Session 1: Regulating and implementing – 30 minutes

The United Kingdom does not have a singular, comprehensive law specifically regulating artificial intelligence (AI). While this may be criticised as being slow and unhelpful, the UK approach to regulating AI and GenAI, is currently one that is in development.

The regulatory focus in the UK falls on a decentralised, pro-innovation approach that applies existing legal frameworks and empowers sector-specific regulators to oversee the use of AI technologies. This approach (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, 2023) advocates for a flexible framework guided by five core principles:

• Safety
• Transparency
• Fairness
• Accountability
• Contestability

Rather than creating a standalone AI regulator or codified AI law akin to the European Union’s AI Act, the UK strategy relies on contextual oversight, where bodies such as the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) apply existing laws to manage AI-related risks.

A significant legal pillar affecting AI deployment is the Data Protection Act 2018, which incorporates the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). This legislation governs the collection, processing, and storage of personal data, including by AI systems. Notably, Article 22 of UK GDPR confers individuals the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing that has legal or similarly significant effects. This provision is particularly relevant for AI systems used in recruitment, credit scoring, and other high-impact scenarios (Information Commissioner's Office, n.d.).

The Equality Act 2010 is another cornerstone of the current regulatory framework in the UK, especially when addressing concerns that arise over algorithmic bias, and the replication of that bias through GenAI outputs. If an AI system discriminates – either directly or indirectly – against individuals based on protected characteristics such as race, gender, or disability, it may violate anti-discrimination provisions. This risk is especially pronounced in sectors like employment, finance, and law enforcement, where biased training data or poorly designed algorithms can entrench systemic inequalities.

AI technologies must also comply with broader human rights obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998, particularly Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 14 (protection from discrimination). These obligations bind public sector deployments of AI and require transparency, proportionality, and justification for any intrusion on fundamental rights. Much like the Human Rights Act provisions, elements of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and Competition Act 1998 can also apply where AI is used, especially if AI is used to manipulate consumer choices, personalise pricing unfairly, or engage in anti-competitive behaviour.

Intellectual property law is another area of growing concern, particularly in relation to the ownership of AI-generated works and the status of AI as an inventor (Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, 2023). The UK Intellectual Property Office has clarified that, under current law, AI cannot be recognised as an inventor for patent purposes. While copyright may apply to AI-generated content if a human authorship link exists, the legal status remains unsettled, particularly where content is produced autonomously by generative models.