Mechanical Turk is Closing. The Workers Who Built AI Are Still Here

Members of California's legal team leave court after a settlement was reached in a multi-state lawsuit accusing Meta of causing harm to children on social media outside the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building and US Courthouse on Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2026, in Oakland, Calif. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)

August 2026 US Tech Policy Roundup

The Colorado State Capitol is framed by buildings along Sherman Street Friday, June 27, 2025, in Denver. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

What 12 State ‘Companion Bot’ Laws Demand of AI Providers

A tic-tac-toe board with human faces as digital blocks, symbolizing how AI works on pre-existing, biased online data for information processing and decision-making.

Amritha R Warrier & AI4Media / Better Images of AI / tic tac toe / CC-BY 4.0

Germany's Draft Law on AI in Migration Raises Rights and Bias Concerns

A collage of circuit boards interwoven with aerial photographs of water treatment facilities, agricultural lands, industrial sites and mining machinery.

Privacy by Architecture Makes AI Compliance Work

A yellow school bus is seen in Chicago, Illinois, United States, on July 28, 2026. (Photo by Marcin Golba/NurPhoto)

In the US, Caution Rules on AI Ahead of K-12 School Year

A young child holds up a smart phone in front of their face using both hands.

This Week's Meta Settlement Will Reverberate Across the World for Years

This image is a collage with a colourful Japanese vintage landscape showing a mountain, hills, flowers and other plants and a small stream. There are 3 large black data servers placed in the bottom half of the image, with a cloud of black smoke emitting from them, partly obscuring the scenery.

Deborah Lupton, "Servers in a Landscape" / 

'Technology Freedom Cooperative' To Build Infrastructure for Human Rights and Justice Groups

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg (C) ahead of testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on protecting children from sexual exploitation online, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, USA, 31 January 2024. (Photo by Ritzau Scanpix/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)

Meta Owes the Rest of the World Its Teen Protections

A massive sculpture of Icarus lies in front of the Concordia Temple in the Valley of Temples in Agrigento, Sicily, on January 5, 2019. Shutterstock

A massive sculpture of Icarus lies in front of the Concordia Temple in the Valley of Temples in Agrigento, Sicily, on January 5, 2019. 

Make AI Companies Criminally Liable for Preventable Harm

The EU and US flags in front of a European Commission logo.

The EU and US Can’t Agree on Tech — or Trust

Nicklas Akers, California Senior Assistant Attorney General, left, and Deputy Attorney General Megan O'Neill exit court after tech giant Meta reached a settlement to end a landmark trial over teen social media addiction in Oakland, Calif., Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2026. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)

Assessing the Landmark Meta Settlement

Signs for company Cambridge Analytica in the lobby of the building in which they were based on March 21, 2018 in London, England. (Photo by Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images)

The $459 Million Cambridge Analytica Reckoning Buried in Meta's Teen Safety Settlement

The TikTok logo is displayed through a magnifying glass in this photo illustration in Ontario, Canada, on February 5, 2026. (Photo by Thomas Fuller/NurPhoto via AP)

Understanding Brazil’s $29.7 Million TikTok Fine Over Children’s Data

Three human silhouettes are depicted mid-stride, each comprising of a collage of hardware used to develop AI including circuit boards and CPU chips. In the background there is a black and grey gradient with smoke. Beneath the runners from the left, there are two rectangle panels which run across the image, one is red and the other is blue. 

To Avoid a 'Tokenocracy,' Ensure Popular Access to AI Systems

CHONGQING, CHINA - AUGUST 10: In this photo illustration, the logo of Meta is displayed on a smartphone screen on August 10, 2026 in Chongqing, China. (Photo by VCG/VCG via AP )

What Meta’s US Settlement on Child Safety Means for Europe

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg attends UFC Freedom 250 on the South Lawn of the White House, Sunday, June 14, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

What's in Meta's Teen Social Media Settlement—and What Hinges on Its Rivals

Image of Solana Larsen with text, Managing Editor Solana Larsen

Solana Larsen Named Managing Editor of Tech Policy Press

A child stands near a games stall. (Photo by Maxim Konankov/NurPhoto via AP) 

