• Login
    • Advanced search
    • Title
    • Channel
    • Module
  • Home
  • Industry
    •  

      • Aerospace, Defense, and Government Services
      • Automotive and Mobility
      • Consumer
      • Manufacturing and Industrials
      • Education
      • Energy and Natural Resources
      • Financial Institutions
    •  

      • Insurance
      • Life Sciences and Health Care
      • Private Capital
      • Real Estate
      • Sports, Media and Entertainment
      • Technology and Telecoms
      • Transportation and Logistics
  • Practice
    • Corporate & Finance

      • Banking and Loan Finance
      • Business Restructuring and Insolvency
      • Capital Markets
      • Corporate Governance and Public Company Representation
      • Digital Assets and Blockchain
      • Infrastructure, Energy, Resources, and Projects
      • Leveraged and Acquisition Finance
      • Mergers and Acquisitions
      • Pensions
      • Private Equity, Venture Capital and Investment Funds
      • Real Estate
      • Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)
      • Tax
      • Transfer Pricing
    • Global Regulatory

      • Administrative and Public Law
      • Antitrust and Competition
      • Communications, Internet, and Media
      • Education
      • Energy Regulatory
      • Environment and Natural Resources
      • Financial Services
      • Food Law
      • Gaming Law
      • Government Contracts and Public Procurement
      • Government Relations and Public Affairs
      • Health
      • Immigration
      • International Trade and Investment
      • Medical Device and Technology Regulatory
      • New Nuclear
      • Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology Regulatory
      • Privacy and Cybersecurity
      • Space and Satellite
      • Strategic Operations, Agreements and Regulation
      • Transportation Regulatory
    • Intellectual Property

      • Copyright
      • Designs
      • Domain Names
      • IP and Technology Transactions
      • IP Enforcement
      • Patents
      • Trade Secrets and Confidential Know-how
      • Trademarks and Brands
      • Unfair Competition
    • Litigation, Arbitration, and Employment

      • Business and Human Rights
      • Construction and Engineering
      • Corporate and Securities Litigation
      • Employment
      • International Arbitration
      • Investigations, White Collar, and Fraud
      • Products Law
      • Risks, Disputes, and Litigation
  • Comparative guides
  • Engage Premium
  • Login
  • Register
Hogan Lovells Engage 5.7.22
      • Title
      • Channel
      • Module
    • Hit ENTER to search in content
    • Advanced search
    • Login
  • Home
  • Industry
    •  

      • Aerospace, Defense, and Government Services
      • Automotive and Mobility
      • Consumer
      • Manufacturing and Industrials
      • Education
      • Energy and Natural Resources
      • Financial Institutions
    •  

      • Insurance
      • Life Sciences and Health Care
      • Private Capital
      • Real Estate
      • Sports, Media and Entertainment
      • Technology and Telecoms
      • Transportation and Logistics
  • Practice
    • Corporate & Finance

      • Banking and Loan Finance
      • Business Restructuring and Insolvency
      • Capital Markets
      • Corporate Governance and Public Company Representation
      • Digital Assets and Blockchain
      • Infrastructure, Energy, Resources, and Projects
      • Leveraged and Acquisition Finance
      • Mergers and Acquisitions
      • Pensions
      • Private Equity, Venture Capital and Investment Funds
      • Real Estate
      • Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)
      • Tax
      • Transfer Pricing
    • Global Regulatory

      • Administrative and Public Law
      • Antitrust and Competition
      • Communications, Internet, and Media
      • Education
      • Energy Regulatory
      • Environment and Natural Resources
      • Financial Services
      • Food Law
      • Gaming Law
      • Government Contracts and Public Procurement
      • Government Relations and Public Affairs
      • Health
      • Immigration
      • International Trade and Investment
      • Medical Device and Technology Regulatory
      • New Nuclear
      • Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology Regulatory
      • Privacy and Cybersecurity
      • Space and Satellite
      • Strategic Operations, Agreements and Regulation
      • Transportation Regulatory
    • Intellectual Property

      • Copyright
      • Designs
      • Domain Names
      • IP and Technology Transactions
      • IP Enforcement
      • Patents
      • Trade Secrets and Confidential Know-how
      • Trademarks and Brands
      • Unfair Competition
    • Litigation, Arbitration, and Employment

      • Business and Human Rights
      • Construction and Engineering
      • Corporate and Securities Litigation
      • Employment
      • International Arbitration
      • Investigations, White Collar, and Fraud
      • Products Law
      • Risks, Disputes, and Litigation
  • Comparative guides
  • Engage Premium
  • Login
  • Register
  1. News
  2. UK government announces its competing vision for AI regulation in Europe

UK government announces its competing vision for AI regulation in Europe

29 March 2023
    • Share by email
    • Share on
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    • Get link
    • Get QR Code
    • Download
    • Print

On 29 March 2023, the UK government published its long-awaited white paper on its intended approach to regulating AI. The proposal seeks to strike a balance between the primary policy objective of creating a ‘pro-innovation’ environment for business and developing trustworthy AI that addresses the most significant risks to individuals and society.

