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.