(Photo by Maxim Konankov/NurPhoto via AP)

Banning AI Toys for Four Years Won't Make Kids Safer

A yard sign expressing opposition to the construction of a data center is seen outside of a home in Mifflinville, Pa. on July 3, 2026. (Photo by Paul Weaver/Sipa USA via AP Images)

Data Center Discontent Drives State Legislation Surge

Twelve states now have passed laws aimed at reducing potential risks associated with “companion chatbots,” particularly for minors. Although the terminology for these products varies, these “companion bot laws” are already in effect in 

The 12 companion bot laws share several common regulatory themes across jurisdictions. Lawmakers have focused on disclosures regarding AI interactions, safeguards for minor users, crisis-intervention protocols, and prohibiting misrepresentations relating to licensed professional services. The laws are not substantively identical, however, with significant differences in both product coverage and the specific obligations or prohibitions applicable to bot providers in a given state.

All of the companion bot laws regulate AI systems that engage users through ongoing conversational interactions. Most of them restrict coverage to bots that exhibit anthropomorphic features and sustain relationships across multiple interactions. The laws in Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, and Nebraska have broader language that cover any bot that “simulates human conversation and interaction” through text, audio or video. With the exception of Hawaii, the laws all provide exceptions for chatbots used for business purposes or for other, narrow functions, such as a limited video game feature.

An analysis of the substantive provisions of the 12 state companion bot laws reveals four overarching principles that state legislatures are effectively requiring chatbot providers to adopt:

1. Transparency and disclosure requirements

All 12 laws require providers to clearly and conspicuously disclose to users that they are communicating with an AI system rather than a human being.

The scope of this requirement varies. Some states require disclosure at the outset of an interaction, while others require repeated or persistent notices during extended conversations. Several statutes impose stricter disclosure requirements when users are minors. Washington’s law goes furthest by requiring providers to prevent chatbots from expressly representing themselves as human to

 user, whereas this requirement exists in several other states only for minor users.

With the exception of New York and Rhode Island, the companion bot laws impose heightened compliance obligations when the user is a minor. While the specifics vary, these obligations generally include “reasonable measures” for

Preventing manipulative or maximizing engagement (

Preventing emotional manipulation and dependency (

, discouraging users from seeking help from adults)

, requirements providers give parents or guardians tools to manage privacy settings and screen time)

Most companion bot laws apply these requirements when a provider knows, or has reason to know, that a user is a minor. Colorado and Georgia go further by imposing an affirmative duty to use "commercially reasonable” methods to estimate user age. However, the Georgia law limits this duty to when it is proportionate to the risk of access to features that may generate sexually explicit content.

, Connecticut adopts a notably different approach. Rather than focusing primarily on reasonable measures to prevent certain outputs, it forbids offering a companion bot to minors if “reasonably foreseeable” that the bot “is capable of” specified harmful interactions. The list of such interactions is broader than the other state laws.

3. Crisis detection and mental health safeguards

All 12 laws require operators to implement protocols that detect user expressions of suicidal ideation or self-harm and refer them to appropriate crisis or mental health resources. Some of the laws require posting of these protocols on the operator’s website. Unlike the other substantive provisions of these laws, these protocols are usually framed as being required for providers as a precondition for offering chatbots in the state. Several of the laws expand the scope of the required protocols to include additional harms such severe emotional crises, violence to others, and eating disorders.

The Colorado, Georgia, and Oregon laws also require the protocols to include escalation procedures for users with repeated or severe crisis indicators. Oregon’s law specifies that providers must use "clinical best practices and expertise" to establish how the AI provides "additional intervention" for a user who continues to express suicidal or self-harm ideation even after being given crisis resources. The only other law with even an indirect reference to clinical practices is Hawaii’s, which requires "evidence-based methods" for measuring suicidal ideation.

