“SB-1047 Veto Sparks Clash of Giants in Global AI Regulatory Race”
Antonio Tejeda Encinas. CEO META Channel Corp. President Euro-American Digital Law Committee
The Governor of California’s veto of bill SB-1047, “Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act,” represents a key point in the discussion over the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States. Given the growing global interest in regulating advanced AI technologies, it is relevant to compare the framework proposed in California with the European Union Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AI Act) and the Council of Europe Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law.
California Bill SB-1047: Narrow Focus and Business Opposition
SB-1047 was designed to impose significant obligations on developers of so-called frontier models, defined as those that require significant computing power. These obligations included:
1.- Periodic security evaluations:
Implementation of “emergency shutdown” or “kill switches” mechanisms.
2.- External audit requirements:
Restrictions to avoid use in high-risk environments without prior evaluation.
Despite having the support of some companies such as Anthropic and Elon Musk, it was vetoed due to concerns that it would slow innovation and apply overly rigorous standards even to low-risk uses.
European Union AI Regulation: A Risk-Based Approach
The EU Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AI Act), adopted in 2021 and with gradual implementation from 2025, establishes a comprehensive risk classification system for AI technologies:
High-risk AI: Includes applications that affect the security or fundamental rights of people, such as credit evaluation systems, surveillance algorithms, and AI applications in the medical field.
Absolute prohibitions:
Certain AI systems are prohibited, such as those that enable mass surveillance or manipulate people’s behavior against their will.
Additional requirements for general AI and widely used models, such as transparency in training data, mandatory audits, and cybersecurity requirements.
The EU Regulation is much broader and applies a risk-level classification approach, rather than focusing on the size or computational power of models, as SB-1047 did. Additionally, the regulation advocates for an evaluation based on the specific use of the system and not the general capabilities of the model, which resolves some of the criticisms Newsom mentioned in his veto.
Council of Europe Convention: Protection of Human Rights and Democracy
The Council of Europe Convention on AI, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, adopted in 2022, focuses on ensuring that AI is developed and used in accordance with the fundamental principles of respect for human rights and the rule of law. It stands out for:
- The requirement that all AI systems respect human rights from their design.
- Mandatory impact assessments before deploying AI in any critical environment.
- A strong focus on transparency and accountability:
Although the Council of Europe Convention is more general in its scope, it shares with the EU’s AI Act the characteristic of prioritizing the protection of fundamental rights and minimizing possible damage to democracy and the rule of law. Unlike SB-1047, it does not focus on the computational power or size of the models, but on how they can impact society and how they should be designed to align with ethical and legal principles.
- YoImplications of the Veto and Future Trends:
The veto of SB-1047 reflects a cautious stance on the part of the state of California, concerned about not limiting the competitive ability of local technology companies. However, the lack of a coherent regulatory framework at the federal level could cause other jurisdictions, such as the EU, to take the lead in AI regulation, imposing their regulations at a global level through their extraterritorial reach, as is the case with the General Data Protection Regulation (RGPD).
The debate surrounding AI regulation in California also highlights the difficulty of balancing innovation with safety and fundamental rights. While the EU has adopted a broad approach, based on risk assessment and proportional regulation, the approach of SB-1047 sought direct and preventive protection on the most powerful models, which is interpreted as a more restrictive measure that may not be the most appropriate for an environment of rapid technological development.
The veto of SB-1047 leaves California with a regulatory vacuum, while the EU and the Council of Europe move towards a more structured and detailed regulatory environment. The possibility of future regulation in the US will largely depend on collaboration between the private sector, lawmakers and regulators at the federal level to avoid a fragmented environment that complicates innovation without ensuring the safety of AI.
“META Channel Corp.: The Essential Partner in Europe to Face the Most Complex Regulations in AI and Digital Transformation”
The marked difference between the lax regulations of the United States and the strict European regulation in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and data protection makes it essential to have a solid representative in Europe. Unlike California, where projects like SB-1047 are vetoed, in Europe the Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AI Act), the Council of Europe Convention and the General Data Protection Regulation (RGPD) establish a rigorous and detailed compliance environment, as well as other European extraterritorial regulations.
Given this complex regulatory framework, META Channel Corp. positions itself as the ideal strategic ally for Latin American and global companies that wish to operate in Europe. With a deep understanding of regulations and a proven ability to navigate regulatory demands, META Channel Corp. makes it easy to adapt and comply with the most stringent regulations, ensuring that companies not only comply with regulations, but take advantage of opportunities in a constantly evolving European market.
