An imposing building with two doors and a red brick background, newspaper cuttings of job listings are also collaged into the background. One door is at ground level where a businessman is carrying a large box labelled AI as he is about to enter the building. The second door is high above ground with no apparent means of entry. There is a large flashing neon sign which reads Entry Level above the door. Three young people are below looking up at the door.

Assigning Responsibility When AI Discriminates Against Job Applicants

OMB Director Russell Vought is seen after testifying during the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government hearing on oversight of the Office of Management and Budget, in Rayburn building on Tuesday, June 30, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images)

The Public Rejects OMB's Federal Financial Assistance Rule

A group of shareholders of Samsung Electronics Co. hold a rally criticizing a tentative wage agreement struck between the company and its labor union near the home of Samsung Electronics Chairman Lee Jae-yong in Seoul, South Korea, Thursday, May 21, 2026. The letters read "Unjustified transfer strike." (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

Workers in Asia Are Fighting for Protections as AI Threatens Jobs

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, June 17, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

Senator Warner Makes a First Foray into Agentic AI Regulation

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, center, poses with co-chairs of the Special Panel Maria Melchior, right, and Jörg M. Fegert during a report on children's safety online at EU headquarters in Brussels, Monday, July 13, 2026. (AP Photo/Marius Burgelman)

Europe Wants Platforms to Prove They Are Safe for Children

VivaTech returns to the Porte de Versailles Exhibition Centre for its 10th edition in Paris, France, on June 19, 2026. VivaTech organizes Europe's largest event dedicated to start-ups and technology. (Photo by Telmo Pinto/NurPhoto via AP)

Is Europe Getting AI Wrong?

Illustrations of six data workers, working at computers in isolation from each other. Painted background includes hazy image of cubicles; digital overlay of glass fractures.

Labor Power and the Role of Subcontracting in the AI Economy 

Ambiance at the Global Dialogue on AI Governance, Palexpo, Geneva, Switzerland - 07 July 2026.

Global Dialogue on AI Governance Dialogue on AI Governance

Can the United Nations Bring the World Together on AI?

Illustration of two black-and-white halftone hands reaching toward a stylized street map, with a large red location pin marking a spot on the map.

Breaking Down the Implications of the Landmark Chatrie Ruling

United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres speaks about the release of a UN report on artificial intelligence during a news conference at UN headquarters, Wednesday, July 1, 2026. (AP Photo/Jason DeCrow)

Why Fear Matters in Governing Military AI

The image is a conceptual illustration of data analysis. It features a graph with nodes connected by lines on a sheet of paper, held by a hand. Another hand holds a magnifying glass that enlarges a section of the graph. The background includes abstract shapes in yellow and blue, adding a playful, creative element. The composition suggests careful scrutiny or examination of trends or data points.

To Curb Online Harm to Children, Tax Amplification

A police officer checks the list of a polling station during the parliamentary elections in capital Nicosia, Cyprus, Sunday, May 24, 2026. (AP Photo/Petros Karadjias)

EU Political Ad Rules Leave Elections Open to Foreign Manipulation

Palestinians carry food boxes delivered by the World Food Programme (WFP) in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, Sunday, Nov. 2, 2025. (AP Photo/Jehad Alshrafi)

Uncovering the Humanitarian and Nonprofit Sector's AI Governance Crisis

This image depicts clusters of various mushrooms growing on a network of surveillance cameras against a dark green textured background.

India is Building Surveillance Infrastructure on Broken Data and Bad Policing

Image of map and computer language over binary codes on server racks in server room.

Global Digital Policy Roundup: June 2026

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen speaks during the Defence Industry Forum at the 36th NATO (OTAN) Heads of State and Government Summit in Ankara, Turkiye on July 7, 2026. (Photo by Alexis Jumeau/Sipa via AP Images)

EU Child Safety Panel Tests Von der Leyen's Ban Resolve

In this image taken from video provided by Russian Presidential Press Service on Friday, July 3, 2026. Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks while visiting one of the command posts of the Joint Group of the Russian Forces, in an undisclosed location. (Russian Presidential Press Service via AP)

Why Europe’s Safeguards Against AI Disinformation Won’t Stop Russia’s Next Move

Synthetic or slop? by Marcin Wilkowski / Better Images of AI / CC by 4.0

Synthetic or slop? by Marcin Wilkowski / 

The Next National Security Challenge Is Research Integrity

The United Nations headquarters in New York. Shutterstock

The United Nations headquarters in New York. 

The UN Scientific Panel on AI's Preliminary Report Does Not Establish Its Independence

The Tower of Babel by Lucas van Valckenborch, 1595. Wikimedia Commons

The Tower of Babel by Lucas van Valckenborch, 1595. 

The Pope Found Babel in AI. Here's What Rabbis Saw

Ellen P. Goodman is a professor at Rutgers Law School and co-director of the Rutgers Institute for Information Policy & Law.

