California Governor Newsom Signs Executive Order on Developing AI Regulation

California’s Governor Gavin Newsom has released an Executive Order concerning the regulation of artificial intelligence including the creation of a “kill switch.”  The Press Release is below and includes a summary of other actions taken by the Newsom administration and the California Legislature concerning AI regulation. 

SACRAMENTO – With Donald Trump and Congress asleep at the wheel, Governor Gavin Newsom is once again taking the lead to strengthen AI safety for all Americans. Today, the Governor issued an executive order to dramatically accelerate the implementation of new third-party oversight of safety and security risks in AI systems, as well as independent audits. 

The executive order convenes a group of world-leading experts to provide, within two months, a guide for California to reinforce and strengthen its AI safety and security laws. Proposals under consideration include requiring independent third parties to write safety plans for frontier AI companies, as well as requiring companies to develop an emergency shutoff, or “kill switch,” for frontier models.

California leads the nation in oversight of emerging frontier technologies, with laws addressing nearly every major area of AI policy: frontier-model safety, independent oversight, children and companion chatbots, privacy, deepfakes, fraud, cybersecurity, workers and government deployment.

The federal government’s abject failure to create any form of meaningful AI oversight or accountability should alarm every American, especially when AI CEOs themselves are begging for regulation. 

We’re not waiting to act – we’re going to speed up our work on substantial and responsible AI oversight before it’s too late. We’re going to do this thoughtfully but with urgent velocity; the stakes are too high to wait or delay action. 

While Washington abdicates its responsibility to protect Americans, California is building on the strongest AI regulatory framework in the nation. California has already built a national model, and our policy should be the national baseline.

Governor Gavin Newsom

The executive order comes after recent alarming incidents, including the Hugging Face attack, prompting many Americans, including leaders in the AI industry, to call on the industry to pace the development of AI systems and models and push for more stringent government regulations to address security and safety risks. In response, the federal government has done nothing. No federal law requires AI companies to report dangerous incidents when they happen, and President Trump has rejected calls for new regulations that would increase security and protect the health, safety, and well-being of the American people. 

Read the executive order here. 

Decisive action to strengthen AI oversight 

California provides a model for national standards around AI safety. Last week, Governor Newsom signed legislation creating first-in-the-nation safeguards and accountability measures to strengthen California’s nation-leading framework. The Governor signed into law Senate Bill 813 (McNerney),  establishing a framework for independent verification organizations that can assess AI systems and models for safety and risk. Governor Newsom also signed AB 1405 (Bauer-Kahan), creating a state registry for AI auditors that assess AI systems and models for compliance with state law and establishing standards for their independence, transparency, and integrity.

Today’s executive order takes these actions even further. Through the order, the Governor is directing the Government Operations Agency: to accelerate the implementation timelines for SB 813 and AB 1405, and, in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, to convene national experts to develop recommendations for potential changes to further strengthen state law to:

• Require frontier AI companies to embed a designated independent verification organization onsite in their labs to conduct regular audits and evaluations.
• Require that the AI safety frameworks, transparency reports, and risk assessments that frontier AI companies are required to file under state law are verified pursuant to standards deemed adequate by an independent verification organization. 
• Advance the creation of a “kill switch” for frontier models, with the efficacy of the switch verified on an ongoing basis by an independent verification organization.
• Update definitions of critical safety incidents to include loss-of-control incidents such as the Hugging Face attack.

An AI safety model for the nation

Under Governor Newsom’s leadership, California is already far ahead of every other state in regulating AI, creating a guidebook for the nation. The Governor is calling on Congress and President Trump to review and adopt the state’s framework, or use its nation-leading regulation as a floor, not a ceiling, for the benefit and safety of all Americans. 

California’s nation-leading framework 

Beginning with his first-in-nation 2023 executive order on generative AI, Governor Newsom has pursued executive action, legislation passed in partnership with the Legislature, regulation, procurement, and public-private partnerships to address nearly every major area of AI policy:

✅ Frontier AI safety: In 2025, Governor Newsom signed SB 53, the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, the nation’s first AI safety law. It requires frontier AI developers to publicly disclose safety frameworks, report specified critical safety incidents to the state, and protect whistleblowers who report serious risks.

✅ Independent AI oversight: In 2026, Governor Newsom signed SB 813, making California the first state in the nation to establish a framework for certifying independent verification organizations with sufficient expertise and demonstrated independence from AI companies to objectively assess AI systems and models for safety and risk. He also signed AB 1405, establishing a state registry for AI auditors and standards for their independence, transparency and integrity.

✅ Child safety standards for AI companions: This year, Governor Newsom signed the bipartisan Adam’s Law, requiring safeguards around companion chatbots used by children, including suicide and self-harm crisis protocols, parental controls and notifications when safety settings are disabled. It is the first law in the country requiring independent child-safety audits and comprehensive risk assessments prior to release. California also enacted laws to ban toys containing AI companion chatbots for five years; prohibit use of student personal information to train AI models; and expand protections against AI-generated child sexual abuse material.