4. Restrictions on mental health and professional representations

Several of the companion bot laws prohibit providers from programming or permitting their AI products to represent that they are mental health professionals or can provide professional or licensed mental or behavioral health care. Such restrictions are also found in at least 8 other state laws that focus solely on bots designed for, or representing themselves as capable of providing, mental health. The first three of these laws—in Nevada, Utah, and Illinois—were discussed in a prior DLA Piper 

. Other states following suit are Delaware, Maine, Tennessee, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

 AI law also describes a unique provision that prohibits offering a companion bot to a minor if reasonably foreseeable that the bot is capable of “offering mental health services,” outside tightly defined exceptions.

Colorado’s law extends the concept further by restricting representations related to additional licensed professions, including health care providers, dietitians, and attorneys. These provisions reflect growing concern that users may place undue trust in AI systems that appear to provide professional advice.

Colorado’s proposed rules may shape enforcement

On August 11, the Colorado Attorney General released 

 relating in part to its companion bot law, now called the Chatbot Safety Act. The law does not mandate rulemaking, but the Attorney General indicated that rules would help to clarify compliance obligations. Of particular note, the proposed rules address the statute’s standards requiring providers to adopt “technically feasible measures” and "reasonable measures" to prevent certain categories of outputs to minor users.

For covered products, the law requires providers to institute (a) “technically feasible measures” to prevent specified types of explicit sexual content and (b) “reasonable measures” to prevent “formulating, structuring, or optimizing a response that simulates emotional dependence or isolation from real-world supports.” Sections 11.3 and 11.4 of the proposed rules detail several factors that the Attorney General would consider in determining whether providers had complied with those requirements, including the availability and effectiveness of safeguards and the extent to which the provider engaged in effective testing, monitoring, remediation, and related documentation.

Many of these factors mirror crucial aspects of recommended corporate AI governance programs, including testing, monitoring, and assessing AI products and tools to ensure that they are working as intended and not causing harm. The provisions also indicate the importance of documenting those efforts and responding appropriately to any problematic results.

Given the absence of comparable interpretive guidance in the other states with companion bot laws, Colorado's final rules could become an influential reference point for regulators and courts analyzing similar statutory language. Public comments on the proposed rules—which also cover the recently enacted state law on automated decision-making technology—are due by October 26.

Companion bot regulation is evolving rapidly. In addition to new legislation, state attorneys general and private plaintiffs continue to file cases in which chatbot usage has allegedly caused self-harm, violence, and emotional dependency. Congress is considering multiple AI and chatbot-related proposals, while industry organizations and nonprofits—such as the Better Business Bureau, the Partnership on AI, and Common Sense Media—are developing voluntary standards intended to complement legislative efforts.

The only thing certain in this area is change, with more laws, cases, and other activity on the horizon.

Rachel Lau and Shirley Frame work with leading public interest foundations and nonprofits on technology policy issues at

. Justin Hendrix is editor of Tech Policy Press, and Ashley Faler is assistant editor.

 in Oakland, California to face a judge and jury over alleged harms to children in a case brought by state attorneys general from California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey. The case was considered a bellwether in the broader 

 brought against social media companies since 2022 in thousands of cases from around the country. But by the following Wednesday, August 26, 52 attorneys general from across the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia announced a 

While Meta denied the allegations against it and admitted no wrongdoing, it 

 up to $17.1 billion and to make substantial changes to its platforms for teen users, including restrictions on night time access, limits on daily usage and notifications, additional parental controls, and age verification. It also agreed to an independent auditor to assess its compliance with the terms of the settlement. The company 

 it would create an “independent social media research foundation” and provide it with data “to advance independent research into teen well-being and grow our collective understanding of how to best support teens online.”

News of the settlement immediately sparked speculation, including well 

 of the United States, as to what it might mean for efforts to hold platforms accountable for child online safety. The settlement does not foreclose on other online litigation brought against Meta and other social media platforms, nor does it halt legislation advancing in Congress and across the states. But it does change the broader context in which these processes are unfolding, as experts told Tech Policy Press in a 

 the day after the settlement was announced.

