Perhaps GDPR isn’t as broad as I assumed it was?

https://www.pogowasright.org/cnil-weighs-in-on-gdpr-applicability-to-us-company/

CNIL Weighs in On GDPR Applicability to US Company

Liisa Thomas & Kathryn Smith of Sheppard Mullin write:

The French Data Protection Authority capped off 2022 by terminating an investigation into Lusha Systems, Inc.’s compliance with GDPR. CNIL concluded that the law did not apply to the US company’s activities. As many know, since GDPR was passed US companies have been concerned about the extent the law applies outside of the EU: it applies not only to those entities with operations in the EU, but also those outside of the region who are either offering goods or services to people in the EU or monitoring individuals in the EU. Here, CNIL concluded that Lusha was not offering goods or services to those in the EU, nor was it monitoring those in the EU.

The European Data Protection Board has issued guidance and examples on the scope of CNIL. These include “monitoring” situations, perhaps the trickiest fact pattern. However, the guidance gives examples of when GDPR would apply but not situations where it would not apply. The Lusha case is thus helpful to companies as they consider GDPR applicability.

Read more at Eye on Privacy.

Not just no, hell no.

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/02/ais-impact-on-the-future-of-law-will-lawyers-survive/

AI’s Impact On The Future of Law: Will Lawyers Survive?

We suspect that many things we once thought impossible will be made possible by the new generation of AI.

Catchy title, right? Well, we must ‘fess up – OpenAI’s ChatGPT lent us a hand. We submitted this request: “Suggest several striking titles for an article about why lawyers are afraid of being replaced by AI.” We got 12 proposed titles in return, all of them credible as well as catchy.

… Is it possible that AI will one day replace some lawyers?

When asked this question, the AI waffled a bit and said, “it is possible that AI could eventually replace some aspects of a lawyer’s job, such as document review, legal research and contract analysis.” Perhaps to make us feel better, it offered its opinion that “it is unlikely that AI will completely replace the role of lawyers as the legal profession requires a high degree of critical thinking, problem-solving and decision-making skills that are currently difficult for AI to replicate.” Note the word “currently.”

Ultimately, it opined that “it is more likely that AI will become a tool that lawyers use to augment their abilities, rather than a replacement for lawyers altogether.” Only partial comfort there . . .