AI verandert de juridische due diligence ingrijpend door documentanalyse sneller en efficiënter te maken. Advocaten verschuiven hun focus van feitelijke controle naar strategische interpretatie. AI-tools herkennen patronen, markeren risico’s en besparen tijd, maar roepen vragen op over transparantie en aansprakelijkheid. De “zwarte doos” van AI vereist toezicht en juridische uitlegbaarheid. De advocaat blijft eindverantwoordelijk en moet technologische kennis combineren met juridische expertise. De toekomst van due diligence is hybride: menselijk waar nodig, AI-gedreven waar mogelijk.

Dit artikel onderzoekt hoe Tesla-gebruikers navigeren tussen autonomie en digitale controle. Centraal staat de Sentry Mode — het camerasysteem dat voortdurend de omgeving én de bestuurder monitort. Deze technologie, bedoeld ter beveiliging en verkeersveiligheid, maakt Tesla tot symbool van wat de auteurs luxe surveillance noemen: consumenten betalen vrijwillig voor producten die hen observeren, in ruil voor comfort, status en veiligheid.

Standardisation processes for artificial intelligence (AI) governance and risk management are underway, including the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the European Committee for Standardization (CEN / CENELEC). These efforts aim to establish frameworks, methodologies, and metrics for evaluating, among others, the ethical and social impacts of AI technologies, considering different scopes and approaches.

De afhankelijkheid van cloud diensten in de Europese Unie is in recente jaren enorm gestegen. Een wereld zonder de grote cloud dienstverleners is haast ondenkbaar geworden. Tegelijkertijd is de markt voor cloud dienstverlening grotendeels in handen van een klein aantal (niet-Europese) aanbieders. De EU stimuleert dan ook enerzijds de ontwikkeling van de Europese markt voor cloud, terwijl zij aan de andere kant het aanbieden en gebruiken van cloud diensten aan strenge normen onderwerpt. Dit laatste roept de vraag op of het Europees regelgevend kader het gewenste effect bereikt, of juist een onnodige remmende werking heeft op adoptie van cloud technologie waarmee de strategische ambities van de EU in gevaar komen.

De afhankelijkheid van cloud diensten in de Europese Unie is in recente jaren enorm gestegen. Een wereld zonder de grote cloud dienstverleners is haast ondenkbaar geworden. Tegelijkertijd is de markt voor cloud dienstverlening grotendeels in handen van een klein aantal (niet-Europese) aanbieders. De EU stimuleert dan ook enerzijds de ontwikkeling van de Europese markt voor cloud, terwijl zij aan de andere kant het aanbieden en gebruiken van cloud diensten aan strenge normen onderwerpt. Dit laatste roept de vraag op of het Europees regelgevend kader het gewenste effect bereikt, of juist een onnodige remmende werking heeft op adoptie van cloud technologie waarmee de strategische ambities van de EU in gevaar komen.

In the past years, new technological developments in AI have attracted widespread political attention and regulatory scrutiny worldwide. In particular, the emergence and rapid adoption of generative AI systems able to generate content such as text, audio, video, and computer code based on users’ instructions triggered heated legal and political discussions, including in the field of copyright.

The UN's engagement with AI policy, particularly through UNESCO's Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, is a pivotal moment in the global discourse on AI. Adopted unanimously by UNESCO member states, this landmark document outlines a comprehensive framework for ensuring AI systems are aligned with universal ethical principles and human rights standards.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a powerful technology that is transforming various industries and sectors. Large Language Models (LLMs) are a particular AI model that is specifically designed to generate human-like text.

With AI technology advancing, AI systems undoubtedly hold great potential inter alia in terms of taking over tasks that normally require human effort and interpretation. In the legal profession, where large amounts of data have to be reviewed, AI systems may ease and speed up processes.

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) has been shaped into a considerable omnibus Regulation that covers a wide range of issues, including AI systems used within the employment context.

The legal industry has been undergoing transformation through the application of artificial intelligence (AI)to research, e-discovery, legal analysis, case briefs and more strategical outputs such as prediction of case outcomes, which are echoed with ‘legal data science’, ‘jurimetrics’ or ‘quantitative legal prediction’.

In recent years, in particular following the emergence of large language models (LLM), the question of interplay between the contemplated EU regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (AI Act) and data protection regulations has become the centre of public debates for privacy professionals.

Integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into judicial decision-making is becoming common, as evidenced by recent cases in Colombia and the Netherlands. In these two different jurisdictions, judges used AI tools, specifically large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, to assist in their legal reasoning. According to a UNESCO survey on AI use in the judiciary, 44% of respondents reported using AI tools for work activities, with 41% using ChatGPT or other AI chatbots.

This second part of the Interplay between AI Act and GDPR series (collectively, ‘Study’), builds upon the first part titled ‘When and How to Comply with Both’.

The firmament of treaties on Artificial Intelligence has become slightly brighter as the Council of Europe and eleven non-member states have adopted a Framework Convention on artificial intelligence after years of negotiation.

On 21 May 2024, the Council of the European Union approved the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending certain Union Legislative Acts (AIA), taking a final step in the legislative process.

In 2023 the US Copyright Office denied a designer copyright over her AI-generated illustrations, despite proving the personal direction and decisions over the final images. In the same year, a Chinese court protected a man's AI-generated image, since he proved the personal direction and decisions over the final image.

Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and generative artificial intelligence (GAI) continue to enhance value creation and capture, catalysing conversations about innovation and regulatory transformation in the United States. Artificial Intelligence (AI) employs algorithms, information, and communication technologies to make ‘machines capable of performing tasks that would require intelligence if done by [humans]’.

In the case of Jaswinder Singh, the Punjab and Haryana High Court was dealing with the question of bail application moved by the petitioner, who was being tried for committal of murder via cruelty. The core question before the Court of Law was whether bail should be granted in such a case. It is normal jurisprudence in India that ‘bail is a general rule and jail is an exception’.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is emerging as the next frontier in competition policy after two decades of debate around platforms, data control, and conventional algorithms In July 2024, competition agencies from the EU, UK, and US issued a Joint Statement affirming their vigilance regarding AI, particularly generative AI (genAI)—which generates text, images, and data in response to prompts.