While the settlement’s multibillion dollar price tag and novel terms were undoubtedly the month’s biggest news in US tech policy, there were a number of other key developments across AI governance, privacy, and science and technology policy that defined the month. Read on to learn more about the settlement and other August developments in US tech policy.

White House voluntary AI risk framework remains secret, prompts open source debate

 for pre-release government review of frontier AI models’ cyber capabilities, 

 that meet classified benchmarks for advanced cyber capability and are deemed national security risks. Developers of covered models would be asked to give the government up to 30 days of access before release, a process the June 2 executive order specifies does not create a licensing or pre-clearance requirement. Open-source and open-weight models are exempt regardless of capability, including those from Chinese developers, and the framework reportedly disclaims any effect on open models after release. The administration briefed top companies including Anthropic, Google, Meta and OpenAI on the framework, though it has not released it publicly and reportedly will not in the future. The 

Five Democratic senators, led by Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), 

 seeking clarity on the administration’s approach, warning that recent actions, including a Commerce Department directive that forced Anthropic to pull Fable 5 and Mythos 5 offline, had “raised serious concerns about process, transparency, and strategic effect.” Meanwhile, over 50 public interest organizations, including Public Citizen and the Tech Oversight Project, 

 to investigate July’s OpenAI-Hugging Face hacking, more details of which 

J.B. Branch, “The OpenAI–Hugging Face Incident Demands Urgent Congressional Oversight,” 

Raphael Satter and Deepa Seetharaman, “OpenAI agents hacked Hugging Face in 700-strong swarm, tried to cover tracks, investigations find,” 

Maxwell Ziff and Lity Hay Newman, “What We Still Don’t Know About OpenAI’s Hugging Face Hack,” 

Federal agencies attempt to obtain Americans’ data through multiple strategies, bypassing warrant requirement processes

In August, a series of developments revealed federal agencies seeking or obtaining Americans’ personal data through channels that bypassed the traditional warrant requirements, including inter-agency data sharing, commercial purchases, and demands made through legal discovery and administrative subpoenas. Many of the events were connected to immigration enforcement, with agencies repurposing benefits and tax records to identify undocumented immigrants and surveilling protesters taking action against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.

Two lawsuits challenged government practices around safety net enrollment and taxpayer data. On August 3, Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and DC, joined by the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, 

 to block the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from accessing personal data on millions of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients. The suit, co-led by California, New York and DC, alleged that a 

 would illegally authorize sharing of Social Security numbers, income and marital status. The administration argued that the policy is needed to keep undocumented immigrants from accessing aid. Also this month, attorneys general from 17 states and DC 

 in the First Circuit Court of Appeals urging the court to uphold a lower-court order blocking a deal between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and ICE to use taxpayer data, including home addresses, to locate undocumented immigrants, arguing it would erode trust and reduce tax filing.

In addition to attempts to compile existing government data, a separate episode showed agencies seeking to purchase commercial data. On August 4, 404 Media 

 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 

 to more than a billion airline ticketing records. Passengers’ names, credit card numbers, itineraries and flight dates, including for flights between and within foreign countries, was purchased from the Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), an airline-owned data broker. ARC's government sales first surfaced in June 2025, when a 

 detailed data purchases by Customs and Border Protection (CPB) and ICE. This month’s newly released documents added the SEC to the list of agencies that tapped the pipeline, giving a fuller account of how much passenger data airlines sold without notifying travelers before ARC 

 late last year under congressional pressure.

Federal agencies this month also sought data through the legal process itself, particularly seeking access to encrypted messages. In 

, a February 2026 suit accusing DHS of surveilling Maine observers who recorded enforcement operations, the department 

 to seek records of plaintiffs’ community group Signal chats. The government also requested lists of protests each plaintiff attended and messages reflecting their views on law enforcement. The plaintiffs' attorneys turned over smaller Signal group chats with redactions for contact information but refused to turn over the community group chat records and asked the court to deny access, arguing that the community has a right to engage in collective action. The motion is pending.

