News 11 Oct. 2023
Curtis Team Instrumental in Shareholder Approval of a New Multilateral Treaty to Transform Pan-African Housing Finance Institution Shelter Afrique into a Development Bank
Event 23 Aug. 2023
Partner Borzu Sabahi Speaks at the 52nd IDRI Professional Accreditation & Membership Programme
Event 18 Aug. 2023
Partner Borzu Sabahi Speaks at FDI Moot Shenzhen
News 25 Jul. 2023
Partner Eric Gilioli Ranked in Top 10 Influential Energy & Natural Resources Lawyers in Kazakhstan in Business Today
Article 22 Aug. 2023
Fuad Zarbiyev Publishes Article in Journal of International Economic Law
Client Alert 14 Aug. 2023
The EU’s Market in Crypto Assets (MiCA) Regulation: The Highlights
Event 22 Aug. 2023
Partner Dr. Claudia Frutos-Peterson to Speak at Arbitration and ADR Commission of the ICC Mexico
Event 11 Jul. 2023
Partner Elisa Botero Speaks on the Role of the ICC in Investment Disputes
News 15 Aug. 2023
Legal Reader Publishes Article on Dr. Majed Alotaibi’s Arrival as Senior Counsel in Curtis’ Riyadh Office
News 31 Jul. 2023
Curtis Welcomes Senior Saudi Advisor, Dr. Majed Alotaibi, to its Riyadh Office
News 24 Aug. 2023
Curtis Attorneys Quoted in CoinDesk on FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried’s Strategy Ahead of His Criminal Trial
News 06 Mar. 2023
Russia Sanctions at the First Anniversary: An Overview of Current Sanctions in the US, UK, and EU and How Global Companies Can Navigate Evolving and Conflicting Sanctions Regimes
Client Alert 30 Aug. 2022
The EU Adopts the “Maintenance and Alignment” Sanctions Package
Client Alert 24 Jun. 2021
Update on Virtual Notarization (Executive Order 202.7) During the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: June 24, 2021) — U.S. Insight
Update on Virtual Witnessing (New York Executive Order 202.14) During The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: June 24, 2021) — U.S. Insight
Article 21 Sep. 2023
Download the full article with footnotes here.
Throughout the last year, Artificial Intelligence and its perils have likely been the most discussed topic by the public among new technologies, however concerns in relation to its application are certainly not new and have existed ever since the dawn of this technology, being one of sci-fi greatest topoi. It shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that most industrialized countries are beginning to regulate the industry, urged by several public appeals issued by a significant number of experts of the field.
One of those regulatory entities is the European Union, where the first draft of the Artificial Intelligence Act (“AI Act” ), following the adoption of a white paper in February 2020 and several ad-hoc studies, was published by the European Commission in April 2021. The AI Act, after several procedural steps, including a new amended draft proposed by the Council of the EU in November 2022 , is currently in the middle of the trialogue negotiations procedure, in accordance with the ordinary EU legislative process. Most recently, the European Parliament, on June 14th, approved a large number of amendments on the Commission’s first draft, significantly expanding the scope of many provisions.
The AI Act sets out a legal framework for the development, placing on market, and use of AI products and services in EU countries, structuring a risk-based system that imposes duties on parties developing or deploying AI systems.This article provides a very general overview of the content of the AI Act, mainly based on the most recent draft mentioned above, proposed by the European Parliament.
The AI Act is divided into twelve Titles, however Titles II, III and IV seem to be the most relevant, setting out the core concepts underlying the whole piece of legislation, and each governing practices posing, from the legislation perspective, a different level of risk for citizens, in decreasing order; it goes without saying that the higher the risk, the stricter the rules governing the relative AI practice.
In the following, we will provide a more detailed description of those three “core” Titles, and a brief summary of the others eight (i.e. Titles V to XII).
Under Article 5 of the AI Act, certain AI practices are perceived as detrimental to a person’s safety, livelihoods and rights. Such practices include, for example, AI systems (i) deploying manipulative or deceptive techniques, (ii) exploiting people’s vulnerabilities, (iii) for social scoring purposes leading to detrimental or unfavorable treatments, (iv) using real-time remote biometric identification systems in public accessible spaces. Due to the unacceptable risk entailed, the regulation bans the use of such AI practices.
According to the AI Act, high-risk AI systems are those used as a safety component of a product or being themselves a product covered by EU health and safety legislation as well as those falling within the areas listed in Annex III to the AI Act .High-risk AI systems shall comply with the requirements set out under Articles 8 to 15 of the AI Act, including:
Consistently, the regulation imposes a range of obligations on providers, deployers, importers, distributors and users of high-risk AI systems.
As to providers, they are required to, inter alia:
With regard to importers, before a high-risk AI system is placed on the market, they shall ensure that the conformity assessment procedure ex Article 43 has been carried out by the provider, the technical documentation requested under the regulation has been drawn-up and, where applicable, an authorized representative has been appointed.
On the other hand, distributors shall verify, before making a high-risk AI system available on the market, that such system bears the CE conformity marking, is accompanied by the required documentation together with instructions of use, and both the provider and the importer have fulfilled their obligations under the regulation.
Finally, also deployers shall comply with a range of obligations including, inter alia, the adoption of appropriate technical and organizational measures to ensure high-risk AI systems are used in accordance with the relevant instructions of use, the implementation of human oversight, monitoring the effectiveness as well as adjusting and updating cybersecurity measures, the conduction of an assessment of the high-risk AI systems’ impact in the specific context of use prior to putting such systems into use.
According to Article 52 of the AI Act, providers of systems that interact with natural persons (such as chatbots) shall comply with transparency obligations and, in particular, shall ensure that persons exposed thereto are made aware they are interacting with an AI system.
Likewise, users of emotion recognition systems or biometric categorization systems, not prohibited under Article 5, shall inform humans exposed to such systems of the operation of the same and obtain their prior consent to the processing of their biometric and other personal data in accordance with the applicable EU legislation. Also, users of AI systems generating or manipulating text, audio or visual content that would falsely seem to be authentic or truthful (i.e. deep fake) shall disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated.
The above transparency obligations do not apply to AI systems authorized by law to detect, prevent, investigate and prosecute criminal offences.
Negotiations on the final text of the AI Act between the European institutions – i.e. the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council – have already begun and are at an advanced stage. Once adopted, the AI Act will apply after 24 months its entry into force. Therefore, if an agreement on the final text can be reached in trialogue negotiations later this year, the AI Act will apply in late 2025, at the earliest.What is certain is that the European Union is the first in the world to have almost definitively adopted a legislation that will broadly regulate AI systems, and it would be reasonable to expect other legislators to follow the European path and to commence drafting their own legislation to regulate AI. The above can also be already relevant to companies operating in AI-related industries, as, even in this non-definitive text much can be read into the concerns and the perspective of public authorities.
Daniela Della Rosa
+39 02 7623 2001
Article 30 Nov. 2023
Evaluation of Shares and Conventional Withdrawal of the Shareholder: A New Direction
Article 21 Nov. 2023
Virtual Try-on: A New Way of Shopping
Event 20 Nov. 2023
Maria Paulina Santacruz Speaks About the SVAMC Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration