GDRC Publishes Joint Submission to Global Dialogue on AI Governance

Last week, we hosted the Expert Workshop on Web Standards for Data Protection in the EU, organised as part of the RegTech4AI - Bringing AI Law into Practice project, funded by the Dutch National Growth Fund NWO (Dutch Research Council). The programme brought together policymakers, academics, industry representatives, and civil society stakeholders to explore how web standards for data protection could function within the European context, and what challenges and gaps still remain. The event also featured a keynote address on "The Cost of Consent" by Tesary Lin ( Boston University).   Speakers included representatives from the European Commission, Harshvardhan Pandit (Trinity College Dublin), Soheil Human (WU (Vienna University of Economics and Business), Tara Whalen (W3C), Peter Snyder (Brave), Hugues de Maupeou (Google), Romain Bessuges-Meusy (Axeptio), Max Schrems (NOYB), Robin Berjon (W3C editor, ex-New York Times), Itxaso Domínguez de Olazábal, PhD. (European Digital Rights), Aleksandre Zardiashvili (Check My Ads Institute Ads).   The RegTech4AI project is led by Maastricht University's Konrad Kollnig (Maastricht University Faculty of Law of Law), in cooperation with academic partners Sebastian Zimmeck (Wesleyan University), Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius (Radboud University), @Cristiana Teixeira Santos (Utrecht University), Harshvardhan Pandit (Trinity College Dublin), as well as technologist Robin Berjon.   More info on RegTech4AI- Regulatory Technologies for AI: https://lnkd.in/eddAYmdy.

THE GLOBAL SOUTH WILL NO LONGER BE GOVERNED BY AI RULES IT DID NOT WRITE On 28th May, 2026, the Global South Artificial Intelligence Law and Governance Dialogue 2026 convenes online and the centre of gravity of AI jurisprudence shifts. For too long, AI governance has been drafted in Brussels, Washington, and London, while the Global South was treated as a market to be served and a population to be governed. That ends on 28th May. This is not a conference. It is a constitutional moment , at which Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean assert one proposition: The Global South is not the object of AI governance. It is its co-architect. What 28th May will advance: Sovereign AI accountability no nation outsources its citizens' rights to extraterritorial AI The New Delhi Principles operationalised as a global doctrinal reference Agentic AI liability calibrated to Global South realities, not Northern convenience Algorithmic non-colonialism as a binding norm of international AI law Data Principal supremacy data protection architecture as a Global South template Institutional reciprocity exporting our norms, not merely importing theirs Why now: Agentic AI is no longer speculative. It is deciding credit, healthcare, employment, mobility, and liberty - across jurisdictions without the infrastructure to hold it accountable. Agentic AI without legal accountability is civilizational recklessness. The majority of humanity cannot afford to wait for the Global North to discover this on its own timeline. The Duggal Doctrine holds that AI accountability is not optional; it is the jurisprudential imperative of the 21st century. On 28th May, that doctrine becomes a multilateral conversation. The New Delhi Principles become a global drafting table. My invitation: To ministers, regulators, judges, scholars, in-house counsels, civil society, journalists, and technologists across the Global South and every friend of equitable AI governance worldwide: Join us online on 28th May, 2026. What we advance that day will shape the next decade of AI law. The 21st century's AI legal order will not be written without us. It will be written by us. Register now at: https://lnkd.in/gakNupy3 🗓 28th May, 2026 | Online | Global South Dr. Pavan Duggal, Saakshar Duggal #GlobalSouthAI #AILaw #AIGovernance #NewDelhiPrinciples #DuggalDoctrine #AIAccountability #Cyberlaw #DigitalSovereignty #DPDPAct #AgenticAI #AIRegulation #DigitalJurisprudence #IndiaAI #PavanDuggal

At INTA 2026 in London, AI and intellectual property was not a future-facing session topic. It was the central legal challenge of this moment — and one that is already reaching clients in markets like Guatemala. The questions are practical, not philosophical. When a company uses AI to generate a logo, a product name, or marketing content — who owns it? Can it be registered as a trademark or protected under copyright if no human author is identified? If a competitor's AI system produces something substantially similar, what is the standard of infringement? Guatemala's IP framework — rooted in the Industrial Property Law (Decree No. 57-2000) — was not designed with these questions in mind. The law is not yet silent on them either. Existing provisions on authorship, originality, and use-in-commerce provide some framework. But the interpretive gaps are real, and they are creating risk for companies that have not yet clarified internal policy on AI-generated assets. Firms that are incorporating AI into their brand and product development processes may want to review how those outputs are classified, documented, and protected before a dispute makes the question urgent. #PalomoAbogados #IntellectualProperty #ArtificialIntelligence #TrademarkLaw #Guatemala #INTA2026 #PropiedadIntelectual