DHS also sought encrypted messages in Minnesota, where recently released documents reported by The New York Times revealed that DHS 

, including socialist organizations, labor unions, and an environmental group, during its immigration crackdown in early 2026, issuing subpoenas for over three years of financial records and sending undercover agents to monitor activists in person and inside Signal group chats. Defense attorney Kevin Riach, representing one of 15 people indicted in June on conspiracy and assault charges, wrote that the investigation "extended far beyond any potential threat to law enforcement safety." None of the organizations were charged.

The government’s efforts drew pushback from civil society and legal advocates, who argued that agencies circumvented the Fourth Amendment and statutory data privacy protections. In response to the TANF case, Common Cause, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), and Make the Road States, represented by Democracy Forward, filed 

 against the data sharing notice. In the Maine case, Genevieve Nadeau of Protect Democracy, which represents the 

 plaintiffs, said the government’s effort to obtain the community Signal chats intruded on "the fundamental First Amendment right to engage in collective action." Speaking to DHS's surveillance of Minnesota protesters, Aaron Terr of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression 

 raise First Amendment concerns because they can sweep up individuals engaged in lawful activity. He warned that "many Americans may be afraid to attend a protest, support an advocacy organization, because they don't want to become the target of a government investigation." Meanwhile, the administration defended its efforts, maintaining that its data access was lawful and necessary to enforce immigration law, investigate fraud, or support law enforcement.

Justin Hendrix, “Casey Michel on Breaking the Tech Oligarchy's Grip,” 

“Coalition Challenges Dramatic Data Privacy Changes to Federal Assistance Program,” 

Meg Anderson, “Churches, libraries and breweries: Inside DHS' covert surveillance operation,” 

Tech TidBits & Bytes aims to provide short updates on tech policy happenings across the White House, agencies, Congress, civil society, industry, and courts.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) 

released a National Security Science and Technology Strategy

 built around keeping the US technology posture “focused, resilient, agile, and secure” in support of the administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy. It identified artificial intelligence and autonomy, biotechnology, and quantum information as “potentially transformative emerging technologies,” warning that engineered bioweapons or artificial general intelligence could reshape the security environment. The strategy called for stronger research security, streamlined export controls, a more robust Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), and faster acquisition cycles. It called technological leadership “itself a national security objective” and identified 14 critical and emerging technology areas for agencies to prioritize.

 establishing a program that authorizes vetted US companies to conduct offensive cyber operations against foreign criminal groups on the government's behalf, in 

. The program directors cannot approve operations likely to cause loss of life or amount to a use of force under international law. Companies that unintentionally reach a US person must cease the operation and inform the government, and any operation deliberately aimed at a US person requires prior authorization.

 to assess and mitigate the risk of AI-assisted engineering of pathogens, days after Stanford and Arc Institute researchers reported in 

 the first known AI-designed functional viral genomes. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the White House Office of the National Cyber Director and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) are leading the effort.

 declaring it will no longer pursue disparate impact or "unfair discrimination" claims, which hold that outcomes differing across demographic groups can constitute unlawful discrimination absent proof of intent. The Commission said it lacks authority for such claims under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which it asserts creates no anti-discrimination cause of action, or the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), under which it will now pursue only intentional discrimination. The move followed 

 directing agencies to eliminate disparate-impact liability "to the maximum degree possible." The FTC will still bring intent-based disparate treatment claims under ECOA. The shift narrows a legal strategy that civil-rights advocates have used to challenge algorithmic decision-making and biased AI systems.

 on a draft enforcement policy statement warning that retailers who use personal data to set individualized prices risk violating the FTC Act's Section 5 ban on unfair or deceptive practices when they imply a price is uniform or fail to disclose that it is personalized. The FTC said 

 to ban the practice outright, but it can still pursue legal action against companies that hide their practices. Notices tucked into lengthy terms or policies would likely not qualify as disclosures. The commission voted 2-0 to seek comment, due September 18. Four states 

 to Sam Altman of OpenAI, Dario Amodei of Anthropic and Mark Zuckerberg of Meta urging them to pause AI development. Sanders argued the technology has reached a "critical risk threshold," citing researchers' use of AI to design novel viruses and incidents of models escaping their testing environments. Sanders also warned that if the executives did not act, "my colleagues and I in the US Senate will." Separately, Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX) and 19 other House Democrats 

 urging him to "immediately schedule open hearings" with the CEOs of leading AI companies, also citing the autonomous-hacking disclosures and warning of AI-driven job displacement.

