Welcome!

Artificial Intelligence and Federal R&D

In July, we:

• Submitted a letter to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick setting out priority requests as the Department revises the AI Diffusion Rule. The letter recommends implementing a temporary program to streamline intra-company chip transfers to overseas data centers, allowing U.S. cloud and AI companies to better compete globally. Our letter received coverage in this Inside AI Policy article.   
• Moderated a keynote panel on “Investing in AI, Compute, Energy & Software: The Economy of the Future” as part of the Digital Hollywood AI Summer Summit. Watch Paul’s panel here.
• Submitted recommendations to Senators Rounds and Heinrich on the American Science Acceleration Project initiative. 
• Participated in a briefing on Capitol Hill about the relationship between AI and civic education.
• Published a blog on the current state of international AI policy, and what it means for the future of global AI governance.
• Published a blog raising concerns about the Chip Security Act, which would require chips to contain tracking mechanisms a way to mitigate chip diversions.
• Posted a new episode of SIIA’s podcast, The Business of Information. In this episode, Chris Mohr and Bethany Abbate sit down to talk about building public trust and smart regulation in the age of AI. Tune in here for a thoughtful conversation on translating complex tech into meaningful policy and why responsible innovation starts with keeping people at the center.

Education and Children's Privacy

In July, we:

• Wrote an op-ed for K-12 Dive on the impact of funding delays on AI education. SIIA’s Sara Kloek highlights how delayed federal funding threatens the success of a major executive order aimed at advancing AI education for American youth.
• Joined 600 nonpartisan organizations in urging the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Department of Education to immediately release more than $6.8 billion in legally obligated education funding. The letter addresses USED's failure to disburse funds for programs supporting K-12 schools, English learners, out-of-school-time programs, and adult education.
• Issued a statement commending the bipartisan leadership in the House and Senate for their advocacy in securing the prompt release of federal education funds. We issued a statement earlier in the month in relation to the U.S. Department of Education’s withholding of the nearly $6.8 billion in K-12 funding, as well as joined a working group addressing the matter.
• Held the first AI Transparency Working Group meeting. It was a great turnout! Here is the slide deck from the meeting, as well as a one-pager of existing resources from other education stakeholders.   
• Submitted comments to the European Commission on the application of the EU AI Act to education technology. SIIA’s comments build on this 2023 letter from SIIA and the European Edtech Alliance.

Privacy, Data, Cybersecurity and Government Procurement

In July, we:

• Met with the House E&C working group to discuss priorities regarding federal privacy legislation. SIIA has previously submitted extensive comments regarding our priorities in a potential federal privacy bill, and explained these further to House E&C staff. 
• Petitioned to intervene in two matters before the UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal, one involving Apple and the other brought by Privacy International. The matters involve the UK government’s power to issue technical capabilities notices, focusing on the importance of encryption for digital security.
• Issued a statement related to the UK Backdoor Access to User Data, citing concerns that the UK’s current policy of demanding this access will give bad actors and adversarial regimes an opening to spy on private communications, confidential business data, and consumer information.

Competition, Digital Trade, and Innovation Policy

In July, we:

• Submitted comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding its proposed Decision and Order in the Omnicom/IPG merger matter.  We take no position on the merger itself.  Rather, our comment highlights a key discrepancy in the language used in the draft Order and an accompanying Analysis of Agreement published to explain the terms of the Order. 
• Submitted comments to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in response to their June consultation asking the public for input on a number of proposed changes to its current merger guidance. In the main, the update seeks to incorporate and operationalize the recently announced “4Ps” framework: pace, predictability, proportionality, and process. 
• Submitted comments to the FCC urging it to update outdated Equivalent Power Flux-Density (EPFD) limits that govern spectrum sharing between non-geostationary (NGSO) and geostationary (GSO) satellites.
• Issued a statement in support of President Trumps’s decision to open a Section 301 investigation of Brazil. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes USTR to investigate and, if warranted, retaliate against unfair trade practices by foreign jurisdictions. In a letter published on social media, Trump stated the probe is in response to Brazil’s digital trade policies that target large U.S. tech platforms. 
• Joined a multi-association letter urging the Trump Administration to secure firm commitments from the EU, as part of ongoing negotiations, that address longstanding discriminatory digital regulations. The letter points to a number of existing policies that discriminate against U.S. digital platforms while largely exempting their EU and Chinese competitors.
• Issued a statement on the US-EU trade framework agreement resolving, at least in the immediate term, transatlantic trade tensions. The agreement appears to be that most EU exports to the U.S. will incur a 15 percent levy, and that the EU has agreed to make substantial U.S. energy and weapons purchases.

Intellectual Property

In July, we:

• Met with staff from the offices of Senators Grassley, Padilla, Cruz, and Whitehouse on the NO FAKES Act. This bill would create rights in each individual’s digital replica with the ability to have unauthorized digital replicas removed from online services with a notice and staydown regime. Past momentum on this bill seems to have dissipated and we expect the SJC to give this a fresh and likely more critical look after the August recess to identify potential changes.

Strategic Litigation

In July, we:

• Filed an amicus in the CCIA and NetChoice v. Paxton case currently on appeal in the Fifth Circuit. The case involves a challenge by CCIA and NetChoice to the constitutionality of Texas law HB 18, which requires social media companies to filter and limit access to objectionable content for minors. The District Court held those parts of the law were unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment and were preempted by Section 230. SIIA’s brief in support of CCIA and NetChoice argues the First Amendment and Section 230 are complimentary, that the use of tools and algorithms to select and filter content does not diminish these speech and liability protections for websites, and that strict scrutiny should apply to the Texas law.
• Joined several leading tech and policy organizations in filing an amicus brief in NetChoice v. Fitch, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to halt enforcement of Mississippi’s H.B. 1126, a law that imposes sweeping, content-based restrictions on digital services. The brief argues that the law violates the First Amendment by compelling intrusive age-verification, parental consent, and content moderation requirements that would suppress lawful online speech—particularly harming smaller and emerging technology companies. 

State Policy

In July, we:

• Submitted comments on the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs’ proposed rulemaking regarding the New Jersey Data Privacy Act. In our submission, we focus on the problems associated with overbroad definitions, compliance burdens, publicly available information, and practical difficulties associated with illogical or conflicting requirements.
• Wrote a letter urging New York Governor Hochul to veto the Responsible AI Safety and Education (RAISE) Act (A.6453/S.6953), warning that while well-intentioned, the bill’s broad and prescriptive requirements would slow innovation and risk driving AI development out of New York.
• Joined a coalition of organizations in an oppose unless amended letter regarding California’s AB 322. The bill, as amended June 23, 2025, proposes new consumer notice and retention requirements for precise geolocation data. While well-intentioned, the letter argues the bill duplicates and complicates existing protections under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA).
• Joined a letter opposing California’s AB 412 (Bauer-Kahan), which addresses copyrighted materials used for training of AI models.