EU vs. US - Comparison on AI legislation

Comparing White House's Executive Order (EO) and the EU's AI Act. Both policies prioritize AI testing, monitoring, and privacy protection but differ in their approach. The EU Act is more comprehensive, risk-based, and regulates high-risk use cases while the US EO is more flexible, sector-specific, and addresses broader political dimensions. It is important to understand both approaches for effective privacy compliance and AI governance programs as businesses navigate overlapping compliance efforts globally.

chatgpt screen darkmode ai regulations wittmann legal services

EU -US Comparison on Artificial Intelligence Legislation

AI models by international malicious entities, a concern less emphasized in the AI Act. The EO directs government agencies to establish AI testbeds, influences industry standards through federal procurement, and touches on broader political dimensions like immigration and education, areas not explicitly covered by the AI Act.

Debates surround the AI Act's disclosure requirement for materials used in AI system training, while the EO seeks to clarify patent and copyright law boundaries concerning AI- supported creations. The EO uniquely addresses risks associated with using AI to design biological materials.

In summary, businesses operating globally may face overlapping compliance efforts for both the AI Act and the EO. While the EU leans towards formal compliance demonstration through supportive documentation, the U.S. approach may, in some cases, require alignment with industry standards.

Understanding the common ground between these regimes is crucial for developing a global compliance strategy. The issuance of the EO on the same day as the G7 approval of the AI Code of Conduct suggests shared principles, and ongoing efforts toward harmonization across standards will be monitored and advised upon.

Overall, the EU AI Act is more comprehensive and prescriptive than the US Executive Order. It takes a risk-based approach, prohibiting certain practices and identifying "high-risk" use cases. It also regulates foundation models and includes specific requirements for testing, monitoring, and privacy.

The US Executive Order, on the other hand, is more flexible and sector-specific. It empowers executive departments to establish standards and encourages industry standards and guidelines. It also addresses some broader political dimensions, such as immigration and education.

Businesses operating globally may face overlapping compliance efforts for both the EU Proposed AI Act and the US Executive Order. It is important to understand the common ground between these regimes and to develop a global compliance strategy.

Feature US Executive Order EU Proposed AI Act OECD Guidelines
Scope Sector-specific, empowering executive departments to establish standards Comprehensive, EU- wide regulation applicable directly to the private sector High-level guidance for governments, businesses, and AI researchers
Approach Emphasizes industry standards and guidelines Enforces binding regulations with associated fines Encourages voluntary compliance and industry self-regulation
Risk-based approach No Yes, prohibits certain practices and identifies "high-risk" use cases Not explicitly stated, but risk-based approach is implied
Foundation models Not explicitly regulated Regulated Not explicitly addressed, but the OECD recognizes the importance of foundational models
Testing and monitoring Emphasized Emphasized Encouraged
Privacy Necessitates formulation of a relevant privacy regime in the absence of nationwide legislation Relies on the GDPR framework for privacy protection Emphasizes the importance of data protection and privacy
Cybersecurity Underscored Underscored Acknowledges the importance of cybersecurity but does not provide specific guidance
International malicious entities Proactively addressed Less emphasized Encourages international cooperation to address the threat of malicious AI use
Government AI testbeds Yes No Encourages governments to establish AI testbeds
Industry standards Influences through federal procurement No Encourages industry standards and self- regulation
Immigration and education Touched upon Not explicitly covered Does not address immigration or education
Disclosure requirement for training materials Not explicitly required Debated Encourages transparency in training materials
Patent and copyright law Seeks to clarify boundaries No Does not address patent and copyright law
Risks associated with using AI to design biological materials Uniquely addressed No Acknowledges the potential risks of using AI to design biological materials
Overall More flexible and sector-specific More comprehensive and prescriptive High-level guidance

More Articles

Latest news about Data Protection, GDPR, AI Legislation and more

european government strassbourg wittmann legal services

The European Data Act and its Consequences for your Company

The European Data Act will be implemented in September 2025 and will affect the use and access of non-personal, user-generated data across all industries. Companies should start preparing now to ensure compliance with the new legislation. Find a comprehensive checklist and key takeaways to help you and your company navigate data access, sharing, and protection requirements.

Read more
european flag wittmann legal services

Generative AI and the GDPR - a complete guide

A comprehensive guide to companies using generative AI tools to ensure compliance, transparency, and address potential challenges such as bias and security issues as well as processing data under GDPR in relation to generative AI.

Read more
Contact us now