In alignment with the ongoing concerns from several European data protection authorities publishing guidelines on data scrapping (i.e., the Dutch DPA, the Italian DPA and the UK Information Commissioner’s Office), the Global Privacy Assembly (GPA)’s International Enforcement Cooperation Working Group (IEWG) recently published a Joint statement on data scraping and the protection of privacy (signed by the Canadian, British, Australian, Swiss, Norwegian, Moroccan, Mexican, and Jersey data protection authorities) to provide further input for businesses when considering data.

The statement emphasizes that:

Even publicly accessible data is subject to privacy laws across most jurisdictions – meaning that scraping activities must comply with data protection regulations requiring a (i) lawful basis for data collection and, (ii) transparency with individuals, including obtaining consent where necessary.

Collecting mass data can constitute a reportable data breach if it includes unauthorized access to personal data.

Relying on platform terms (e.g., Instagram) for data scraping does not automatically ensure compliance as (i) this contractually authorized use of scraped personal data is not automatically compliant with data protection and artificial intelligence (AI) laws, and (ii) it is difficult to determine whether scraped data is used solely for purposes allowed by the contract terms.

When training AI models, it is critical to adhere not only to privacy regulations but also to emerging AI laws as ensuring AI model transparency and data processing limitations is now increasingly expected by privacy regulators.

The sensitivity of this topic underscores the close relationship between data protection and the ever-data-hungry artificial intelligence industry.

First Publication on K&L Gates Cyber Law Watch blog, in collaboration with Anna Gaentzhirt

Launched in 2015, the EU’s Digital Single Market Strategy aimed to foster the digital harmonization between the EU member states and contribute to economic growth, boosting jobs, competition, investment and innovation in the EU.

The EU AI Act characterizes a fundamental element of this strategy. By adopting the first general-purpose regulation of artificial intelligence in the world, Brussels sent a global message to all stakeholders, in the EU and abroad, that they need to pay attention to the AI discussion happening in Europe.

The EU AI Act achieves a delicate balancing act between the specifics, including generative AI, systemic models and computing power threshold, and its general risk-based approach. To do so, the act includes a tiered implementation over a three-year period and a flexible possibility to revise some of the more factual elements that would be prone to rapid obsolescence, such as updating the threshold of the floating point operations per second — a measurement of the performance of a computer for general-purpose AI models presumed to have high impact capabilities. At the same time, the plurality of stakeholders involved in the interpretation of the act and its interplay with other adopted, currently in discussion or yet-to-come regulations will require careful monitoring by the impacted players in the AI ecosystems.

(more…)

Dans le cadre de notre nouveau cycle de conférences autour du numérique et des problématiques « cyber », nous avons le plaisir de vous convier à un petit déjeuner organisé dans nos locaux parisiens, à l’occasion duquel Claude-Etienne Armingaud, CIPP/E (Associé, Protection des données & Technologies) se penchera sur la préparation des entreprises dans le cadre de leur mise en conformité au regard du Règlement sur les Données (EU Data Act). Une belle occasion d’échanger, de s’inspirer et d’entrer en relation avec des professionnels du domaine !

Les places étant limitées, nous vous invitons à vous inscrire dès à présent via le lien suivant : https://ow.ly/183L50TAWbP.

  1. My company is not established in the EU. Should I really worry about the EU Data Act applying to my company?
  2. What are the operational impacts of the EU Data Act on my products‘ interface?
  3. My products are already on the market, can I still provide them as I am today?
  4. What data is in the EU Data Act scope?
  5. Does the EU Data Act provide for a harmonized framework for blockchain-based smart contracts?
  6. Who can request the sharing of data?
  7. How should data be made available?
  8. Are there any limitations on how the data can be shared?
  9. Can I invoke intellectual property right to forego the data sharing?
  10. Should the data be made available to public entities as well?
  11. Will I need to update my contracts as well?
  12. Will the data be required to stay in the European Union?
  13. When will all this become an operational reality for me?
  14. What are the EU Data Act penalties?
(more…)

Six years after the European Regulation 2016/679 on the protection of personal data (“GDPR”) came into force, the European Union has just adopted a new regulation targeting a better distribution of the value generated by the use of data between players in the digital economy.

