Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis

While the regulatory landscape around artificial intelligence (AI) continues to evolve, navigating contractual arrangements and apportioning risk for the use of AI may seem like stepping into the unknown. In this blog post, we consider how a few familiar concepts within commercial contracts may be applied to the provision and use of AI tools as part of services.

The first half of 2023 was one of the most active six months for legislative and regulatory developments around artificial intelligence (AI). Our colleagues recently noted the European Parliament’s adoption of a draft AI Act as well as the significant activity in the United States related to regulating AI, both at the federal and state level. AI is also increasingly giving rise to data privacy concerns.

The EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DPF) became effective on July 10, and on the same day, the European Commission adopted an Adequacy Decision relating to the DPF, as a successor of the EU-US Privacy Shield. While only those companies subject to the jurisdiction of either the Federal Trade Commission or the US Department of Transportation are eligible to self-certify their compliance with the DPF, the scope of eligibility is likely to broaden in the future.

We recently wrote about the emerging trend of content moderation outsourcing. In this blog post, we turn our attention to another growing trend: legal process outsourcing.

Open-source software (OSS) representations and warranties are an integral part of the intellectual property (IP) representations and warranties in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) transactions and financings, as M&A transaction documents regularly include requests for a seller to represent and warrant that it has policies in place regarding the use of OSS, has provided such policies to the acquirer or investor, and has not deviated from such policies. These representations and warranties are important, but they are routinely and necessarily backstopped by the due diligence process.

As part of our Spotlight series, we invited litigation partners Dana E. Becker (Philadelphia), Shon Lo (Chicago), and Krista Vink Venegas, Ph.D. (Chicago), to talk about recent trends and issues in IP-related and other commercial litigation that would be of particular interest to our readers. Dana, Shon, and Krista are deeply knowledgeable practitioners in the IP and commercial contracts space who handle a broad spectrum of leading-edge and high-profile litigation for our clients.

A recently released Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) Market report indicates significant continued growth in the BPO sector over the next decade. The results of the study on which the report is based show an expected growth from the 2022 market of $245.9 billion to $544.8 billion in 2032, an 8.5% compound annual growth rate (CAGR).

The UK communications regulator and concurrent competition authority, Ofcom, announced on April 5 its proposal to refer the UK cloud services market to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) for further investigation. This coincided with publication of the interim report of Ofcom’s market study of the largest providers of cloud services (referred to by the authority as “hyperscalers”) in the United Kingdom’s £15 billion ($18.7 billion) cloud services market.

As noted in our recent blog posts, The Rise of Next-Gen Business Process Outsourcing and Key Contracting Issues to Consider, the core premise of next-gen business process outsourcing (BPO) includes (1) the leveraging of automation, bots, performance tools, and other technology to transform and optimize workflows and business processes and (2) the implementation of solutions to collect and analyze data to improve user experiences and business outcomes. Next-gen BPO drives the development and implementation of transformative technology and the generation of critical business data. As such, the identification of key intellectual property (IP) and the allocation of IP use and ownership rights invariably becomes a gating issue in contract structuring and negotiations.

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently proposed expanding its Negative Option Rule to all subscription agreements. Businesses offering subscription services would be required to make it at least as easy for consumers to cancel a subscription service as it is to sign up for it. For example, if a consumer can sign up for a service online, then the consumer must also be able to cancel it online in the same number of steps (and not be required to cancel in person).