✅ Social media and children: Governor Newsom signed the strongest-in-nation legislation prohibiting social-media companies from providing users under 16 with addictive features including autoplay and algorithmic feeds based on user history and profiles. California has enacted nation-leading requirements for responsible AI and social media use for children, including warning labels for young users, required age verification signals, guidance to protect kids from after-school cyberbullying, and prohibiting online platforms from knowingly providing an addictive feed to a minor without parental consent.

✅ Deep fakes and synthetic content: In nation-leading action, California banned and cracked down on sexually explicit deepfakes, required AI watermarking, addressed deceptive AI-generated election content and required transparency around AI training data. 

✅ Protecting privacy and civil liberties: Governor Newsom signed the Delete Act, a first-in-the-nation privacy law allowing Californians to direct registered data brokers to delete their personal information. California subsequently launched DROP, which enables people to submit a single deletion request to registered data brokers. In March 2026, Governor Newsom also issued an executive order strengthening privacy and civil-liberties protections for state AI procurement. CalPrivacy has separately adopted protections involving automated decision-making technology.

✅ Workers and AI disruption: Governor Newsom signed a first-in-the-nation executive order addressing AI’s economic and labor impacts, including expanded tracking of AI’s economic effects and work to adapt job-training and public-benefit programs. California has also launched an AI Unemployment Tracker, and solicited statewide public input on AI’s economic impacts through Engaged California.

✅ Cybersecurity: Governor Newsom launched a first-in-the-nation AI Cyber Defense Program to use AI to identify vulnerabilities, harden networks and support incident response. California is also establishing an AI Cybersecurity Officer in each agency and working with frontier AI companies and critical-infrastructure partners on response protocols and tabletop exercises.

✅ AI-enabled fraud: Governor Newsom launched a Tech Fraud Task Force to combat AI-enabled fraud. California has also acted against AI-generated robocall scams and addressed algorithmic pricing through state antitrust law.

 

OxFirst Club’s 15th IP & Competition Forum at the University of Oxford and 16th IP & Competition Forum at Residenz Palace Munich to Examine Global Patent Enforcement

 

OxFirst Club’s 15th IP & Competition Forum will take place on 13–14 January 2027 at the University of Oxford, followed by the 16th IP & Competition Forum on 3–4 June 2027 at the Residenz Palace in Munich. Together, the two Fora form a connected 2027 programme examining how patent enforcement, licensing and competition policy are shaping global business strategy.

The 2027 programme will bring together senior judicial, institutional and market perspectives from across the global patent ecosystem. The wider OxFirst Forum community has included senior representatives from Amazon, BMW Group, BSH Hausgeräte, ByteDance, Dell Technologies, Deutsche Telekom, Ericsson, Giesecke+Devrient, Harman, HP, Huawei, LG Electronics, Nokia, Panasonic, Philips, Qualcomm, Samsung, Xiaomi, RPX and Access Advance.

The Oxford Forum will set the international reference point. It will bring together senior judicial and institutional perspectives from the UK Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the High Court, the Unified Patent Court, the Commercial Court of Brazil and the Patent Court of Korea, alongside industry leaders, competition authorities, patent offices and private practice.

The Munich Forum will then carry the discussion into the European enforcement landscape, with a particular focus on the Unified Patent Court, the Munich Regional Courts, the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office and perspectives from judges in the United States. Taking place in one of Europe’s most important patent litigation centres, the Munich Forum will examine how European institutions are shaping the future of patent enforcement, competition policy, patent quality and licensing strategy.

The two Fora are linked by one central question: how can global patent enforcement become more predictable in a fragmented world order?

Patent disputes are no longer confined to individual courtrooms or national borders. A decision before a national court, the Unified Patent Court or a court outside Europe can influence settlement dynamics, licensing negotiations, product launches and commercial behaviour in several jurisdictions at once. This is particularly visible in disputes involving standard-essential patents, FRAND licensing, injunctions, global rate-setting, cross-border enforcement and competition policy.

At Oxford, the discussion will focus on global patent strategy and the broader interaction between courts, regulators, markets and technology companies. The Forum will examine how leading courts, including the UK Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and international patent courts, approach questions of injunctions, licensing conduct, jurisdiction, proportionality and the economic consequences of patent enforcement.

In Munich, the focus will become more European and UPC-centred. The 16th Forum will examine how the UPC is developing as a forum for patent enforcement, how the Munich courts continue to influence European patent litigation, and how the EPO Boards of Appeal contribute to questions of patent quality, validity and institutional coherence. It will also consider how European patent enforcement interacts with competition law, market access and global technology licensing.

The corporate participation reflects the practical importance of patent enforcement and licensing for companies operating in fast-moving, innovation-driven markets. For these companies, patent disputes are not isolated legal events. They affect product strategy, market access, licensing negotiations, investment decisions, supply chains and the economics of innovation.

