As 2024 comes to a close, we’re taking the time to look back and analyze some of the biggest developments in tech policy. The following represents the technology and innovation team’s year in review.
The remarkable advancement of AI over the past year has catalyzed unprecedented innovation and strategic planning that will change the skills and technology needed in every sector of the economy. From transforming manufacturing processes and healthcare delivery to revolutionizing financial services and agricultural productivity, AI is the game changer for our future.
American companies have led the AI revolution, driving breakthroughs that promise to dramatically boost economic productivity and maintain US technological leadership. 2024 marked an unprecedented leap in AI innovation, with groundbreaking advancements like OpenAI o1’s advanced reasoning, ChatGPT 4.0’s advanced voice and vision capabilities, Google Gemini 2.0’s multimodal reasoning across text, audio, and video, Anthropic’s Claude 3’s artifacts, and Google Med-Gemini’s state-of-the-art clinical reasoning and diagnostics.
In the policy arena, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s veto of California’s SB 1047 marked a shift towards more rational and pragmatic conversations about AI safety that acknowledge the importance of mitigating risks while also recognizing and leveraging AI’s transformative benefits. Additionally, the House Bipartisan Task Force report on Artificial Intelligence and the Senate Bipartisan AI Roadmap outline several promising and actionable policy pathways that could lead to sustainable policies. Meanwhile, the European Union’s AI Act, initiated in April 2021, finally came into force in August. Europe can indeed claim to be the leader in AI regulation but has been less successful in spreading its agenda globally.
The same was not true for Big Tech regulation, where the Biden administration echoed Europe’s heavy-handed oversight, even gaining bipartisan support from some Republicans. Google has become a key target, with break-up efforts reflecting the flawed belief that regulators can engineer creative destruction. In reality, only consumers can drive such change, as evidenced by the growing appeal of AI-powered search alternatives. Forced divestitures would artificially fragment the digital ecosystem, reduce consumer welfare, and increase costs without enhancing competition.
Antitrust enforcement has also become a political battleground, fueled by populist dissatisfaction. This approach represents a failed paradigm that seeks to turn dynamic tech companies into slow-moving utilities—appropriate for water and electricity but ill-suited for information technologies. Such policies risk transforming the US from a technology leader to a consumer of innovations created elsewhere.
In 2024, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube couldn’t shake off the addiction-based claims pending in coordinated lawsuits and multi-district litigation in courts in California. The cases allege that the platforms are designed with features that maximize minors’ attention and cause them myriad harms. Although some legal theories were dismissed, the cases will continue in 2025. The plaintiffs—minors, parents, school districts, local governments, and attorneys general from more than 30 states—seek the kind of massive settlements previously agreed to by tobacco companies.
The year’s highlight for NetChoice was convincing a six-justice majority of the US Supreme Court in Moody v. NetChoice to recognize that Facebook’s News Feed and YouTube’s homepage are “expressive products” derived from “the kind of editorial judgments this Court has previously held to receive First Amendment protection.” Yet, the Court in Moody didn’t rule on how content-moderation laws in Florida and Texas might raise constitutional problems as they apply to platforms and features other than such “paradigmatic” and “heartland” ones. The Court sent Moody and the companion case of NetChoice v. Paxton back to the lower courts to address those matters.
Meanwhile, Australia enacted E-Safety laws addressing similar social media concerns. Though a small country’s attempts to bind international providers to Australian-specific rules continue to expose limitations, the practicality of its proposed solutions is also questionable, like imposing age restrictions on social media account holders.
In other judicial branch developments, the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision was a pivotal event for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other federal agencies. Repealing Chevron this past summer, the Court reclaimed the judiciary’s power to “say what the law is” and restored Congress’s role as a lawmaker. For four decades, the Chevron doctrine required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Among the first ripples of this monumental decision are the FCC’s net neutrality and digital discrimination rules, whose legality was insulated by Chevron but which faced significant judicial skepticism in the post-Chevron era.
The Biden Administration’s efforts to regulate broadband likely exceeded statutory authority in the resurrection of net neutrality and the micromanagement of states and private broadband providers under NTIA’s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment effort. This approach caused delays, higher costs, and reduced rollout efficiency. Key errors included a “fiber-first” policy that dismissed technological alternatives including LEO satellites, slow approval of state plans and broadband maps, and efforts to impose price controls. Moreover, social and climate agendas were inappropriately embedded into broadband policy.