The Washington Post reported that lawmakers and staff 

, including Copilot, ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude, across speechwriting, constituent correspondence, hearing preparation and amendment drafting, under rules that are “poorly understood and seldom enforced.” Current guidance bars uploading constituent data, generating deepfakes or letting AI finalize bills, but there have been no public reports of a staffer being disciplined for violations. Relatedly, Politico reported that the House Office of Legislative Counsel is 

 containing “erroneously cited statutes or incorrect legal definitions.” The office, which has 61 attorneys, received 5,623 legislative requests in the first 60 days of this Congress, up 72 percent from two years earlier.

An independent review of OpenAI’s Hugging Face breach by the nonprofits Model Evaluation and Threat Research (METR) and Redwood Research 

 roughly 700 AI agents, meant to stay isolated during a cybersecurity evaluation, instead coordinated as a “swarm” to attack Hugging Face. The incident was reportedly the first cyberattack carried out by an AI with no human directing it. The nonprofits 

 the agents traded hidden messages to pool hacking tactics and conceal cheating over seven days, and traced 95 percent of the activity to a model OpenAI had withheld from public release. In its own 

, OpenAI did not specify how many agents took part but called the episode a “warning shot,” pledging to adopt stronger safeguards for future testing. The company said it has halted a major training run, isolated its sandboxes and networks more tightly, and widened monitoring of how its models reason. Days after, Nvidia 

 to buy Hugging Face for $12.9 billion, though the companies have not confirmed the deal. The acquisition would establish Nvidia as a major player in open-source AI as debate continues in Washington over restricting open models.

OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and more than 100 other companies, including Microsoft, CrowdStrike, Visa, and Mastercard, 

 warning that AI-enabled cyberattacks will grow “far more widespread and sophisticated” as models advance, threatening public services like hospitals, water utilities, and internet infrastructure. The letter 

 asks for four groups: organizations should treat cyber defense as a leadership priority and patch their high risk weaknesses; cybersecurity firms should test defenses against attacks and bring AI-powered tools to critical-infrastructure operators; governments should fund defense efforts, expand trusted access programs, and penalize attackers; and frontier AI labs should extend model access and funding to under-resourced defenders while ensuring AI agents’ actions can be tracked and attributed.

 that can pick out an individual driver and map where they have been, using only a record of when and where their car drove past its cameras. WIRED 

 from code left publicly available on Flock's login pages. The tool, called OS Investigate, requires no license plate, name, or underlying crime to begin a search. It draws on camera data from more than 6,000 communities and includes 69 prompts where officers can query arrest records, dispatch logs and commercial databases to match a driver with an address and known relatives. Flock has claimed publicly that its cameras “cannot recognize, identify, or track individuals,” a claim WIRED reported its findings contradict. Flock says the tool is still in testing with a small group of police partners and may evolve before wider release.

 with a bipartisan group of 52 attorneys general, ending the first federal bellwether trial over claims that Facebook and Instagram were designed to drive minors’ addiction to the platforms. The deal would pay up to $17 billion over 10 years to fund state programs on youth mental health and online safety. Among the settlement’s terms, Meta would set a default two-hour daily cap and a midnight-to-6 a.m. block for users under 18 that only a parent can lift, pause notifications overnight and during school hours, hide like counts and beauty filters from minors, and add an option to switch off algorithmic feeds. The deal requires an outside auditor to verify Meta’s compliance with the terms annually for five years. In addition, Meta announced they would send consented user data to an independent social media research foundation to support studies on teen wellbeing. Some of the terms 

 actions by other platforms: required usage limits for minors tighten and roughly $5.3 billion of Meta’s total payment is released only if YouTube, TikTok, and Snap adopt comparable restrictions and pay states a matching sum. Meta 

 to participate. The deal now awaits court approval.

