Tomorrow is May 25 and therefore the entry-into-force of the GDPR.  The European Commission views the GDPR as one of its significant Digital Single Market (DSM) achievements.  The Commission estimates that the DSM could add Euros 415 billion a year to EU GDP and add hundreds of thousands of jobs (see also this document on the economic impact of the DSM).  There is no Commission calculation on what contribution the GDPR would make to this overall DSM estimate (it does say that GDPR will save business some money – see below), but the Commission argues that the GDPR will enhance trust in the digital economy and therefore promote the expansion of Europe’s digital economy. As somebody who has spent a significant portion of the last year on counselling member companies on the GDPR, the immediate compliance burden looms larger than the possible innovation opportunity.  Nonetheless, there is still scope for European regulators and policymakers to interpret an ...

A piece in DigiDay yesterday draws attention to the fact that publishers are at risk under the draft ePrivacy Regulation under consideration in Brussels. At this time, the draft Regulation is in a state of flux, and the outcome is hard to know, with a possible tightening of the current requirements on cookies. Under the current ePrivacy Directive, often referred to as the “Cookie Directive” publishers merely need to get consent, by having readers click a box that they consent to the use of cookies.  As the DigiDay article points out, the new regulation could empower browsers to play more of a gatekeeper role, which is one of several possible outcomes. SIIA has been active in highlighting the problems for European policymakers.  On July 1, 2016, we filed comments arguing that the proposal should not be extended to software and digital content publishers and over-the-top-content providers, who would continue to be regulated under the more flexible rules of th ...

My recent InfoWorld blog took aim at Elon Musk’s recent call for regulation of AI research.  While a deregulation-minded Washington is unlikely to set up a new federal AI agency to oversee AI applications and research, Musk insists that he wants exactly that. In remarks after his comments to the National Governors Association meeting, Musk clarified that “the process of seeking the insight required to put in place informed rules about the use and development of AI should start now. Musk compared it to the process of establishing other government bodies regulating use of technology in industry, including the FCC and the FAA. “I don’t think anyone wants the FAA to go away,” he said.” But this is even more worrisome.  He is proposing establishing an agency with full regulatory authority over every use of AI.  After setting up such an omnibus regulatory structure, then he wants the agency to figure out what it should do! But this ...

In 2014, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) celebrated its 100-year anniversary, marking over a century as the lead consumer watchdog based on its broad authority established by Sec. 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” The Commission has demonstrated that after a century, their Section 5 authority is flexible enough to keep pace with rapid technological evolution.  For instance, as SIIA has highlighted in a recent policy paper, the FTC settlement with TRENDnet demonstrated that the FTC’s regulatory authority is indeed applicable to the Internet of Things (IoT).  The FTC v. Wyndham demonstrated that while data security is not explicitly identified in Section 5, the FTC’s unfairness authority includes the ability to protect consumer data from data breaches. While there is little question of the critical value of the FTC as the lead regulator and enforcer of consume ...