In 2024, the European Union adopted a comprehensive regulatory framework for artificial intelligence, which classifies AI systems according to the level of risk that they pose to fundamental rights and public safety. Under this scheme, certain “unacceptable risk” uses, such as social scoring systems, are prohibited outright, while “high-risk” uses in areas like employment, education, healthcare, and law enforcement are subject to extensive regulations. This approach seeks to minimize foreseeable harms before AI systems are placed on the market.
Do you know when someone is watching you? With the recent developments of wearable technology, individuals are increasingly being watched when they least expect. Specifically, companies like Meta and Ray-Ban have released smart glasses that seamlessly allow users to record their surroundings and interact with AI while they go about their everyday life. While these technologies have created a multitude of technological opportunities for the future, they have also opened the door to several potential legal pitfalls.
Growing up in the early aughts, my parents constantly warned me about the dangers of the internet, cautioning that “the internet is forever,” and forbidding me from using my real name or divulging any personal information to internet strangers. Today’s parents, on the other hand, have become increasingly comfortable sharing photos, videos, or other content about their children online. Eighty-two percent of parents in the United States who use social media have posted content about their children on social media sites. According to a 2010 study conducted by Internet security company AVG, ninety-two percent of children in the United States have a digital footprint by the time they reach the age of two, with their online presence often beginning before birth when a parent uploads a picture of a sonogram.
Immigration, specifically the presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in residential areas and major urban centers, has been a widely reported and discussed issue in the current American political landscape. Many would consider it to be the defining issue of Donald Trump’s second presidential term. This issue has touched campus life at The Ohio State University, as two OSU students were arrested on January 20, 2026, in connection to an anti-ICE protest, following the presence of ICE agents at a career fair in the Ohio Union.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Part of the Bill of Rights, this amendment was written in response to increasing infringements upon personal privacy occurring in both the colonies and in England following the American Revolution. However, the historical context surrounding the ratification of the Fourth Amendment is “a stark contrast from the modern world in which it has been invoked.”
Under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, providers and users of interactive computer services can be held liable for (i) any action taken in good faith to restrict access to inappropriate material, whether or not the material is constitutionally protected or (ii) any action taken to restrict access to such inappropriate material. Congress noted in § 230 that it is the policy of the United States “to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services” and “to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.” However, since 1996, when the CDA was enacted, the congressional purpose and intent behind § 230 has been re-characterized, in part so companies can monetize on the inappropriate material the act sought to prevent from circulation. This re-characterization, and the emergence of artificial intelligence, has left § 230’s scope and future up for debate.
During the 1972 presidential campaign, five burglars linked to the Nixon administration were caught breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters to install surveillance equipment. The ensuing investigation revealed a variety of secret government surveillance practices targeting political opponents, journalists, and antiwar activists. In response to President Nixon’s resignation and a series of Senate investigations uncovering unconstitutional domestic intelligence gathering practices, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in 1978. FISC provides judicial oversight by reviewing executive branch applications seeking approval to use various means of obtaining foreign intelligence, as outlined in FISA. FISA established the means by which the executive branch of the U.S. government could conduct foreign intelligence surveillance within the country. Notably, FISA required the government to obtain authorization from FISC prior to conducting electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information.
When someone first signs up for a social media account, the first question upon registration is often “How old are you?” Most Americans are familiar with age being a potential restriction to access certain websites and userbases. However, the legal concerns behind age verification are a policy issue often neglected when studying data privacy and technology law.
With the rise of artificial intelligence and advanced algorithms, personal data is being collected and stored online at exponential rates, yet the data rights movement is off to a slow start globally. In the United States, there is very little federal protection for virtual personal data collection. However, in a world with increasing technological developments, data rights need protected in more ways than just the typical online format. As the Olympic season draws to a close, this is an apt time to discuss the rise of biometric data collection in sports and athletes’ rights over their data.
Artificial intelligence has enabled the creation of highly realistic synthetic audio and video, commonly referred to as “deepfakes.” These technologies allow users to easily generate media depicting individuals saying or doing things they never did. As deepfakes become more accessible and convincing, lawmakers have expressed concern about their potential to mislead the public and cause concrete harm.
The increasing complexity surrounding legislative and regulatory drafting raises questions regarding the use of artificial intelligence (AI) as an attempt to simplify the process. AI can assist legislators to improve wording clarity and identify ambiguities and inconsistencies. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) report legislative staff use of Generative AI tools like ChatGPT and CoPilot to do research, create first drafts, and edit text. Nevertheless, the use of AI in rulemaking processes poses regularity and ethical challenges.