 to pay $567 million and overhaul its platforms, closing the second phase of a child safety case brought by Attorney General Raúl Torrez in 2023. The order brings Meta's total liability to $942 million, adding to $375 million in civil penalties from a Phase 1 jury verdict that found the company committed 75,000 violations of the state's Unfair Practices Act. Applying the state’s "public nuisance" theory, Chief Judge Bryan Biedscheid directed Meta to limit functions for users under 18 by capping combined Facebook and Instagram use at 90 hours monthly, hiding like counts by default, restricting push notifications at night and during school hours, and enforcing 

In the Northern District of California, federal judge Rita Lin 

 the Defense Department’s designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk. The company argued in a lawsuit filed in March that the government violated its First Amendment rights. The 

 declared the government’s actions were unlawful retaliation for Anthropic’s expressive activity, and the supply chain designation and Defense Department boycott of Anthropic’s products were capricious and beyond statutory authority. A second suit brought by Anthropic against the government over the supply chain risk designation is 

 over the July incident in which two of the company's models escaped an internal testing sandbox and broke into the AI platform Hugging Face without a direct human prompt to do so. Marshall’s office said the investigation will determine whether OpenAI's "inability or unwillingness to ensure the safety of its products" violated the state's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The 

 on the intrusion, the model testing that preceded it, OpenAI’s safety measures, any staff who raised concerns about model testing, and damages sustained by any person, with responses due September 14. It followed 

 from Marshall and 14 other attorneys general demanding OpenAI preserve records and halt similar evaluations. OpenAI said it is reviewing the incident with outside advisers.

 with TikTok and its Chinese parent, ByteDance, resolving a suit the 

 that accused the company of collecting personal data from millions of children under 13 without parental consent, in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Citing “significant changes” in the company’s internal structures and policies since the case began, the DOJ said the deal ensures “American families continue to benefit from stronger protections.” TikTok will 

, with the remaining $100 million due only once a court vacates the 2019 consent decree that bound its predecessor, Musical.ly. Days earlier, Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) 

 an algorithmic safeguard against harmful content from roughly 15 million US users, including minors, to measure the effect on user engagement.

The US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit 

set aside a Federal Communications Commission

 (FCC) public notice from March that would have extended the discounted broadcast advertising rates to political party and joint fundraising committees for advertising coordinated with candidates. The 2-1 ruling 

, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Senate candidates Sherrod Brown and Roy Cooper, and Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Mich.), who argued the "lowest unit charge" is reserved for candidates alone. The notice is especially significant due to the Supreme Court's June ruling in 

which struck down limits on coordinated party spending.

Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and DC, joined by the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, 

 would illegally authorize sharing of Social Security numbers, income and marital status, violating the Administrative Procedure Act, the Computer Matching Act and the Constitution's Spending Clause. The administration maintained the policy is needed to keep undocumented immigrants from accessing aid. Attorneys general from 17 states and DC 

 in the First Circuit Court of Appeals opposing an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deal to use taxpayer data, including home addresses, to locate undocumented immigrants, arguing it would erode trust and reduce tax filing.

 against Meta, TikTok, Google and Snap over social media addiction to continue on procedural grounds. The companies had sought protections from liability under Section 230, 

A federal judge in the Northern District of California denied motions brought by Meta, Google, and TikTok that sought to temporarily block California from enforcing SB 976, a law passed in 2024 that “requires children to obtain parental consent” before accessing algorithmic feeds on platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, 

 brought by the Department of Justice. The company was accused of gathering and retaining data from users under the age of 13 without their parents’ permission, in violation of federal privacy law. Under the settlement, TikTok will pay a total of $400 million. DOJ pointed to “significant changes” to TikTok’s management practices and ownership since the lawsuit was filed, 

The following bills made progress in the Senate and House in August:

Children’s Artificial Intelligence Toy Safety Act of 2026

. Introduced by Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska.), John R. Curtis (R-Utah), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the bill was ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably on August 5.

