Policy Archive · Episode 05

The Case of the Custody Clash

Explore the real-world policies behind this case. Follow proposed and existing policy, potential gaps, and outcomes as they develop.

• Proposed Policy Proposed federal legislation

  H.R. 8652 — You Own the Data Act (YODA)

  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.

  Sources

  • Congress.gov — H.R. 8652
• Proposed Policy Proposed federal legislation

  H.R. 8014 — Online Privacy Act of 2026

  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.

  Sources

  • Congress.gov — H.R. 8014
• Existing Policy Existing federal law / agency guidance

  U.S. Copyright Law and AI

  Cross-Episode Episode 9

  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.

  Sources

  • U.S. Copyright Office — Copyright and Artificial Intelligence
  • U.S. Copyright Office — Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability
• Existing Policy Existing federal law

  FTC Act Section 5 — Consumer Protection

  Cross-Episode Episode 7 · Episode 14

  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.

  Sources

  • Federal Trade Commission — Enforcement Authority — FTC
• Policy Gap Partial Gap

  Ownership and Transfer of AI-Enabled Devices

  Jurisdiction

  United States (Federal)

  Status

  Partial Gap

  What it does: 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.

  Potential Policy Question

  When ownership of an AI-enabled device changes, what rights should transfer with the physical product—and what rights should remain with its users, software provider, or other rights holders?

  Sources

  • Congress.gov — H.R. 8652, You Own the Data Act
  • U.S. Copyright Office — Copyright and Artificial Intelligence
• Policy Gap Partial Gap

  Shared Control and Learned Personalization

  Jurisdiction

  United States (Federal)

  Status

  Partial Gap

  What it does: 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.

  Potential Policy Question

  When multiple people contribute data, preferences, customization, or personalization to the same AI-enabled device, how should control of that shared digital history be handled if the users later disagree?

  Sources

  • Congress.gov — H.R. 8652, You Own the Data Act
  • Congress.gov — H.R. 8014, Online Privacy Act of 2026
  • Federal Trade Commission — Enforcement Authority — FTC