The University of Oxford setting gives the January Forum a distinctive platform for serious discussion across law, economics, policy and business. The Residenz Palace in Munich gives the June Forum a European institutional focus, close to the courts and patent institutions that are central to the next phase of patent enforcement in Europe.

Between Oxford and Munich, the OxFirst Expert Groups will provide a bridge for continued discussion. They will allow selected participants to carry forward the issues raised in Oxford and refine them ahead of the Munich Forum, creating a year-round structure for dialogue on patent enforcement, licensing, competition policy and innovation governance.

“Patent enforcement has become a matter of international strategy,” said Professor Roya Ghafele, convenor of the Forum and Managing Director of OxFirst. “Injunctions, standard-essential patents and global licensing disputes are no longer isolated legal questions. They shape market access, competition and the global economic order.”

The purpose of the 2027 programme is not merely to discuss legal doctrine. It is to understand how patent enforcement now interacts with markets, competition and international economic strategy. Businesses need legal certainty to invest, license and innovate. Courts, patent offices and regulators, meanwhile, face the difficult task of balancing effective patent protection with competition, market access and technological diffusion.

In a fragmented world order, patents have become more than technical rights. They are instruments that can influence bargaining power, market entry, investment and industrial positioning. OxFirst Club’s 2027 IP & Competition Fora will provide a high-level platform for examining these issues from judicial, institutional, industry and economic perspectives.

The 15th IP & Competition Forum will take place on 13–14 January 2027 at the University of Oxford.

The 16th IP & Competition Forum will take place on 3–4 June 2027 at the Residenz Palace in Munich.

To join OxFirst Club, register interest, or explore speaking and sponsorship opportunities, visit https://oxfirst.club/ or email info@oxfirst.com.

U.S. Undersecretary and Director John A. Squires Provides Remarks on U.S. Innovation

On September 15, 2026, the Undersecretary for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office John A. Squires gave a speech titled, “Protecting U.S. IP and Tech Leadership through International Trade Policy Tools,” at the USC Gould School of Law IP conference in Washington DC.  Some of his comments concerned the United States’ work and intentions with respect to its international agenda, AI regulation and name, image and likeness rights.  The full speech is available, here.  Here are parts of his remarks:

At the 68th Assemblies of the Member States of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) held in July, we insisted that the organization focus on the needs of companies and individuals who are managing increasingly complex patent portfolios.

We want the Patent Cooperation Treaty, signed by 159 contracting states, to work not only for the big guys, but for the small and medium-sized companies and individuals who are on the forefront of innovation.

We want WIPO to move past the outdated and archaic requirements that discourage trademark owners’ full use of the Madrid system in pursuing important branding rights across the globe.

We also were instrumental in kicking off WIPO’s “IP Growth Initiative,” focusing on using IP as a strategic “power tool” to drive innovation and economic growth. And not in 10 years, but now.

The world’s inventors, creators, and entrepreneurs cannot wait. The onrush of technology has never even heard of the word “wait.” Innovation only knows “now.”

In every global forum, and through our IP attachés located in all of the important global markets, we have insisted on ensuring that it is well understood that robust IP protection fosters innovation, incentivizes research and development, maintains competitive markets, and ensures fair and appropriate renumeration for our innovators and rights holders—reciprocation and respect.

And we have made the case in every international forum that IP systems, such as the one we have in America, are the strongest engines for growth ever created, both for economies and for personal accomplishment and success. We have also taken steps to broaden the base of IP rights holders in our own country.

We just opened an Emerging Technologies Office in San Francisco as part of the agency’s efforts to advance the use of AI and engage with the AI industry.

This office serves as a hub to convene our stakeholders involved in AI, enabling them to work with federal officials on how best to steer AI adoption for American dominance.

It will help U.S. companies gain a foothold in the federal marketplace and assist them in exporting their AI products and systems to other countries.

And we are focused on protecting the rights of individuals.

For the first time ever, we participated in the NFL Draft in Pittsburgh to work with student athletes and others about the legal right to their name, image, and likeness. And like I said, filings are up 11%.

This is a huge and growing area of IP protection, and we want to make sure people are aware of their potential.

Of course, challenges remain. For example, earlier this year, a federal court of appeals held that trademarks lack the full set of constitutional protections afforded physical property rights because trademarks are “intangible property.”

That case involves a trademark registered by the USPTO years ago in the name “Roberto Clemente,” one of Puerto Rico’s favorite sons who was a hall of fame baseball player and humanitarian who died in a plane crash bringing aid to earthquake victims in Nicaragua. I remember vividly when his plane went down.

The case is now on appeal at the Supreme Court, and it is certainly a matter of substantial interest to many people in my office, for we think not only that the intangible property rights issued by our office are deserving of full constitutional protections as property, but also that such rights are essential to a modern, 21st-century economy. Just ask the S&P 500.

Beyond personal branding such as the one memorializing Roberto Clemente, the legal protections afforded by IP laws do much more. They enable our nation’s gifted writers, musicians, and artists to break into regional and national markets, and for those who are truly gifted to reach much broader audiences around the globe.