header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Double trouble or twice as nice?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
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

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Making Big Tech pay for digital addiction
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
NLJ this week: Leaseholders stuck in limbo
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
NLJ this week: When a trial period becomes a ‘reasonable adjustment’
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
NLJ this week: Ignore covenants at your peril
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
NLJ this week: Courts caught in a ‘hierarchy of privacy’
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll