It has become increasingly challenging for firms to comply with a plethora of novel digital regulations. This is especially true for smaller businesses that often lack both the resources and know-how to draft complex legal documents. Instead of seeking costly legal advice from attorneys, firms may turn to cheaper alternative legal service providers such as automated contract generators. While these services have a long-standing presence, there is little empirical evidence on their prevalence and output quality. We address this gap in the context of a 2023 Swiss privacy law revision. To enable a systematic evaluation, we create and annotate a multilingual benchmark dataset that captures key compliance obligations under Swiss and EU privacy law. Using this dataset, we validate a novel GPT-5-based method for large-scale compliance assessment of privacy policies, allowing us to measure the impact of the revision. We observe compliance increases indicating an effect of the revision. Generators, explicitly referenced by 18% of local websites, are associated with substantially higher levels of compliance, with increases of up to 15 percentage points compared to privacy policies without generator use. These findings contribute to three debates: the potential of LLMs for cross-lingual legal analysis, the Brussels Effect of EU regulations, and, crucially, the role of automated tools in improving compliance and contractual quality.

The paper examines how EU rules in AI, 5G, and cybersecurity operate as transnational governance and shape policy in Guatemala. It outlines the AI Act's risk approach, the 5G Action Plan and Security Toolbox, and the cybersecurity regime built on ENISA, NIS2, the Cybersecurity Act, and the Cyber Resilience Act. It traces extraterritorial channels such as the Brussels effect, private standards, supply chain clauses, and data transfer controls. Guatemala specific impacts include SME compliance costs, procurement limits, environmental trade-offs in rollout, rights risks, and capacity gaps. The paper maps current national measures and proposes five guardrails: digital constitutionalism, green IT duties, third country impact assessment, standards co-design, and recognition of regulatory diversity.

Technological innovations have shown remarkable capabilities to benefit and harm society alike. AI constitutes a democratized sophisticated technology accessible to large parts of society, including malicious actors. This work proposes a taxonomy focusing on on (geo)political risks associated with AI. It identifies 12 risks in total divided into four categories: (1) Geopolitical Pressures, (2) Malicious Usage, (3) Environmental, Social, and Ethical Risks, and (4) Privacy and Trust Violations. Incorporating a regulatory side, this paper conducts a policy assessment of the EU AI Act. Adopted in March 2023, the landmark regulation has the potential to have a positive top-down impact concerning AI risk reduction but needs regulatory adjustments to mitigate risks more comprehensively. Regulatory exceptions for open-source models, excessively high parameters for the classification of GPAI models as a systemic risk, and the exclusion of systems designed exclusively for military purposes from the regulation's obligations leave room for future action.

Deepfakes, facial recognition and existential threat: politicians, watchdogs and the public must confront daunting issues when it comes to regulating artificial intelligence. Tech regulation has a history of lagging the industry, with the the UK's online safety bill and the EU's Digital Services Act only just arriving almost two decades after the launch of Facebook. AI is streaking ahead as well. ChatGPT already has more than 100 million users, the pope is in a puffer jacket and an array of experts have warned that the AI race is getting out of control. But at least the European Union, as is often the case with tech, is making a start with the AI Act.

Dr. Axel Spies is a German attorney (Rechtsanwalt) in Washington, DC, and co-publisher of the German journals Multi-Media-Recht (MMR) and Zeitschrift für Datenschutz (ZD). The impact of the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) proposed by the European Commission, and currently debated at the European Parliament (EP), has been underestimated in the United States. With approximately 3,000 amendments that must be reconciled, the AIA represents the first attempt to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) by a uniform law from cradle to grave. The AIA focuses on the providers of AI services that put them on the market or use them for their own purposes. Germany is actively contributing to the debate: AI is mentioned in the federal government's Coalition Treaty as a "digital key technology" and a European AIA is generally supported.

Artificial intelligence laws and regulations are still a new concept for most countries, and the current state of rules is neither universal nor inclusive. It's crystal clear that AI's constructive and negative roles in every sector require a call for agreed-upon rules. Artificial intelligence (AI), the creation of computer systems that can learn and make decisions without the need for human intelligence, has the potential to revolutionize and foster innovation in business and government. More goods and services are entering the market as AI research and technology continue to advance. For instance, businesses are creating AI to help people manage their houses and let the elderly live in their homes for longer. AI is applied in many aspects of modern life, including self-driving cars, digital assistants, and healthcare technology. However, initiatives to look into and create standards have been motivated by worries about potential abuse or unforeseen repercussions of AI. Already, AI is enhancing healthcare, connecting people in new ways, and drastically increasing productivity. But when applied incorrectly or irresponsibly, AI might result in employment losses, prejudiced or racist outcomes, etc.

MOST LAWS are local--except in the digital realm. When the European Union comes up with some new tech regulation, it can quickly spread around the world. Global companies adopt its typically strict rules for all their products and markets in order to avoid having to comply with multiple regimes. Other governments take more than one page from the EU's rule book to help local firms compete. The textbook example for what has been dubbed the "Brussels effect", is the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which went into force in 2018 and swiftly became the global standard. Your browser does not support the audio element.