Tag Archives: Anne Vallery

Limited-Risk AI—A Deep Dive Into Article 50 of the European Union’s AI Act

by Martin Braun, Anne Vallery, and Itsiq Benizri

Photo of the authors

Left to right: Martin Braun, Anne Vallery and Itsiq Benizri (photos courtesy of the authors)

This blog post focuses on the transparency requirements associated with certain limited-risk artificial intelligence (AI) systems under Article 50 of the European Union’s AI Act.

As explained in our previous blog post, the AI Act’s overall risk-based approach means that, depending on the level of risk, different requirements apply. In total, there are four levels of risk: (1) unacceptable risk, in which case AI systems are prohibited (see our blog post on prohibited AI practices for more details); (2) high risk, in which case AI systems are subject to extensive requirements, including regarding transparency; (3) limited risk, which triggers only transparency requirements; and (4) minimal risk, which does not trigger any obligations.

Continue reading →

Prohibited AI Practices—A Deep Dive into Article 5 of the European Union’s AI Act

by Dr. Martin Braun, Anne Vallery, and Itsiq Benizri

photo of authors

From left to right: Dr. Martin Braun, Anne Vallery and Itsiq Benizri. (Photos courtesy of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP).

Article 5 of the AI Act essentially prohibits AI practices that materially distort peoples’ behavior or that raise serious concerns in democratic societies.

As explained in our previous blog post, this is part of the overall risk-based approach taken by the AI Act, which means that different requirements apply in accordance with the level of risk. In total, there are four levels of risk: unacceptable, in which case AI systems are prohibited; high risk, in which case AI systems are subject to extensive requirements; limited risk, which triggers only transparency requirements; and minimal risk, which does not trigger any obligations.

Continue reading →

Significant Improvements for International Transfers of Personal Data – Adequacy Decision for the New EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework Adopted by the European Commission

by Dr. Martin Braun, Kirk J. Nahra, Frédéric Louis, Benjamin A. Powell, Anne Vallery, Itsiq Benizri, Valentino Halim, Ali A. Jessani, and Shannon Togawa Mercer

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Dr. Martin Braun, Kirk J. Nahra, Frédéric Louis, Benjamin A. Powell, and Anne Vallery.
Bottom left to right: Itsiq Benizri, Valentino Halim, Ali A. Jessani, and Shannon Togawa Mercer.
(Photos courtesy of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP)

On July 10, 2023, the European Commission adopted its long-awaited adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (“Adequacy Decision”). This ends a three-year journey to set up a successor to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield mechanism, which the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) deemed invalid on July 16, 2020. U.S. President Joe Biden welcomed the Adequacy Decision, stating that it “will provide greater data privacy protections and economic opportunities.”

The Adequacy Decision concludes that the U.S. provides for an adequate level of protection under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) when personal data of individuals in the European Economic Area (“EEA”) is transferred to U.S. companies certified under the new EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework.

Continue reading →

Antitrust and Competition: Investment Firms’ Voting Rights—The Devil is in the Potential Antitrust Liability

by Frédéric Louis, Anne Vallery, Álvaro Mateo Alonso, and Édouard Bruc

On January 27, 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued an important  ruling regarding an investment fund’s liability for the cartel behaviour of an affiliate. The CJEU confirmed that an investment fund is liable under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union based on holding 100% voting rights over an indirect affiliate that participated in a cartel, even though the fund held well below 100% equity in that affiliate during part of the relevant period (see here). This judgement tips the scales towards enforcement and away from key defence principles such as the presumption of innocence, or the requirement to sanction only the actual offender. Nonetheless, it sheds some useful insight for financial investors to mitigate antitrust exposure. Continue reading →