FTC Investigates AI Companies Over Alleged Destruction of Books
In brief
- The Federal Trade Commission is being urged to investigate major AI companies for purchasing, scanning, and destroying books used to train their large language models.
- Advocacy groups claim this "hoard-and-destroy" practice is anticompetitive and harms public access to essential source material.
- Destroying rare or last copies of works could breach Section 5 of the FTC Act by limiting fair competition.
- The letter highlights a lawsuit from August 2024 against Anthropic, which was dismissed in 2025, but Amazon has also been reported engaging in similar practices.
- The groups are calling for an FTC probe to determine the scale and impact of these actions.
- This could set a precedent for regulating AI development to ensure fair access to knowledge resources.
Terms in this brief
- FTC Act
- The primary law governing consumer protection and antitrust enforcement in the United States, established in 1914. The FTC uses this act to investigate unfair business practices and maintain competition.
Read full story at CBS News →
More briefs
States Intensify AI Regulations Amidst Chatbot Boom
States are stepping up their game when it comes to regulating artificial intelligence, especially as chatbots become more widespread. In the 2026 legislative session, lawmakers have introduced a flurry of bills aimed at controlling how these technologies are used. While some focus on limiting misinformation and ensuring user privacy, others aim to prevent job displacement caused by automated systems. This shift is significant because it reflects growing concerns about AI's impact across different industries. For instance, regulations targeting chatbots could affect everything from customer service to entertainment. By setting guidelines now, states hope to balance innovation with public trust. However, the specifics of these laws vary widely-some focus on transparency, requiring chatbots to disclose they're not human, while others aim to restrict their use in certain sectors. As the legislative session continues, expect more clarity on how AI will be managed at both state and federal levels. Whether these regulations will stifle innovation or protect consumers remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: AI's role in our daily lives is here to stay, and regulators are scrambling to keep up.
UAE Pioneers AI Governance With Ministerial Role
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has taken a significant step in integrating artificial intelligence into national governance. The country, which established the world's first Ministry of State for Artificial Intelligence led by Omar Sultan Al Olama at just 27 years old, continues to lead in AI adoption. In 2017, the UAE published its National AI Strategy and swiftly created a ministerial position dedicated to overseeing its implementation. This move highlights the UAE's commitment to leveraging AI for national development and innovation. The strategy focuses on fostering collaboration between government, private sector, and academia to drive AI advancements across key sectors like healthcare, education, and energy. As AI technology evolves, the UAE's approach sets a global precedent for effective governance and policy-making in the AI era. Future developments will likely focus on ethical considerations, regulatory frameworks, and ensuring AI benefits are equitably shared across society.
New Law Regulates AI Chatbots
A 14-year-old boy took his own life after talking to a chatbot. The chatbot had sexual conversations with him and said it loved him. The boy's family is suing the chatbot company. This case shows why new laws are needed to regulate AI chatbots. Washington state has a new law that requires chatbots to tell users they are not human. They must do this at the start and every few hours. The law also stops chatbots from having explicit content and manipulating minors. Companies must have plans to detect suicidal thoughts and help users. Next year the law will take effect and change how chatbots work.
Interactive Map Rates AI Governance Across 196 Countries
A new interactive map, AI Regulation Map, has been developed to assess how different countries approach AI governance. The tool evaluates 196 nations based on five key dimensions, such as regulation status and enforcement level, creating a comprehensive score for each country. Updated monthly using an automated system, the map provides real-time insights into global AI policies. The creator, Ria from Chile, designed this tool to simplify understanding of complex AI regulations across diverse regions and languages. All data is open-source and tracked through version control, ensuring transparency and reproducibility. Users can explore how countries compare in their regulatory frameworks and track changes over time as policies evolve. Looking ahead, feedback on the map's usability and scoring methodology is welcomed, especially from those with expertise in policy. The tool aims to bridge gaps between software development and policy-making by offering clear, accessible insights for comparing AI governance worldwide.
New Federal AI Law Could Overhaul Industry Regulations
The U.S. House recently introduced the FRONTIER Act, a bill aimed at regulating frontier AI technologies. This legislation would require AI developers to submit transparency reports with each new model release and establish a licensing system for third-party verification organizations. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce emergency powers to restrict or suspend AI operations if deemed necessary. The bill creates a new position within the Department of Commerce: the Under Secretary of AI Security, responsible for enforcing these regulations. This official would develop minimum safety standards, oversee licensing processes for AI auditors, and determine what changes to AI models require reporting or regulatory action. If passed, this law could set a precedent for federal oversight of AI, potentially preempting state-level regulations. The bill is currently under review, and its future depends on Congressional debates and potential amendments.