In a surprise move, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that a proposed moratorium on state and local AI laws satisfies the Byrd Rule, the requirement that reconciliation bills contain only budgetary provisions and omit “extraneous” policy language.  While MacDonough’s determination allows the Senate Commerce Committee’s version of the moratorium to

Continue Reading Senate Parliamentarian Clears Revised State AI Enforcement Moratorium for Reconciliation Bill, But Passage Remains in Doubt

On June 3, 2025, the OECD introduced a new framework called AI Capability Indicators that compares AI capabilities to human abilities. The framework is intended to help policymakers assess the progress of AI systems and enable informed policy responses to new AI advancements. The indicators are designed to help non-technical policymakers understand the degree of advancement of different AI capabilities. AI researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholder groups, including economists, psychologists, and education specialists, are invited to submit their feedback to the current beta-framework.

There are nine categories of AI capability indicators, each one presented on a five-level scale mapping AI progression toward full human equivalence, with level 5 representing the most challenging capabilities for AI systems to attain. Each category rates AI performance and assumes human equivalent capability according to the latest available evidence as follows:

  • Language – ranges from basic keyword recognition (Level 1) to contextually aware discourse generation and open-ended creative writing (Level 5). The OECD considers that the capability level of currently available AI systems is Level 3: reliable understanding and generation of semantic meaning using multi-modal language.
  • Social interaction – ranges from social cue interpretation (Level 1) to representation of sophisticated emotion intelligence and multi-party conversational fluency (Level 5). The OECD considers that the capability level of currently available AI systems is Level 2: basic social perception with the ability to slightly adapt based on experience, emotions detected through tone and context, and limited social memory.
  • Problem solving – ranges from rule-based task execution (Level 1) to new scenarios that require adaptive reasoning, long-term planning, and multi-step inference (Level 5). The OECD considers that the capability level of currently available AI systems is Level 2: integration of qualitative and quantitative reasoning to address complex problems and capable of handling multiple qualitative states and predicting how systems may evolve or change over time.
  • Creativity – measures originality and generative capacity in art ranging from template-based generation (Level 1) to creation of entirely novel concepts (Level 5). The OECD considers that the capability level of currently available AI systems is Level 3: generation of output that deviates considerably from the training data and generalization of skills to new tasks and integrate ideas across domains.
  • Metacognition and critical thinking – ranges from basic interpretation or recognition of information (Level 1) to managing complex trade-offs between goals, resources, and necessary skills (Level 5). The OECD considers that the capability level of currently available AI systems is Level 2: monitoring and adjustment of the system’s own understanding and approach according to each problem.
  • Knowledge, learning, and memory – ranges from data ingestion efficiency and retention (Level 1) to insight-generation from disparate knowledge sources (Level 5). The OECD considers that the capability level of currently available AI systems is Level 3: understanding semantics of information through distributed representations and generalization to novel situations.
  • Vision – ranges from basic object recognition (Level 1) to dynamic scene understanding and multi-object tracking under varied environmental conditions (Level 5). The OECD considers that the capability level of currently available AI systems is Level 3: adapting to variations in target object appearance and lighting, performing multiple subtasks, and coping with known variations in data and situations.
  • Manipulation – ranges from fine motor control in robotics like picking up simple items (Level 1) to dexterous manipulation of deformable objects (Level 5). The OECD considers that the capability level of currently available AI systems is Level 2: handling different object shapes and moderately pliable materials and operating in controlled environments with low to moderate clutter.
  • Robotic intelligence – integrates multiple subdomains like navigation, manipulation, and perception ranging from pre-programmed action (Level 1) to fully autonomous, self-learning robotic agents (Level 5). The OECD considers that the capability level of currently available robotic systems is Level 2: operating in partially known and semi-structured environments with some well-defined variability.

Continue Reading OECD Introduces AI Capability Indicators for Policymakers

On June 19, 2025, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) published two recommendations for AI developers.  The first recommendation covers reliance on the GDPR’s legitimate interest legal basis for developing an AI model.  It provides examples of legitimate interests that can justify the use of personal data for AI development.

Continue Reading CNIL Publishes Recommendations on Legitimate Interest as a Legal Basis for AI Training

On 4 June 2025, the European Commission published a decision recognising 13 critical raw material projects located in non-EU countries as “Strategic Projects” under the Critical Raw Materials Act (“CRMA”, Regulation (EU) 2024/1252). This first set of Strategic Projects based outside the EU adds to the 47 Strategic Projects based within the EU announced earlier this year. These Strategic Projects are recognized as significantly contributing to the security of the EU’s supply of strategic raw materials, and will benefit from preferential access to finance and other advantages. For more information on the CRMA and the framework for Strategic Projects, see our previous blog post here.Continue Reading EU Designates 13 Non-EU Critical Raw Materials Projects as Strategic

Last month, a California federal court highlighted one of the “serious problems that the class action plaintiffs’ bar desperately needs to rectify”: “the failure to properly vet named plaintiffs.”  Lineberry v. Addshoppers, Inc., 23-cv-01996-VC, 2025 WL 1533136 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2025).