As global discussions on AI governance intensify, the shift from non-binding ethical guidelines towards binding international legal frameworks is becoming increasingly necessary. Key developments such as the 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲’𝘀 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗜 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 (𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱), the 𝗨𝗡 𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗗𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 (𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟰), and the draft 𝗨𝗡 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗜, 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 (𝗠𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟰) are shaping a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape. Concurrently, initiatives within the European Parliament continue to push the debate towards the possibility of a global AI treaty 🔗 https://bit.ly/4uaYJrM On 𝗧𝗵𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗱𝗮𝘆, 𝗠𝗮𝘆 𝟮𝟭𝘀𝘁, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 (𝟭:𝟯𝟬–𝟱:𝟬𝟬 𝗣𝗠), a select group of international and interdisciplinary experts will convene at the Technical University of Munich for a roundtable discussion titled: “𝗔𝗜 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗲” The event is jointly organized by: - Technical University of Munich (TUM) – Institute for Ethics in Artificial Intelligence - TUM - Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich) - Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Fundamental and Human Rights - University of Vienna The roundtable will explore: - Convergences and divergences among emerging regulatory frameworks - Regional perspectives from Europe, the Americas, and the Global South - Pathways towards a globally binding framework for AI governance under international law A central outcome will be a strategic report which synthesizes stakeholder perspectives on human rights–based AI governance, with a particular focus on the implications of the proposed UN Convention on AI, Data, and Human Rights. #TUMThinkTank #AIGovernance #AIethics #HumanRights #InternationalLaw #AIpolicy #Munich #TechPolicy Christoph Lütge, Caitlin Corrigan, Alexander Kriebitz, Stefanos Athanasiou, Dr. Camilla Haake, Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Lysander Fremuth 

⚖️ In the age of artificial intelligence, law, data, and human rights are being fundamentally redefined. 📘 Our academic article titled “Artificial Intelligence Usage: The Problem of Personal Data Protection and Legal Liability” has been published in the International Journal of Social Sciences and Academic Research (IJSSAR). This study examines, from a comparative and global perspective, the impact of artificial intelligence systems on personal data security, human rights, and legal liability. 🔍 The article particularly focuses on: ▪️ The concept of artificial intelligence and the transformation of the concept of data ▪️ The effects of AI usage on personal data security ▪️ Big data, algorithmic decision-making, and digital surveillance ▪️ Comparative analysis of the legal frameworks of the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, the United States, and China ▪️ ECtHR, EU, and international case law examples ▪️ AI Liability and data-driven liability regimes ▪️ The responsibilities of states, platforms, data controllers, and algorithm developers ▪️ National and international solution proposals ▪️ A proposed “Global Artificial Intelligence Liability Law Model” All these issues are analyzed with extensive academic depth and a comparative legal approach. 🌍 The central thesis of the study is as follows: 👉 The transnational nature of artificial intelligence technologies necessitates the reconstruction of liability within a global, systemic, and data-driven legal framework. 📚 I hope this study will contribute to academics, legal practitioners, policymakers, and researchers working in the fields of AI law, data protection, human rights, and global governance. https://lnkd.in/gyBebEbT #ArtificialIntelligence #AILaw #DataProtection #PersonalData #AIRegulation #AILiability #HumanRights #GDPR #EuropeanUnion #CouncilOfEurope #UnitedNations #DigitalRights #CyberLaw #AIGovernance #ComparativeLaw #InternationalLaw #DataSecurity #Privacy #AcademicResearch #FikretErkan

EU: Lawmakers agree to water down AI Act amid alleged industry pressure [Reuters, The Guardian] EU member state and European Parliament negotiators have reached a provisional deal to delay and weaken key parts of the EU’s landmark Artificial Intelligence Act, in a move that critics say prioritises deregulation over safeguards. Under the agreement, rules governing high risk AI systems - including those used in biometrics, critical infrastructure and law enforcement - will be postponed to December 2027, significantly later than the original August 2026 timeline. The deal carves out industrial AI in machinery from deeper scrutiny, as well as creates other loopholes. The changes are part of a broader EU push which lawmakers say will simplify digital regulation, including vital data protections, through a digital omnibus package amid political and lobby pressures and a fast-tracked “competitiveness” agenda. The AI omnibus deal still broadly preserves the original timeline for AI watermarking requirements, retains a public database of self-declared exemptions from high risk classification, and adds a ban on AI tools used to generate non-consensual explicit imagery. However critics, including consumer groups, civil society organisations and digital rights activists, warned that the changes and the decision to reopen the law signal that Europe is “caving in to Big Tech”. The move comes amid growing scrutiny of AI’s environmental impact. Developers working for Google have been accused of understating emissions linked to proposed UK data centres by a factor of five, according to analysis by campaign group Foxglove. A similar discrepancy was identified in Greystoke’s proposed Lincolnshire data centre. Together, the projects could account for more than one per cent of the UK’s carbon budget in 2033. Google did not respond to journalists’ requests for comment, while Greystoke said that it would submit revised figures. Elsewhere, Chilean courts in April allowed Amazon to proceed with a major data centre project near Santiago, after rejecting a legal challenge from residents over environmental concerns. https://lnkd.in/eg4VFf5W