If recommendation algorithms gave online platforms the ability to control what people see online, agentic AI offers them an opportunity to control what people do. To this pessimistic vision, we can add a sunnier one. Truly independent AI agents may provide a computational counterweight to platform domination by empowering users. Agents working on their behalf can help people bypass 

 at scale. To try to move us towards that more pleasant future, Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) released a discussion draft on June 29 of the 

, (“Artificial Intelligence Access, Gatekeeper Exchange, and Nondiscriminatory Transfer Act of 2026”).

, they “perceive context, set and update goals, plan, and take action through tools or environments.” The AI AGENT Act is the first draft federal law to deal with agentic AI power. The Act is structured as an e-commerce consumer protection intervention, run through the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). It seeks greater competition and consumer choice in the market for AI agents, while also prohibiting large digital platforms from deploying double agents: AI user assistants that actually work for the platform’s benefit at the user’s expense.

Under the Act, for example, an Amazon consumer would be able to designate her own agent on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms to manage purchases on the platform. If instead the consumer chose to use Alexa, Amazon would have to ensure that Alexa acted in the consumer’s interests, not Amazon’s. The Act recognizes that for this to work,

agents would bear legally cognizable fiduciary duties to consumers;

a consumer’s particular interests would have to be legible to agents;

agentic behavior would have to be legible to consumers; and

agentic interactions with the platforms and consumers would have to protect privacy and security.

These prerequisites are not yet in place, which is probably why this is a discussion draft.

The Act’s provisions concerning agentic access to large platforms essentially enact portability and interoperability requirements for AI agents. The Act would require large online platforms (those with at least 50 million US customers or subscribers) to maintain an “interoperable interface” as a portal for independent agents. Using this portal, consumers would have the right to designate and deploy “custodial user agents” (CUAs) of their choice for use in online interactions, rather than being forced to use the platform’s designate. CUAs are defined as “a software-based agent that is expressly authorized by a user to interact with a large online platform provider on that user’s behalf in a transparent, documented, scope-limited, and revocable manner.” Interactions might include shopping, selecting content and managing engagement, or adjusting account settings.

One of the regulatory progenitors to the Act is 

. When users can port their data from one platform to another, they are less likely to be locked-in to a particular platform and can make a switch, notwithstanding the existence of network effects. Further back in the portability lineage is the concept of number portability for mobile phone users. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 required that wireline phone carriers enable customers to port their phone numbers to competing providers, which the FCC subsequently extended to mobile carriers, thus spurring mobile competition. 

 takes data exchange a little further by enabling one service, often through an open interface, to interoperate with another. The regulatory precedent here is the Federal Communication Commission’s 1968 

, ruling that monopoly landline telephone companies had to let users attach “interconnecting devices” (like telephones) to the public switched network. These historic interventions made possible consumer choice and competition in telecommunications markets and spurred innovation in ancillary markets (including ultimately the internet).

Senator Warner has tried before to apply portability and interoperability principles to concentrated digital markets. In 2019, he introduced the 

 to require large social media platforms to let users port their data to competing services and run independent services atop their social media feeds (for example, alternative algorithms). At the time, commentators promoted platform access for reasons that went beyond competition and consumer choice. People were waking up to how oligopolistic digital platforms could control communications and politics. One possible response was to regulate how big tech moderated content. This approach hit an iceberg in the case of 

 (2024), which strongly signaled that private platforms are entitled to First Amendment protection for their choices in moderating content. An alternative approach was content-neutral structural regulation to support users who wanted to exercise autonomy over their own social media feeds.

” argued for open protocols that let users control online content experience, perhaps by using third-party filters. This would let them shape their own exposure without aggrandizing platform power or impinging on the free speech of others. “Rather than relying on a few giant platforms to police speech online, there could be widespread competition, in which anyone could design their own interfaces, filters, and additional services, allowing whichever ones work best to succeed, without having to resort to outright censorship for certain voices.” A few years later, the scholar Francis Fukuyama made a similar proposal in “

,” suggesting that “middleware” sitting between a platform and the user could empower users to control their own speech environments.

Congress never did adopt these proposals, nor any other digital platform regulation, so here we are today with the prospect of concentrated digital platforms deploying agentic AI in ways that further shape user experiences and possibly subvert user preferences. In a recent 

, Mark Bartholemew and Samuel Becher predict that “shopping agents … will increasingly govern how markets work and what shoppers choose. Once an AI tool decides what products to show, which sellers to prioritize, and when to execute a purchase, it becomes a form of market infrastructure”, which they say constitutes “a new form of corporate power.”

In requiring large platforms to facilitate the interoperability of independent CUAs, the Act treads the path of the 

. The DMA requires digital “gatekeepers” to provide necessary access to support interoperability. It defines the desired end state as “the ability to exchange information and mutually use the information which has been exchanged through interfaces or other solutions, so that all elements of hardware or software work with other hardware and software and with users in all the ways in which they are intended to function.” If this is the path, it will be a rocky one as it has proven difficult to enforce the DMA’s interoperability provisions in such cases as Meta’s and Apple’s.