The stark language came in an order

Continue Reading For Peet’s Sake!  Court Calls Out Class Action Plaintiffs’ Bar’s Failure to Properly Vet Named Plaintiffs in CIPA Suit

Since the beginning of 2025, there have been a flurry of bills introduced at the state and federal level related to genetic privacy, which follows a similar trend over the past several years.  These bills have focused on a range of issues, including general genetic privacy, national security implications of “foreign adversaries” accessing genetic information, the privacy practices of direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) genetic testing companies, and the transfer of genetic data as part of bankruptcy proceedings, among others.  We summarize a subset of such bills moving through state and federal legislatures below.

State Legislation

Montana SB 163

On May 1, the Montana governor signed SB 163 to amend the state’s Genetic Information Privacy Act (“MT GIPA”), which was originally enacted in 2023.  Effective October 1, 2025, there will be several changes to the law, including:

  • Creating Deidentification Exemption: The original version of MT GIPA did not contain an express exemption for deidentified data.  SB 163 amends the law to include an express exemption for the use of deidentified genetic data for certain research purposes.  Specifically, SB 163 includes an exemption for “deidentified genetic data obtained from a third party to the extent that the data is used to conduct internal, medical, or scientific research.”  The deidentification standard is similar to the standard adopted under many comprehensive state privacy laws and other state DTC genetic privacy laws.
  • Waiver of Certain Rights in the Clinical Trial Context: The law provides that consumers’ rights to access and delete data, destroy samples, and revoke consent must be waived in a limited context related to the collection of genetic data as part of a clinical trial if certain conditions are met, including prescriptive requirements for consent.  Specifically:
    • The relevant entity generally must obtain express and informed written consent for participation in a clinical research trial, including the collection and use of any genetic data, which must, among others, be in accordance with the good clinical practice (“GCP”) guideline issued by the international council for harmonisation of technical requirements for pharmaceuticals for home use and include the entity’s biological sample and data retention, sharing, and use policies.
    • The biological sample and genetic data must be utilized for clinical research purposes only.

SB 163 states that these requirements are meant to “supersede all exceptions to, and waivers of” informed consent pursuant to the federal Common Rule.  However, it is not clear how this new limited exemption is meant to interact with the existing exemption for entities that are engaged in collecting, using, or analyzing genetic data or biological samples in the context of scientific or clinical research with express consent of the individual and in accordance with human subject research frameworks, including GCP, the federal Common Rule, or FDA’s human subjects research regulations at 21 C.F.R. parts 50 and 56.Continue Reading Multiple States Enact Genetic Privacy Legislation in a Busy Start to 2025

EU lawmakers are reportedly considering a delay in the enforcement of certain provisions of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). While the AI Act formally entered into force on 1 August 2024, its obligations apply on a rolling basis. Requirements related to AI literacy and the prohibition

Continue Reading European Commission hints at delaying the AI Act

On 2 June 2025, the European Commission (“Commission”) fined the food delivery companies Delivery Hero and Glovo EUR 329 million for engaging into cartel conduct through agreeing not to poach each other’s employees, exchanging competitively sensitive information, and allocating geographic markets.

The decision signals increased antitrust scrutiny of labour-related arrangements between rivals  and underscores the need for companies to implement safeguards when holding non-controlling minority interests in competing businesses. For the time being, the Commission has only issued a press release and a statement; it will release a public version of its decision in the coming months.

Key takeaways

  • A first in two respects. This marks the Commission’s first cartel decision targeting labour-related practices (specifically in relation to a no-poach agreement), and the first time it has enforced concerns about holding a minority stake in a competitor.
  • Tighter enforcement in labour markets. The decision confirms the Commission’s known hard stance towards no-poach agreements between competitors, in line with the increased antitrust scrutiny of these and comparable arrangements in the EU Member States and elsewhere.
  • Minority shareholdings as a vector for collusion. The Commission’s decision underlines the collusive risk that may arise from owning a minority stake in rival companies. Minority shareholdings in a competitor may grant access to competitively sensitive information, enabling alignment of commercial strategies between the parties. As such, minority shareholders must ensure their rights are used only to protect the value of their investment and should implement safeguards to prevent access to competitively sensitive information.  

Background

Delivery Hero and Glovo are two large food delivery companies active in Europe. In July 2018, Delivery Hero acquired a non-controlling minority stake in Glovo and, during the following years, progressively increased its stake through subsequent share acquisitions until it acquired sole control of Glovo in July 2022.

The Commission’s investigation was triggered by information received from a national competition authority (likely the Spanish competition authority which reviewed Delivery Hero’s acquisition of Glovo in 2022) and an anonymous whistleblower.

The conduct

The Commission found that, from July 2018 until July 2022, Delivery Hero and Glovo engaged in the following multi-layered conduct:Continue Reading European Commission issues first no-poach decision in labour markets, warning against the collusive risks of minority shareholdings

Covington is pleased to announce that it has revised and updated its comprehensive 50-state survey of pay-to-play laws for 2025.

Companies doing business with the federal government or state and local governments and companies operating in regulated industries are subject to a dizzying array of “pay-to-play” rules. These rules effectively

Continue Reading Covington Announces Pay-to-Play Survey (2025 Edition)

On May 29, 2025, the European Union established its new €150 billion defense fund through the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) regulation.  The European Commission will soon launch a call for interest for SAFE loans and EU Member States will have up to two months to submit their

Continue Reading Launching 150 billion euro for defense and technology