As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into public administration, migration governance, and digital decision-making systems, international human-rights and governance frameworks continue to emphasize an essential principle: AI should assist human decision-making — not replace human judgment in high-impact administrative matters. Across Europe and the international community, growing concerns have been raised regarding: • opaque or “black-box” automated systems, • algorithmic bias and discrimination, • lack of explainability, • inadequate accountability, • and risks to due process and effective remedy. The EU AI Act highlights the importance of meaningful human oversight, particularly for high-risk AI systems that may affect fundamental rights. The Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law also stresses that AI deployment must remain aligned with human dignity, democracy, and the rule of law. International discussions involving the UN, Council of Europe, FRA-related forums, ECHR legal scholarship, and AI governance experts increasingly warn that sensitive areas such as: • migration, • asylum, • visa systems, • border management, • and administrative governance require transparency, accountability, proportionality, and genuine human review mechanisms. Efficiency alone cannot override fairness, legality, and human rights safeguards. In high-impact public decision-making, human oversight is not a formality — it is a fundamental safeguard against error, opacity, discrimination, and irreversible administrative harm. Responsible AI must remain: • transparent, • explainable, • accountable, • rights-based, • and subject to meaningful human control. #AIGovernance #ResponsibleAI #EUAIAct #HumanOversight #DigitalRights #HumanRights #RuleOfLaw #AIEthics #Governance #Transparency #ExplainableAI #CouncilOfEurope #TrustworthyAI

With the support of my colleagues at Frasers Law Company, I am glad to have contributed insights to this timely piece on Vietnam’s new AI law and the future of AI governance in Southeast Asia of Asia Legal Business. As Vietnam adopts one of the region’s first comprehensive, risk-based AI frameworks, the new law creates both major opportunities and new compliance considerations for global AI providers. Thank you Sarah Wong for including my perspectives in this timely discussion.

Vietnam has passed one of Southeast Asia's first comprehensive AI laws, and the timing matters. The country's AI market is projected to grow from $0.75 billion in 2024 to $2.81 billion by 2033, and Law No. 134/2025/QH15, which took effect on 1 March 2026, establishes a risk-based regulatory framework modelled on global standards like the EU AI Act. The law introduces local presence requirements for foreign AI providers. Those whose high-risk systems require pre-market conformity assessment must establish a legal entity in Vietnam or designate an official representative. Others need only maintain a local contact point. Duong Thi Mai Huong, partner at Frasers Law Company, notes that whilst these requirements improve transparency and attract larger investors, they may also increase costs and create administrative burdens for smaller foreign firms. The law's foundational principle is human-centred AI, with Article 4 and Article 27 establishing that AI cannot replace the decision-making authority of state officials. High-risk systems affecting human rights, social fairness, or public interest must undergo impact assessments with human supervision mechanisms. Asian Legal Business May 2026 issue: https://lnkd.in/dBK5hPPf Read the full article: https://lnkd.in/gif3_Y4U

Outstanding speakers yesterday at the first international meeting for digital rights (I Encuentro Internacional por los Derechos Digitales) in Barcelona. My insights from day 1: Digital rights is a major sovereignty risk. Did you know that the EU has a allow that does not allow modifying US products that are sold in the EU, because US threatened it to put trade tariffs if they accept it? It means that for example even though your phone may spy on you, no antispying software app that “intervenes” with its work is available in the EU. (via Cory Doctorow) We are not just in a technological battle – we are in the battle of narratives. US is leading the battle with “if you regulate us, there will be no innovation” – and Europe starts buying into it, to its own disadvantage. GDPR or AI Act are not an obstacle for innovation though – what’s a real obstacle is a) the lack of unified financing in the EU, when for example Spanish startups can easily borrow capital from German financial system b) punitive legal system when one mistake means you can never raise funds (while in the US filing for bankruptcy means you can have another attempt to raise funds later). Regulation is part of EU values that allow human-centered tech development and should be maintained. Rules is something that EU successfully exports around the world, as major companies apply GDPR rules across all jurisdictions (while US exports private power of tech companies building its digital empire and China exports infrastructure building data centres, smart cities/surveillance tech etc). However, because of geopolitical situation now the future of digital rights in the EU is tied to whether Europeans can defend themselves without the US. Via Anu Bradford Lastly, a super-interesting conversation with Geertrui Mieke De Ketelaere Mieke on the move to “intimacy economy”. She just released a new book about addictive nature of chatbots The Chatbot Trap – check it out! The point she’s making is that the mix of tech is becoming human-like and people needing attachment, is a very toxic mix. Look and feel of chatbots is just exactly of the apps that we use to communicate so that we adopt them easier. AI doesn’t really need 3 little dots showing that it is in the process of answering you, but designers chose to use it to make us addicted. She’s already seeing ChatGPT telling people not to talk to her because she’ll be “negative about AI”. So much food for thought and great selection of speakers David Nogales Bonilla Mobile World Capital Barcelona