For General Counsel

General Counsel and In-House Legal

AI law is being made in regulator letters, court decisions, and statutory amendments simultaneously. General Counsel need a reliable, primary-source reference for the obligations that actually apply.

For: General Counsel, in-house legal teams, privacy officers, regulatory affairs

The legal landscape for AI is fragmenting and consolidating at the same time. The EU AI Act is now substantially built but the Digital Omnibus has just shifted key deadlines. The Colorado AI Act has been effectively frozen by federal litigation. Australia's Privacy Act ADM transparency obligation takes effect 10 December 2026. Major court decisions on AI training data are reshaping copyright law (Bartz v Anthropic, Thomson Reuters v Ross, Thaler v Perlmutter). For General Counsel and in-house legal teams, the challenge is identifying which obligations actually apply, advising the business on contract terms with AI vendors, and managing litigation exposure as AI-related disputes increase.

What this role is accountable for

The substantive AI governance responsibilities that fall to this role under current Australian and global expectations.

1Jurisdictional obligation mapping — what AI laws apply, when, and to which activities
2AI vendor contract negotiation — data handling, IP, liability, audit rights, exit provisions
3Privacy law intersection — Privacy Act ADM, GDPR Article 22, sectoral privacy obligations
4IP and copyright — training data, output ownership, infringement exposure
5Employment law — AI in hiring, performance, and termination decisions
6Consumer law — AI in customer-facing communications, automated decisions, deceptive use
7Litigation readiness — discovery, audit trails, AI-generated evidence