Photo of Ana Cowan

Ana Cowan

Ana has more than 16 years of experience representing physicians, physician groups, ambulatory surgery centers, and non-profit health organizations in regulatory healthcare matters, corporate and administrative matters.

Contact:Read more about Ana Cowan
AI Illustration

Key point: “Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan,” the Trump Administration’s summary approach to federal artificial intelligence (AI) policy, and three new Executive Orders (EO) propose a wide-ranging federal strategy intended to solidify U.S. leadership in AI. For business leaders and public sector stakeholders, the Action Plan and EOs may be a double-edged sword: catalyzing AI innovation through deregulation, but in turn creating a complex, opaque compliance environment that demands careful navigation.

State of Connecticut Waving Flag in 3D

Keypoint: Connecticut once again moves the needle on state privacy laws while at the same time integrating changes from other state laws.

On June 25, Connecticut Governor Lamont signed Senator James Maroney’s SB 1295 into law. The bill makes several notable changes to Connecticut’s existing consumer data privacy law, including modifying its applicability standard, exemptions, definitions, consumer rights, data minimization provisions, and children’s privacy sections. The bill also significantly modifies the law’s approach to profiling that will impact the use of artificial intelligence in some contexts.

In the below post, we provide a summary of the more notable changes. For each of the changes, we also provide the context for the change, including what the change means, its potential consequences, and how it fits into the larger landscape of state data privacy laws.

Keypoint: The Colorado legislature is considering significant amendments to the nation’s first algorithmic discrimination law.

On April 28, 2025, Colorado Senator Robert Rodriguez and Representative Brianna Titone introduced SB 318, which makes significant amendments to the Colorado AI Act (SB 205). The bill is currently pending in the Senate. The Colorado legislature closes Wednesday, May 7. In the below article, we provide an overview of the more significant proposed amendments.

In addition, because SB 318 is only a redline of the sections of the Colorado AI Act for which amendments were proposed, it does not show the changes in the full context of the existing law. We prepared a complete redline of the law, which is available to Byte Back AI subscribers here.

Keypoint: If signed by the governor, the Arkansas bill will create new obligations for the collection and processing of personal information for Arkansas children and teens under 16 years of age, however, compliance may prove difficult given ambiguity in the bill’s provisions.

On April 15, 2025, the Arkansas legislature passed HB 1717 – the Arkansas Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act. If signed by the governor, Arkansas will be the latest state to legislate in the teens’ privacy space but with a bill unlike any other passed to date.

In the below article, we provide a summary of the bill and its requirements.

Keypoint: The California Privacy Protection Agency settled its first non-data broker enforcement action with a $632,500 fine and other remedial measures.

On March 12, 2025, the California Privacy Protection Agency (Agency) announced its first non-data broker enforcement action requiring a vehicle manufacturer to pay an administrative fine of $632,500 in connection with the Agency’s review of connected vehicle manufacturers and related technologies’ privacy practices. The manufacturer also agreed to implement certain remedial actions.

In the below post, we provide an overview of the alleged violations and the penalties.

Keypoint: The FTC finalizes changes to bolster COPPA Rule, the first updates to the Rule since 2013.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) finalized changes to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) Rule today, making the first updates to the Rule since 2013. In January 2024, the FTC proposed changes to the COPPA Rule and those changes went through a year-long rulemaking process. The changes set new requirements around the collection, use, and disclosure of children’s personal information and provide parents with new tools and protections.

In the below post, we provide background on the COPPA Rule and a summary of the finalized changes, which will go into effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register and require compliance one year from publication.

Keypoint: The Texas Attorney General reaches a first-of-its-kind settlement with a healthcare company that provides generative AI products. 

On September 18, 2024, the Texas Attorney General announced that it had reached a settlement with a Dallas-based artificial intelligence healthcare company. The Attorney General’s press release represents that it is a first-of-its-kind settlement, resolving allegations that the company deployed its artificial intelligence (“AI”) products at Texas hospitals while making false and misleading statements about the safety of its products. 

Keypoint: The appellate court ruled that the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act’s impact assessment provision is unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the trial court to consider the constitutionality of the other challenged provisions.

On August 16, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in NetChoice v. Bonta on the constitutionality of California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (AADC). The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision in part and vacated it in part. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling that NetChoice was likely to succeed in showing that the AADC’s data protection impact assessment requirement violates the First Amendment. Based on that ruling, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision to enjoin enforcement of that requirement. The appellate court vacated the remainder of the district court’s ruling, determining that it is unclear from the record whether the remaining provisions of the AADC challenged by NetChoice violate the First Amendment. The appellate court remanded the case to the district court to consider the constitutionality of those provisions and whether the law’s unconstitutional provisions are severable from the remainder of the law.

In the below article, we provide an overview and analysis of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

Keypoint: Companies onboarding AI products and services need to understand the potential risks associated with these products and implement contractual provisions to manage them.

With the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) products and services, companies using these products and services need to negotiate contractual provisions that adequately address the unique issues they present. However, given that this area is new and rapidly emerging, companies may not appreciate that the use of AI may raise unique contractual issues. Even if companies do realize it, they may not know what those provisions should state. In addition, many AI-related contractual terms are complicated and confusing, oftentimes containing new terms and definitions that companies are unfamiliar with handling. 

In the below article, we identify key considerations when reviewing or preparing AI-related contracts. Although there may be other considerations depending on the specific use case, the below considerations should provide the reader with a useful starting point for how to address this issue.