header-logo header-logo

Double trouble or twice as nice?

21 March 2025 / Bamdad Shams
Issue: 8109 / Categories: Features , Profession , Artificial intelligence
printer mail-detail
211928
How can businesses reconcile the differing approaches to AI regulation on either side of the Channel? Bamdad Shams sets out some practical strategies for legal advisers
  • Artificial intelligence (AI) regulation is increasingly in the spotlight in the legal world as the EU and UK diverge.

The transformative power of artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping industries and human-societal interactions, but its rapid adoption also brings significant governance, accountability, and compliance challenges.

The EU and the UK have each taken a distinct approach to regulating AI systems, with the EU’s AI Act employing a structured, risk-based model, and the UK relying on a more flexible and principles-driven framework. These regulatory differences present practical challenges for businesses and their advisers, underscoring the crucial role of legal practitioners in navigating these complex landscapes.

The EU: a comprehensive framework

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (the AI Act), a pioneering regulatory effort globally, categorises AI systems into four risk levels—minimal, limited, high, and unacceptable—each with specific compliance obligations. Legal practitioners handling cross-border matters must understand this Act, which sets the tone for AI regulation

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll