The Case of the Custody Clash

The You Own the Data Act, or YODA, would establish that covered data is the property of the user as the user creates it.

Identifier

H.R. 8652

Jurisdiction

United States (Federal)

Status

Proposed federal legislation

Dates

Introduced in the House of Representatives on May 4, 2026, and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. It has not been enacted.

Latest update

May 4, 2026

Update date

2026-05-04

What it does: The You Own the Data Act, or YODA, would establish that covered data is the property of the user as the user creates it. The proposal would also establish rights involving access, correction, deletion, portability, and transfer of covered data and would restrict certain requirements to transfer or monetize private data in exchange for services.

Potential impact: For an AI-enabled companion, YODA could provide a clearer federal principle for one important part of the product: the user's data. But an AI device can contain more than user data. YODA does not establish ownership rules for the physical device, underlying software, learned behavior or personalization, cloud or account rights, or conflicts between multiple users who contributed data to the same system. It therefore addresses one layer of the Episode 5 ownership question rather than the entire product.

Select an action to preview your letter.

The Online Privacy Act of 2026 proposes federal rights concerning personal data, including access, correction, deletion and portability, along with additional privacy protections.

Identifier

H.R. 8014

Jurisdiction

United States (Federal)

Status

Proposed federal legislation

Dates

Introduced in the House of Representatives on March 19, 2026. It has not been enacted.

Latest update

March 19, 2026

Update date

2026-03-19

What it does: The Online Privacy Act of 2026 proposes federal rights concerning personal data, including access, correction, deletion and portability, along with additional privacy protections. It would also establish a federal Digital Privacy Agency.

Potential impact: Those rights could affect what happens to personal data accumulated through an AI-enabled consumer product, particularly when a user wants to retrieve, transfer, correct, or delete information associated with the service. Like YODA, however, the proposal does not establish a comprehensive framework for ownership of the entire AI-enabled product. It does not determine ownership of the physical device, software or learned personalization, nor does it establish a system for resolving control disputes between multiple users.

Select an action to preview your letter.

Federal copyright law can protect software and qualifying human-authored expression associated with an AI-enabled product.

Identifier

U.S. Copyright Law · Copyright Office AI Reports

Jurisdiction

United States (Federal)

Status

Existing federal law / agency guidance

Dates

Federal copyright law remains in effect. The U.S. Copyright Office Part 2 (Copyrightability) report was issued January 29, 2025.

Latest update

January 29, 2025

Update date

2025-01-29

What it does: Federal copyright law can protect software and qualifying human-authored expression associated with an AI-enabled product. The U.S. Copyright Office has also examined how existing copyright principles apply to material created with generative AI. Its 2025 report on copyrightability explains that AI-assisted works may receive copyright protection when sufficient human-authored expression is present, while purely AI-generated material does not receive copyright protection merely because a person prompted the system.

Potential impact: Copyright law helps distinguish between the physical device and some of the intellectual property associated with it. Owning an AI-enabled product does not necessarily mean owning the copyright in its software or every protected work incorporated into the system. The situation becomes less clear when considering learned behavior and personalization developed through interaction with users. The Copyright Office's AI copyrightability report does not specifically determine ownership of AI-learned behavior, personalization models, or behavioral data generated through user interactions. Existing copyright principles therefore provide part of the legal framework without resolving the broader ownership question raised by increasingly personalized AI devices.

Select an action to preview your letter.

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.

Identifier

FTC Act § 5

Jurisdiction

United States (Federal)

Status

Existing federal law

Dates

Enacted September 26, 1914

Latest update

September 26, 1914

Update date

1914-09-26

What it does: Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. That authority can apply to representations companies make about consumer products and services, including practices involving privacy, data handling and AI-enabled services.

Potential impact: For AI-enabled companion products, Section 5 can provide a federal consumer-protection backstop when a provider's representations or commercial practices involving consumer data are unfair or deceptive. But Section 5 is not an ownership framework. It does not determine who owns an AI-enabled device, its software, accumulated user data, learned personalization, or cloud account, and it does not establish rules for dividing control between multiple authorized users.

Select an action to preview your letter.

Jurisdiction

United States (Federal)

Status

Partial Gap

Potential policy gap: Existing law addresses different parts of an AI-enabled product separately—including the physical device, software, copyrighted human contributions, consumer data, and contractual account rights. But Judge GPT TV's research did not identify a comprehensive federal framework defining what happens to those different interests when an AI-enabled device is sold, transferred, divided, or disputed between users. This creates an emerging distinction between owning the device and owning or controlling everything that makes the device personalized to its users.

Select an action to preview your letter.

Jurisdiction

United States (Federal)

Status

Partial Gap

Potential policy gap: AI-enabled devices can develop personalized behavior through interactions with multiple users. Those users may contribute data, preferences, instructions and other information over time, while access and control may also depend on accounts, software licenses, product design and provider terms. Problems can emerge when authorized users later disagree. One person may want to retain the device, another may want their information removed, and both may claim an interest in the personalization they helped create. The same control problem can extend to device capabilities such as recording, tracking or monitoring when one authorized user activates those functions in ways another user opposes. Judge GPT TV's research did not identify a comprehensive federal framework defining how control, accumulated personalization, or user-generated data should be handled when multiple authorized users of an AI-enabled consumer product later disagree.

Select an action to preview your letter.