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:
- 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.