Adopted on 11 January 2024, in only 22 months, Regulation 2023/2854 regarding the harmonized rules on fair access to and use of data (Regulation on Data or “EU Data Act”) aims at broadening the scope of Europe’s digital sovereignty, beyond the boundaries of personal data alone.

(more…)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(more…)

A Practice Note highlighting issues to consider when counseling a prospective buyer of an AI company. This Note discusses the primary due diligence issues relating to AI and machine learning (ML) and strategies to mitigate or allocate risks in the context of an M&A transaction. This Note is also helpful for AI company targets that seek to anticipate potential issues. In this Note, the term AI company refers to a company involved in the research, development, or monetization of a product or service that is primarily powered by an ML algorithm or model that creates functionality or utility through the use of AI.

Read the full article on Practical Law, written in collaboration with by Annette Becker, Alex V. Imas, Jake Bernstein, Mark H. Wittow, Melanie Bruneau, Marion Baumann, Kenneth S. Knox, Julie F. Rizzo, Cameron Abbott, Thomas Nietsch, and Nicole H. Buckley.

K&L Gates LLP covers a myriad of IT and internet issues, from GDRP compliance to contract negotiation. The firm is notable for its expertise in IP and data protection matters, as well as, increasingly, AI, NFT and blockchain issues. The practice is led by Claude-Etienne Armingaud, who is dual-qualified in France and the US, and is consequently well placed to handle multi-jurisdictional transactions.

Practice head(s): Claude-Etienne Armingaud

(more…)

Part IV of our series “Regulating AI: The Potential Impact of Global Regulation of Artificial Intelligence” will focus on recent developments in general availability of AI and how generative AI solutions are leading regulators, at a global level, to consider legal frameworks to protect both individuals affected by AI and digital sovereignty.

The program will feature a panel addressing the EU AI Act, on which a preliminary political agreement was reached last December and unanimously approved by the ambassadors of the 27 countries of the European Union on 2 February 2024, prior to its upcoming final votes.

Like the GDPR before it, the EU AI Act will be a trailblazing piece of legislation which will impact companies at global level.

Our panelists will discuss the consequences of the EU AI Act on companies contemplating the provision of AI solutions in the EU market or leveraging AI in the EU, with a special focus on non-EU companies.

Additional topics in our Regulating AI — The Potential Impact of Global Regulation of Artificial Intelligence series include:  

  • Part I – 13 September 2023 (EU / U.K.) – View Recording
  • Part II – 7 December 2023 (Asia-Pacific Region: China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan) – View Recording
  • Part III – 12 December 2023 (United States)

Register or watch the replay here.

Access the full text of the EU AI Act here.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) recently launched a consultation series on how data protection laws should apply to the development and use of generative AI models (“Gen AI”). In the coming months, the ICO will publish further views on how to interpret specific requirements of UK GDPR and Part 2 of the DPA 2018 in relation to Gen AI. This first part of the consultation focusses on whether it is lawful to train Gen AI on personal data scraped from the web. The consultation seeks feedback from stakeholders with an interest in Gen AI.

As outlined by the ICO, web scraping will involve the collection and processing of personal data, which may not have been placed online directly by the data subjects themselves. To comply with the UK GDPR, Gen AI developers would need to ensure there is a valid lawful basis for their processing under UK GDPR, as well as comply with the relevant information requirements pertaining to indirect personal data collection.

For the first part of the consultation series, the ICO published a policy position on the lawful basis for training Gen AI models on web-scraped data which can be found here. More specifically, this consultation focusses on the ‘legitimate interest’ lawful basis under art. 6(1)(f) UK GDPR and the ‘three-part’ test that a data controller must pass to meet the legitimate interest basis (a so-called Legitimate Interest Assessment). The ICO has considered various actions that Gen AI developers could take to meet this three-part legitimate interest test to guarantee that the collection of training data through web scraping, i.e. processing of data, is complaint with the principles of UK GDPR. The ICO would now like to hear from relevant stakeholders on their view of the proposed regulatory approach and the impact this would have on their organisation. A link to the survey can be found here.

The deadline to submit a response is 1 March 2024.

First publication: K&L Gates Cyber Law Watch blog with Sophie Verstraeten