Most Companies Lack an AI Ethics Framework at Their Own Potential Peril
With no laws specifically governing AI, companies are left to decide if they will implement a framework for ethical AI usage. But most don't, and lawyers say that could lead to substantial risks.
November 01, 2019 at 11:30 AM
3 minute read
Leveraging artificial intelligence can take companies' compliance efforts to new heights, but lawyers warn frameworks are needed to understand how the AI's decision-making correlates to the public's and regulators' concerns.
"The potential for AI technology is quite significant and the ability of the technology to make decisions, make recommendations, predictions or take actions is really revolutionizing a lot of sectors, but at the same time it presents questions about ethics," said Davis Wright Tremaine partner K.C. Halm.
However, when most companies are deploying their new tech, ethics is rarely a mainstay in the preparation conversation.
In the Deloitte "AI Ethics: An Emerging Imperative for the Board and C-Suite" survey of 600-plus executives at organizations that use AI, only 21% of respondents said they had a framework for ethical use of AI for risk-management and compliance efforts. An additional 26% said they didn't, but plan to develop a framework in the next 12 months.
Halm said companies' AI frameworks vary, but "some define the standard by which you work on bias, transparency and explainability. My view is, it is useful to have some type of AI framework in place to explain those issues."
As some organizations move toward implementing AI ethics frameworks, nearly half of respondents also said they are planning to leverage more AI in their risk management and compliance efforts during the next 12 months, according to the survey.
Deloitte risk and financial advisory principal Maureen Mohlenkamp said the uptick could be inspired by organizations attempting to increase automation, improve corporate culture or spot risky employee behavior. AI, she added, is "creating opportunities to really shift through massive data."
Still, Halm cautioned that before leveraging AI, a proactive and ongoing review of the tool is useful for any sector, especially for a technology that could lead to exclusion of members of a protected group.
"Health care, finance and housing—each of those sectors are pretty heavily regulated for good reasons, and many of those regulations focus on potential disparate impact that could be made if an AI tool is being used and if the training data is not representative of people being affected. It's a potential for bias," he said.
Phillips Nizer partner and former New York state Department of Financial Services deputy superintendent Patrick Burke added that outside of an AI-powered decision being potentially discriminatory, there is also the risk that regulators may ask questions if a company is "relying on [the AI tool] in lieu of more conventional compliance tactics."
However, for the time being, AI presents more ethical concerns than legal concerns. "At this point, it's more ethical concerns because the law hasn't caught up yet," Burke explained. Still, those ethical concerns could lead to public outcry and potential pushback from peers.
Companies leveraging AI will have to balance what's good for the bottom line with public perception.
"So much data is in big companies that they can get to the point where they can affect your life without you seeing it coming," Burke said. "I think Americans are becoming increasingly anxious about that, that ties into ethics. Do you do it anyway?"
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1'True Leadership Is About Putting Others First': 2024 In-House Award Winners Inspired, Took Road Less Traveled
- 2A Q&A with Sidley Austin's London Leader
- 3New York-Based Harris Beach Combines With Connecticut-Based Murtha Cullina, Forming NE Powerhouse
- 4New Year, New Am Law 100: Challenges Await These Newly Merged Law Firms
- 5Thursday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250