Index
  1. Contrasting with the EU AI Act
  2. What’s next?

Since the UK first published its policy outline on this topic in July last year, interest in the potential of AI technologies, particularly generative AI, has grown considerably. Nonetheless, the approach being put forward now is consistent with the original government position and remains broadly the same.

The regulatory framework is intended to be underpinned by five core principles, which are meant to govern the responsible development and use of AI. These include:

  1. Safety, security and robustness – AI systems should function in a robust, secure and safe way throughout the AI lifecycle, with risks being continually identified, assessed and managed.

  2. Appropriate transparency and explainability – AI systems should be appropriately transparent and explainable to allow for outputs from such applications to be interpretable and understandable.

  3. Fairness – AI systems should not undermine the legal rights of individuals or organisations, result in discrimination or create unfair market outcomes.

  4. Accountability and governance – Governance measures should be in place to ensure effective oversight of the supply and use of AI systems, with clear lines of accountability established across the AI lifecycle.

  5. Contestability and redress – Where appropriate, users and other impacted third parties should be able to contest an AI decision or outcome that is harmful or creates material risk of harm.

It is currently envisaged that these principles will initially be placed on a non-statutory footing, meaning that the UK government does not intend to introduce new legislation at the current time. Instead, existing sector and domain-specific regulators such as the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) will be required to adopt their own guidelines on how the principles should be implemented by relevant organisations in practice. Notably, the white paper confirms that there is no immediate intention to create a new AI regulator.

The principles and sector-specific guidance will also be supplemented with voluntary ‘AI assurance’ standards and toolkits, which are intended to assist with the responsible adoption of AI.

Contrasting with the EU AI Act

The UK’s approach to AI regulation can be clearly contrasted with the European Union’s proposed AI Act. While the UK looks to adopt a flexible and ‘proportionate’ approach to AI regulation, the EU has instead sought to implement a more prescriptive product-safety style law, which imposes a detailed set of technical and organisational requirements on developers and users of ‘high-risk’ AI systems.

Equally, the EU AI Act seeks to introduce a consistent set of governance standards that are intended to apply across industry sectors in a broadly static manner. Conversely, the UK is looking to rely on regulators in particular sectors and domains to develop their own approaches to compliance, with reference to a set of high-level centralised objectives, which are expected to be modified and updated an iterative basis as technology develops and risks evolve.

For many organisations that develop and use AI across multiple jurisdictions, the challenge will be in developing a consistent and sustainable global approach to AI governance and compliance which satisfies these diverging regulatory standards. At a practical level, the UK approach is likely to be regarded as a baseline level of regulatory obligations, which may be sufficiently broad to have global relevance, while the EU approach is likely to be seen as requiring significantly higher standards of compliance.

What’s next?

The UK government has indicated that it intends to move quickly in the adoption of the framework across relevant sectors and domains. Over the coming months, regulators will be provided with guidance on how they should be implementing the principles, and this will be undertaken in parallel to a public consultation which is due to run until 21 June 2023.

It is therefore possible that different regulators will start publishing guidelines in the next 6-12 months. In fact, some authorities, such as the UK ICO have already started to introduce extensive guidance in this area, with their most recent publication from earlier this month focusing on how the GDPR principle of fairness applies in the context of AI models.

For organisations, this rapid adoption of new standards means that it is necessary to be taking immediate steps to assess the potential impact of the regulatory framework on their business. It will be particularly important to consider the extent to which AI technologies are currently being developed and used in-house and whether the proposed principles are being suitably addressed through existing governance measures.

 

Authored by Dan Whitehead and Eduardo Ustaran.

Contacts
Eduardo Ustaran
Partner
London
Nicola Fulford
Partner
London
Dan Whitehead
Counsel
London
Index
  1. Contrasting with the EU AI Act
  2. What’s next?
Additional Resources
  • Department for Science Innovation & Technology white paper - A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation
  • Information Commissioner's Office - Guidance on AI and data protection
Keywords artifical intelligence, AI, UK government, GDPR, UK GDPR, UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), innovation, responsible AI, trustworthy AI, generative AI, governance, AI technology, European Union
Languages English
Topics Privacy, Cybersecurity, Artificial Intelligence
Countries United Kingdom
Delete Comment ?

Are you sure want to delete comment ?

Get link
Embed
Share by email
Get QR Code

Scan this QR Code to share this content

  • Contact us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Legal Notices
  • Terms of Use

 

This website is operated by Hogan Lovells International LLP, whose registered office is at Atlantic House, Holborn Viaduct, London, EC1A 2FG. For further details of Hogan Lovells International LLP and the international legal practice that comprises Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP and their affiliated businesses ("Hogan Lovells"), please see our Legal Notices page. © 2022 Hogan Lovells.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Thomson Reuters HighQ Logo
© 2023 Hogan Lovells | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service