The Czech Presidency of the EU Council circulated a new compromise on the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act on Wednesday (19 October), set to be the basis for an agreement next month.
The AI Act is landmark legislation which seeks to regulate the sector based on its potential risks. The Czech Presidency prioritised the file, aiming for a general approach at a ministerial meeting on 6 December.
The new compromise, the fourth in total, will be discussed at the EU Council’s Telecom Working Party next Tuesday (25 October). If no significant issue arises, the EU ambassadors might green-light the text by mid-November.
The AI Act is landmark legislation which seeks to regulate the sector based on its potential risks. The Czech Presidency prioritised the file, aiming for a general approach at a ministerial meeting on 6 December.
The new compromise, the fourth in total, will be discussed at the EU Council’s Telecom Working Party next Tuesday (25 October). If no significant issue arises, the EU ambassadors might green-light the text by mid-November.
In terms of scope, the new text clarifies that exemption for EU military, defense and national security also applies to any use of AI systems, not only to the placement on the market.
Another exemption has been added for people using AI for non-professional purposes, which would fall outside the scope of the AI regulation except for the transparency obligations.
Regarding the controversial issue of biometric identification systems, software able to recognise people by their faces or other traits, the notion of remote was reintroduced. Last year, the Slovenian Presidency removed this adjective as it was deemed confusing.
However, since then, EU member states grew wary that fingerprints would also fall under the scope. Therefore, the definition of remote now includes two conditions: that the system is used from a distance, and the identification occurs without the person’s active involvement.
In a significant development in the ongoing antitrust battle against Apple, a federal judge in New Jersey has designated six law firms to represent millions of consumers alleging that the tech giant has monopolized the smartphone market. The appointments were made by U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals, who named Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Girard Sharp, Seeger Weiss, Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello, Susman Godfrey, and Hausfeld as lead counsel, according to Reuters.
The decision resolves a competition among the firms for leadership in the case, which represents iPhone purchasers directly affected by Apple’s alleged monopolistic practices. The appointed firms stand to earn substantial legal fees should they secure a favorable settlement or judgment against the company.
Per Reuters, the claims brought forward by consumers align with a March lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department. Both suits contend that Apple has implemented measures to restrict consumer choice in the mobile device market and for associated services such as digital wallets and messaging platforms. Apple has denied the allegations and did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Read more: Japan Adopts Ordinance to Regulate Tech Giants Apple and Google
Legal Teams with Proven Track Records
The law firms selected to lead the case have achieved significant victories in high-profile antitrust and consumer protection lawsuits. For instance, Hagens Berman has played a key role in securing a tentative $2.8 billion settlement in lawsuits against the National Collegiate Athletic Association, while Hausfeld was instrumental in obtaining a $2.7 billion settlement in antitrust litigation against Blue Cross Blue Shield. Susman Godfrey, another appointed firm, was co-lead counsel in Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox News, which settled for $787 million.
Meanwhile, Apple’s defense team features legal heavyweights from Kirkland & Ellis and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
Broader Legal Landscape
Judge Neals previously appointed a separate group of law firms in October to represent consumers who purchased iPhones through mobile carriers. That legal team includes Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky, Berger Montague, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, and Spector Roseman & Kodroff. Additionally, three other firms—Korein Tillery, MoloLamken, and Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick—will lead a proposed class action representing buyers of Apple Watches, Reuters reported.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Judge Appoints Law Firms to Lead Consumer Antitrust Litigation Against Apple
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Health Systems Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Filed by Particle Health
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Qualcomm Secures Partial Victory in Licensing Dispute with Arm, Jury Splits on Key Issues
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Google Proposes Revised Revenue-Sharing Limits Amid Antitrust Battle
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Authority Expected to Sanction Google Over Monopoly Practices
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand