As an important development in U.S. AI regulation, California enacted its automated decisionmaking technology (ADMT) rules in September 2025. These are the first enacted, broadly scoped, consumer-facing AI governance rules in the country. They offer opt-out rights and logic disclosures for AI-driven significant decisions affecting consumers. The rules took effect on October 1, 2025, with compliance required by January 1, 2027, for covered businesses that use ADMT in significant decisions before that date. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.
AI in the Construction Industry
In a recent Commercial Construction Renovation article, Duane Morris attorneys Robert H. Bell and Michael Ferri write:
Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is rapidly making its way into the construction bidding process. Contractors now use AI-powered estimating software to perform quantity takeoffs and analyze costs with unprecedented speed. According to the drafting and engineering software giant Autodesk, estimating teams are increasingly using AI and automation, particularly for quantity takeoffs, cost forecasting, and speeding up bid creation. Yet as digital tools become routine, legal rules governing bids still rely on traditional principles. This raises a pressing question: if an AI tool makes a costly error in a bid, will the legal system treat that mistake any differently than a human error? Courts are only beginning to grapple with AI-related mishaps, but early indications suggest AI errors will be handled much like any other bidding mistake. In other words, contractors will likely be held responsible for errors made by their AI tools, just as they are responsible for the mistakes of human estimators or means and methods under their control.
Joint Commission and Coalition for Health AI Issue Guidance on Provider Use of AI
On September 17, 2025, the Joint Commission and Coalition for Health AI issued a joint guidance document entitled “Responsible Use of AI in Healthcare” to help providers implement AI while mitigating the risks of its use. The guidance provides seven elements that constitute responsible AI use in healthcare and discusses how provider organizations can implement them. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.
Ten Design Guidelines to Mitigate the Risk of AI Pricing Tool Noncompliance
Duane Morris special counsel Justin Donoho authored the Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law article, “Ten Design Guidelines to Mitigate the Risk of AI Pricing Tool Noncompliance with the Federal Trade Commission Act, Sherman Act, and Colorado AI Act.” The article is available here and is a must-read for corporate counsel involved with development or deployment of AI pricing tools.
California Court Allows Privacy Claims Against AI Voice Assistant
On August 11, 2025, Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss in Taylor v. ConverseNow Technologies, Inc. (Case No. 25-cv-00990-SI), allowing claims under California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Sections 631 and 632 to move forward against an AI voice assistant provider. ConverseNow provides artificial intelligence voice assistant technology that restaurants, including Domino’s, use to answer phone calls, process orders and capture customer information. The plaintiff alleged that when she placed a pizza order by phone, her call was intercepted and routed through ConverseNow’s servers, where her name, address and credit card details were recorded without her knowledge or consent. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.
Northern District of California Decides AI Training Is Fair Use, but Pirating Books May Still Be Infringing
Two groundbreaking decisions from the Northern District of California—Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Bartz v. Anthropic PBC—shed light on how courts are approaching the use of copyrighted materials in training large language models (LLMs). Both cases involved authors alleging copyright infringement based on the use of their books to train generative AI models, and both courts held that use of the copyrighted materials to train the AI models was transformative. The court in Anthropic held, however, that copying pirated books constitutes copyright infringement and the transformative nature of the use did not rescue such infringement. Conversely, the Meta court held that copying from pirate sites to train AI is fair use, but only because the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence of market harm, which the court believed to be the most relevant factor. As such, while use of copyrighted works to train AI may be fair use, copying works without permission carries the risk of infringement. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.
Five Human Best Practices to Mitigate the Risk of AI Hiring Tool Noncompliance with Antidiscrimination Statutes
Justin Donoho authored the article “Five Human Best Practices to Mitigate the Risk of AI Hiring Tool Noncompliance with Antidiscrimination Statutes” for the Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law. Read the full article.
May 15 Event: Get Smart with AI: AI Policy Drafting Quest – CLE, Tabletop Exercise and Networking
Duane Morris LLP will present Get Smart with AI: AI Policy Drafting Quest – CLE, Tabletop Exercise and Networking on Thursday, May 15 , 2025.
Continue reading “May 15 Event: Get Smart with AI: AI Policy Drafting Quest – CLE, Tabletop Exercise and Networking”How an AI Case Affects Animal Law
On March 18. 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that a work created with artificial intelligence (AI) using a machine cannot be registered in the name of the machine itself because the Copyright Act requires that a copyright owner be a human being. Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025).
In fact, the D.C. Circuit made a specific connection to animal law by citing the decision in Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018), in which the Ninth Circuit held that a monkey cannot be an “author” under the Copyright Act. And, like Thaler, animal rights groups have tried to base their arguments on dictionary definitions. Read more on the Animal Law Developments Blog.
Trade Secrets Law Is Awkward Fit in AI Prompt-Hacking Lawsuit
Duane Morris partner Agatha Liu is quoted in the Bloomberg Law article, “Trade Secrets Law Is Awkward Fit in AI Prompt-Hacking Lawsuit,” about a medical AI company’s novel trade secrets lawsuit that illustrates the challenges artificial intelligence presents for protecting proprietary information.
Liu said hacking AI to reveal its prompts is “not a good thing, but it’s not terribly illegal.” AI developers most likely will have to stay on top of the best practices to craft their products to save them from themselves she said.
“If you want to reduce risk, you need to up the ante and make your system more resilient and context-aware,” Liu said.