New Global AI Laws Are Coming. Is Your Firm Ready?

As artificial intelligence reshapes industries, transforms workplaces, and filters into our daily lives, one question is looming large in courtrooms and legislative halls alike: Who regulates the machines?

From ChatGPT writing legal memos to facial recognition software influencing criminal investigations, the explosive rise of AI has created a regulatory vacuum that lawmakers around the world are now scrambling to fill.

The impact is far-reaching, not just for developers and corporations, but for legal professionals, human rights advocates, and ordinary citizens affected by AI-driven decisions.

A Fragmented Global Landscape

Unlike data privacy, where the GDPR set a global standard, AI regulation is currently fragmented.

The European Union has taken the lead with its AI Act, passed in early 2025, which categorizes AI systems based on risk and imposes strict compliance requirements on “high-risk” applications, including biometric surveillance and predictive policing.

In the United States, however, the federal approach has been slower and more piecemeal.

While agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have issued guidance on AI use in hiring and advertising, there is no comprehensive national framework.

Instead, states are stepping in. California’s SB-1047, signed into law earlier this year, now requires companies developing large language models to implement “safety guardrails” and undergo independent risk assessments.

Meanwhile, Illinois and New York are expanding their biometric privacy laws to address AI-powered facial recognition systems.

Legal Gray Zones and Real Risks

For legal practitioners, this patchwork regulatory environment presents both challenges and opportunities. On one hand, clients across industries, from healthcare to finance are seeking counsel on how to deploy AI tools without running afoul of anti-discrimination laws, intellectual property protections, or cybersecurity standards.

On the other hand, courts are grappling with how to apply existing laws to new AI-related harms.

Can an AI system be held liable for defamation? Who’s responsible when an autonomous vehicle causes a fatal accident? Does using AI in criminal sentencing violate due process?

In the absence of clear statutory guidance, judges are increasingly relying on analogies to established doctrines, but those analogies are starting to wear thin.

The Ethics Behind the Algorithms

At the heart of the regulatory debate is not just what AI can do, but what it should be allowed to do.

Bias in AI systems, particularly those trained on flawed or non-representative data, is a well-documented problem. From mortgage approvals to parole recommendations, algorithmic decisions can reinforce existing inequalities or introduce new ones.

But proving bias, especially when the model’s inner workings are opaque or proprietary, is a legal minefield.

Several lawsuits are now testing this frontier. In February, a class-action suit filed in Washington State alleged that an AI hiring tool systematically excluded older applicants in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

The defendant, a major tech recruiter, has denied the claims but acknowledged the software lacked age-based bias screening.

Toward a New Legal Framework

In Congress, there’s a growing push for a nationwide framework to govern artificial intelligence.

One proposal, the Algorithmic Accountability Act, reintroduced in 2025, would require companies to examine how automated decisions might lead to discrimination, privacy violations, or other forms of harm.

Still, with deep political divides over how to handle tech regulation, the path forward remains uncertain.

The legal world, however, isn’t standing still. Bar associations across the country have launched new initiatives focused on emerging technologies.

Law schools are weaving digital ethics and machine learning impacts into their core curricula.

And firms, particularly those handling employment law, intellectual property, or product liability, are investing in specialized knowledge.

For today’s attorneys, understanding how these technologies affect real-world outcomes is becoming a core part of competent legal practice. It’s as essential now as knowing the rules of evidence or the structure of a contract.

As artificial intelligence becomes more embedded in daily life, from hiring decisions and healthcare diagnostics to criminal sentencing and credit approvals: the legal system can no longer afford to lag behind.

That means developing new legal standards, rethinking liability when decisions are made by machines, and confronting complex questions about agency and responsibility in a digital age.

It’s not just about catching up anymore; it’s about keeping pace with a technology that learns, adapts, and impacts human lives in real time.

The EU’s AI Act is poised to become a global benchmark, while U.S. states are pushing forward their own regulations. But without a clear set of rules, lawyers are often left to apply old laws to situations the law was never designed to handle.