America vs. China: Diverging Paths in AI
Policy
Nick Palmieri
Recently, the United States released America's AI Action Plan.
Shortly after, at the 2025 World AI Conference, the Chinese
government released its own AI Action Plan. While there are
significant overlaps between the two plans (and the Chinese plan is
provided at a much higher level and in more general terms), there
are also some significant differences between the two, which may
impact how businesses seek to approach their AI development, in the
U.S., in China, and everywhere in between.
Approach to Innovation and Regulation
The U.S. plan prioritizes deregulation, removal of
bureaucratic barriers, and the creation of a pro-innovation
environment for the private sector. American's Plan seeks to
eliminate "onerous" regulations, in part by encouraging
open-source innovations and accelerating the adoption of AI both
publicly and privately. The plan is explicit in rejecting
regulatory approaches that could stifle innovation or favor
incumbents, and it links AI progress to American values such as
free speech and objective truth.
China's plan, while also advocating for innovation and
open-source ecosystems, places greater emphasis on international
coordination of standards, regulatory frameworks, and ethical
norms. The Chinese Plan calls for the establishment of global
platforms for scientific and technological cooperation, the
creation of unified computing power standards, and the development
of a transparent, inclusive normative framework for AI. The Chinese
approach is more focused on harmonizing global standards and
ensuring that technological progress is balanced with risk
prevention and social ethics.
Infrastructure and Capacity Building
The American plan is highly detailed in its infrastructure
ambitions, calling for streamlined permitting for data centers,
revitalization of domestic semiconductor manufacturing, and the
expansion of energy grids to support AI growth. In other words,
removing regulatory burdens to build new infrastructure to support
AI products. It also includes workforce development initiatives to
ensure Americans benefit from AI-driven economic changes.
China's plan also stresses the importance of digital
infrastructure, including clean power, next-generation networks,
and data centers, but it frames these efforts in terms of global
cooperation and support for the Global South. The Chinese plan
advocates for joint development of high-quality datasets, mutual
recognition platforms for safety assessment, and international
capacity-building programs, with a particular focus on bridging the
digital divide.
Security, Ethics, and Governance
The U.S. plan is security-centric, with a strong focus on
export controls, protection of intellectual property, and the
prevention of adversarial use of AI. It proposes rigorous
evaluation of AI systems for national security risks, especially in
defense and intelligence contexts, and calls for international
alliances to counter individualized influence in global governance
bodies.
China's plan emphasizes safety, risk assessment, and the
prevention of misuse, but within a framework of international
cooperation and respect for sovereignty. It advocates for the
creation of global mechanisms for data sharing, the establishment
of risk testing and evaluation systems, and the development of
traceability management for AI services. The Chinese plan also
highlights the importance of environmental sustainability and the
responsible use of AI in addressing global challenges.
A Collective-Action Lawsuit Is a Warning Shot on AI
Risks for Employers
Leslie McCombs Roussev
What happens when the algorithm decides you're too old to work?
A collective-action lawsuit filed against Workday Inc. exemplifies
the expanding litigation risk that accompanies the use of AI tools
in recruiting and hiring. In Mobley v. Workday, Inc., the plaintiff
brought an action in the Northern District of California against
Workday—an HR management software vendor—alleging that
the service's algorithmic decision-making tools used by
employers to screen applicants in the hiring process unlawfully
discriminated against him and similarly-situated job applicants on
the basis of age, race, and disability. Mobley contended that
Workday acted as an "agent" of its customers because it
was delegated functions traditionally exercised by an employer. In
May 2025, a judge granted the lawsuit collective-action status,
finding that Workday was sufficiently involved in the hiring
process for a collective to be certified.
This lawsuit marks a significant moment in the evolution of AI use
in employment and hiring practices, and comes at a time when
regulatory scrutiny is rising in parallel. As states begin to
propose or enact statutes that place standards on the use of AI
hiring tools, the Workday case could further slow AI adoption among
employers until they become more confident that AI vendors have
properly tested their systems for disparate impact on protected
groups.
Quick Links
For additional insights on AI, check out Baker Botts' thought
leadership in this area:
- AI Counsel Code: In the latest episode, "Accelerating AI in Renewable Tech," Maggie Welsh sits down with Partner Mike Silliman, who frequently advises energy tech startups, to explore the evolving relationship between AI and climate innovation. Mike discusses how AI both drives energy demand and offers climate solutions, and why its adoption in clean tech is slower than in other sectors. He unpacks key challenges—like regulatory complexity, data silos, and limited VC appetite—and what's needed to move the sector forward.
- South Korean Copyright Office Issues AI Guidance: Senior Associate Nick Palmieri dives into the two guides related to the intersection of artificial intelligence ("AI") and copyright law released by South Korea's Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism and the Korea Copyright Commission.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