As heavily suggested by the commercials from Super Bowl LX, artificial intelligence (AI) is seemingly infiltrating every part of human culture, and sports are no exception. Over the past few years, AI has been increasingly used in the realm of sports to benefit teams, fans, and the leagues. Some of these uses include talent acquisitions, training, injury management, and media content. As the use of AI expands in sports, however, the legal challenges also increase.
In the aftermath of World War II, the deadliest conflict in human history, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR specifies a wide range of rights, but at the time of its writing, it was largely viewed as aspirational. In the 78 years since its adoption, provisions of the UDHR have become part of customary law and are binding on states. Article I of the UDHR states that “[a]ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Some of the rights articulated in the declaration include the right to privacy, freedom of opinion and expression, and equal protection under the law. These rights have been central to the protection of humanity since long before they were articulated and will continue to remain central for many years to come. In the emerging age of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the implications of the new technology must be considered in international human rights law.
If you were part of the dating app scene in 2024, or perhaps if you were tapped into the happenings of the finance world in 2024, you may have heard about Score, the “dating app for people with good to excellent credit.” The app first launched right before Valentine’s Day in 2024, with a short-term mission to encourage more discussions about personal finance in dating relationships. The app was only intended to be available for ninety days, but became so popular that it remained available for six months. Now, two years later, the app has relaunched and touts a new model.
Many movie fans became aware of the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strikes after “Barbenheimer” press tours were impacted by the lack of celebrity. During the summer of 2023, both the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and Screen Actors Guild (SAG) were on strike. Prior to the negotiations, SAG combined with American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), to create the SAG-AFTRA union. The WGA is a labor union representing screenwriters, primarily in negotiations with film and television producers. SAG-AFTRA represents a wide array of media professionals, including actors, dancers, and voiceover artists.
Advances in emerging technologies are reshaping employment relationships. Employers increasingly use artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms to monitor and manage workers, as well as to automate decisions related to hiring, compensation, scheduling, performance evaluation, and promotion. While these digital tools can help businesses improve productivity, they also raise concerns due to their lack of transparency, intrusive workplace surveillance practices, and discriminatory biases.
With the rise of artificial intelligence comes the development of the data centers that support the artificial intelligence platforms. Discussions of potential drawbacks of this race to build and maintain data centers saturate American mainstream media, but perhaps the most pressing concern is the rise in electricity bills. As artificial intelligence becomes more entrenched in society and the demand for data centers continues to grow, protections for innocent consumers who happen to live near one of these power-hungry data centers need to be put in place.
The rapid rise of generative AI has sparked a fundamental copyright question: where did the training data come from? Recent lawsuits and investigative reporting suggest that many large language models (LLMs) were trained using “shadow libraries,” which are massive repositories of pirated books and academic works. These shadow libraries host millions of copyrighted works and distribute them without authorization from authors or publishers. Because they contain enormous amounts of clean, structured text, they have become attractive sources of training data for AI systems.
Propaganda has many definitions, but generally refers to a particular form of persuasive communication. A common understanding of propaganda is that it is a tool used to manipulate and mislead people to achieve a predetermined goal. Effective propaganda dissemination is rooted in strategically targeted audiences and objectives, and mass propaganda campaigns must utilize some method of conveyance to reach the targeted audience. While propaganda is frequently analyzed in a historical context, or associated with authoritarian regimes, it is increasingly being used in contemporary democracies like the United States. As technology develops, the risks associated with propaganda—particularly propaganda distributed by the government—rise.
Federal courts may soon confront a new evidentiary rule designed specifically for machine-generated evidence. In 2025, the Judicial Conference published proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 for public comment. The proposal addresses a perceived gap in the current rules: when machine output is offered without a testifying expert, Rule 702 is not always an obvious fit, even if the output functions like expert testimony.
Over time, advancements in the medical field have allowed greater accessibility for those experiencing adverse health events. For example, devices such as pacemakers have allowed those with heart conditions to have their heartbeat regulated. Assistive medical devices such as wheelchairs, braces, and prosthetics, have greatly improved the mobility of those with disabilities.
The concept of personal jurisdiction revolves around the power of a court over an individual who is involved in a case or controversy before the court. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “limits the power of state courts to render judgments affecting the personal rights of defendants who do not reside within the state’s territory.” There are two types of personal jurisdiction that can be exercised by courts: general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. Under general jurisdiction, if a party has systematic and continuous contacts with the forum state, a court may exercise jurisdiction over the party for any dispute. Under specific jurisdiction, courts have the power to exercise jurisdiction over parties who have caused effects in the forum through their actions.
Click here to view the archives.