UK performance‑arts union Equity threatened mass direct action against tech and entertainment firms that use actors’ likenesses, voices or mannerisms in AI output without consent. The Guardian
California’s governor signed SB 243, requiring AI chatbots interacting with minors to include safeguards around self‑harm, plus other companion AI bills on transparency and risk. Axios+2San Francisco Chronicle+2
The New York state court system introduced interim rules on judges’ and staff’s use of generative AI tools: only approved, private tools are allowed; no confidential or court documents may be entered into public models. Reuters
Regulation
The European Commission is considering a mechanism allowing scientists to report misuse of AI in research, as part of its wider integrity and whistleblowing agenda. Euractiv
Italy’s national AI law (Law 132/2025), passed in September, went into force 10 October: enforcement regimes now overlay the EU AI Act in sectors like public administration, healthcare, justice, and more. Data Protection Report+2technologyslegaledge.com+2
Scholars continue debating the role of harmonised technical standards under the AI Act as a legitimacy mechanism. Taylor & Francis Online
Cases
In China, a recent amendment removed Internet Courts’ jurisdiction over AI‑copyright disputes under new 2025 provisions. National Law Review
Academia
An Analysis of the New EU AI Act and A Proposed Standardization Framework for Machine Learning Fairness (Sept 2025) critiques vagueness in the AI Act around “transparency” and proposes more concrete fairness and interpretability standards. arXiv
Business
AI startups in the US have gained momentum via the newly formed AI Coalition, helping early‑stage firms engage with federal policymakers. Axios
Legal and creative sectors face pressure: Equity’s threat underscores increasing disputes over how training data exploits identity and likeness assets.
Adoption of AI
State courts are increasingly formalising AI limits in adjudicative settings — e.g. New York’s judicial AI rules.
State and subnational governments (e.g. California) are now pioneering sectoral AI regulation, not waiting for federal or supranational law.
Pressure from organised groups (such as Equity) reveals that affected individuals are mobilising rights claims against AI practitioners.
Takeaway
The front line of AI law now lies in human identity and system control. Courts and states are closing gaps: one cannot freely input private documents into public models, nor use a person’s image without recourse. Laws and norms are converging around protecting selfhood even as algorithms proliferate.
Sources: The Guardian, Reuters, Politico, Axios, Al Jazeera, DataprotectionReport, Technology’s Legal Edge, arXiv