objective, or user-directed outputs, the company may create a reasonable consumer expectation that the system is trying to provide the best answer it can within

AI giant Anthropic has suggested that the world temporarily “pause” on AI development because of AI tools’ ability for “‘recursive self-improvement’– that is, being able to make better and more powerful versions of itself. Recursive self-improvement is a bugbear of AI safety researchers, viewed as the key step for AI to become superintelligent and therefore

On May 27, 2026, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed Senate Bill 5 (“the Bill”) into law, creating a broad framework for artificial intelligence oversight in the state. The Bill reaches beyond any single category of AI use and touches consumer disclosures, employment tools, AI companions, synthetic media, workforce issues, state agency AI use, and privacy-related

Many insurers, and the businesses they cover, are still treating artificial intelligence (AI) risk as if it were cyber risk cloaked in a costume. That instinct is understandable since AI systems process data, rely on vendors, create operational dependencies, and sit inside digital infrastructures. However, early litigation is showing why that framing is likely incomplete.

Multiple class action cases have been filed against Tempus AI  alleging that, during its acquisition of Ambry Genetics, the company improperly collected and disclosed genetic information without obtaining prior written consent from individuals during its acquisition of Ambry. Tempus acquired Ambry, a genetic testing firm, in February 2025 for $600 million. The acquisition included the