Rethinking AI regulation: Are new laws really necessary?

Specialised AI regulation may not be necessary, as existing laws already cover many aspects of AI-related concerns. Jovan Kurbalija, executive director of Diplo, argues in his blog that before enacting new AI-specific rules, society must assess whether current legal frameworks—such as consumer protection, data governance, and liability laws—can effectively regulate AI.

He draws historical parallels, citing the 4,000-year-old Code of Hammurabi as an example of legal accountability principles that remain relevant today. Kurbalija explains that legal systems have always adapted to technological advances without requiring entirely new legal categories.

He also highlights how laws governing property, commerce, and torts were successfully applied to the internet in the 1990s, suggesting that AI can be regulated similarly. Instead of focusing on abstract ethical discussions, he argues that enforcing existing legal frameworks will ensure accountability for AI developers and users.

The blog post also examines different layers of AI regulation, from hardware and data laws to algorithmic governance and AI applications. While AI-generated content has raised legal disputes over intellectual property and data use, these challenges, Kurbalija contends, should be addressed by refining current laws rather than introducing entirely new ones. He points to ongoing legal battles involving OpenAI, the New York Times, and Getty Images as examples of courts adapting existing regulations to the AI landscape.

Ultimately, Kurbalija asserts that AI is a tool, much like a hammer or a horse, and does not require its own distinct legal system. What matters most, he insists, is holding those who create and deploy AI accountable for its consequences. Society can effectively govern AI without requiring specialised regulations by reinforcing traditional legal principles such as liability, transparency, and justice.