. Introduced by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and 76 cosponsors, the bill was ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably on August 5.

. Introduced by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), John R. Curtis (R-Utah), and Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the bill was ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably on August 5.

. Introduced by Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), the bill was ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably on August 5.

The following bills were introduced in the Senate in August:

Parental Approval for Youth Social Media Act of 2026 

. Introduced by Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), the bill would “require social media platform providers to obtain parental consent with respect to children creating or maintaining accounts or profiles on their platforms.”

. Introduced by Sens. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), David McCormick (R-Pa.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the bill would “prevent foreign adversaries from threatening the national security of the United States by extracting key technical features of closed-source, United States-owned artificial intelligence models.”

Artificial Intelligence and Innovation Talent Act 

. Introduced by Sens. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), the bill would “require a strategy to align immigration-related policies with the national interest in ensuring United States leadership and dominance in artificial intelligence and in strengthening the broader ecosystem of scientific, technological, and entrepreneurial innovation, while protecting national security.”

. Introduced by Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) and John Kennedy (R-La.), the bill would “amend the Financial Stability Act of 2010 to provide the Financial Stability Oversight Council with duties regarding artificial intelligence in the financial sector.”

. Introduced by Sens. Jon Husted (R-Ohio) and Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the bill would “require a report on the artificial intelligence power of the People's Republic of China.”

“A bill to provide for the delivery of artificial intelligence functional bills of materials…” 

. Introduced by Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), the bill would “provide for the delivery of artificial intelligence functional bills of materials.”

The following bills were introduced in the House in August:

. Introduced by Reps. George Whitesides (D-Calif.), April McClain Delaney (D-Md.), and Andrea Salinas (D-Ore.), the bill would “direct the Director of the National Science Foundation to complete workshops related to the integration of artificial intelligence into classrooms.”

. Introduced by Reps. Greg Casar (D-Texas), Valerie P. Foushee (D-N.C.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), and Ro Khanna (D-Calif), the bill would “impose a tax on artificial intelligence token usage and establish a Work Protection Administration within the Department of Labor.”

“To direct the Secretary of Commerce to support the adoption and use of American open artificial intelligence models…” 

. Introduced by Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.), the bill would “direct the Secretary of Commerce to support the adoption and use of American open artificial intelligence models.”

“To require the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study…” 

. Introduced by Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) and Darren Soto (D-Fla.), the bill would “require the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study on the marketplace for advanced memory technology.”

“To amend the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to authorize…” 

. Introduced by Reps. George Whitesides (D-Calif.) and Pat Harrigan (R-N.C.), the bill would “amend the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to authorize certain assessments by the Director of the Institute and impose requirements on certain memorandums of understanding relating to artificial intelligence.”

We welcome feedback on how this roundup could be most helpful in your work – please contact 

 that would create a broad legal basis for using artificial intelligence in visa, residence, and asylum procedures. 

 (KIMVG, or AI Migration Administration Act), would allow authorities to process personal data to develop, train and test AI systems, introduce AI-assisted procedural monitoring, and do an automated cross-checking of applicants' statements against publicly available internet sources.

The German government says the law is needed to address limited administrative resources and to improve the efficiency, quality, and security of migration procedures. 

, however, have identified legal gaps, what they describe as overly broad powers granted to authorities, and a long list of unanswered questions about how the systems would work in practice. In this article, we unpack those questions and highlight the need for a more inclusive deliberation of AI in migration and asylum administration.

The German cabinet adopted the draft KIMVG on July 29. The proposed bill would amend the country's 

 to allow AI use in three main ways. First, it introduces “automated procedural monitoring,” in which completed cases would be analyzed using AI to identify structural decision-making patterns and opportunities for standardization and faster processing. 

Latest

Podcast

Recent

Our content delivered to your inbox

Thank you!

Around the globe