The AI AGENT Act takes a belt and suspenders approach to user empowerment. It’s not enough that users can bring their own agents to the platform. The other main part of the Act requires that CUAs, including those deployed by platforms, faithfully serve users. This fidelity component also has an antecedent in the land of never-adopted US platform regulatory proposals. It is the idea of the information fiduciary. Scholars Jack Balkin and Jonathan Zittrain 

 that digital platforms serve their customers under constraints similar to those burdening doctors and lawyers: an obligation to keep data private and secure, and to act in the best interests of those they serve. They used Google’s behavioral advertising to exemplify the unfaithful abuse of data. Rather, these platforms should not “leverage personal data to unfairly discriminate against or abuse the trust of end users…[and] not sell or distribute consumer information except to those who agreed to similar rules.”

An AI agent acting against the interest of a user can do more harm than a Google ad. The Act’s solution to this problem is to require that CUAs be faithful to user interests. Providers of CUAs (platforms and other providers) would have to register their CUAs with the FTC before they can act as a user’s representative. The affirmative duties of CUAs would include:

safeguarding user data privacy (including usage limitations) and security;

maintaining real-time records of actions they take on the user’s behalf and making those records available to the user;

not acting to benefit the CUA at the user’s expense, in ways that cause reasonably foreseeable harm to the user, or inconsistently with the user’s directions or reasonable expectations;

not delegating authority to another agent without express and revocable permission.

The Act envisions that the FTC would offload a certification function to recognized independent certification entities. Certification of compliance with the CUA affirmative duties would constitute a rebuttable presumption in favor of the CUA in any action against the provider.

It needs to be said that keeping CUAs faithful, and verifying that they have not strayed, poses a very hard technical problem. It’s not clear that even the most agreeable providers can entirely control agentic behavior. Depending on the complexity of the agentic system, 

 reports that agents may act “over an extended period of time, without their behavior having been specified in advance.” This operation creates many points for deviation from user interests, as the agent may or may not perceive them. The 

 that failure at any point “can unpredictably shift the agent’s course, with errors compounding as the process unfolds.” Errors may arise from bad data or tool selection, a bad plan, or bad coordination, and they may be very hard to detect.

Releasing the Act as a discussion draft is a tacit acknowledgement that we do not have the technical capabilities to govern agents as specified.

The proposal requires the development of new technical standards for agentic operation and verification: reliable records of what an agent did and why; a kill-switch to allow a user to revoke consent from an agent; and security and privacy controls better than the state of the art. Focusing just on the records part, it seems reasonable to demand records of agentic goals and execution processes. Such a trail might reveal that the agent had gone rogue or was actually a double-agent working for the platform or a third party against the user’s interests. But it turns out that this kind of 

” explanation is not available now. Moreover, in 

 where agents interact with each other, “undesirable outcomes cannot be traced back to responsible agents.”

The prematurity of the legal requirements is not fatal if the institutional capacity is there to force technological progress. As Georgetown Center for Security and Emerging Technology executive director 

 to Congress in 2024 (in a different position), there are many enabling steps Congress can take to push the development of auditing science and standards. I was lead author of the 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration AI Accountability Policy Report

 published the same year that detailed government forcing functions and supports to foster an independent auditing ecosystem.

To the questions about how we can gauge agentic behavior, we can add questions about how the agent can gauge the user’s interests. Acting in the user’s interests is at the core of the agent’s fiduciary obligations. In his work on the application of agency law to AI agents, scholar 

 explores how an agent’s “fiduciary duty to act loyally for the principal’s benefit in all matters connected with the agency relationship” might work in the agentic AI context. He finds that it’s not at all straightforward and would require specific “mechanisms … to be integrated into both the design of AI agents and the regulatory frameworks that govern them.”

Perhaps one of those mechanisms should deal with how consumers express preferences to their agents. Consumers make choices reflecting multivalent and sometimes conflicting considerations of function (e.g., price and quality), social value (e.g., status and conformity), and emotional value (e.g., ethics and aesthetics). Maybe these can be specified clearly to an agent, but maybe the agent must infer them dynamically. It may be that an agent’s plausible, but mistaken, inference will be difficult to untangle from self-preferencing.

The FTC is tasked with registering CUAs and enforcing the Act under its authority over unfair or deceptive acts or practices. After the Supreme Court’s decision in 

 (2026), which upheld the President’s authority to fire independent agency commissioners, implementation of consumer protection has to reckon with a more politicized and less independent FTC. Some of the Act’s provisions may assume too much independence, especially the registration requirement.

The Act does not accept Masnick’s and Fukuyama’s invitation to view platform power as a threat to free speech and democracy. Because it is focused on commerce only, its more limited remit has the advantage of keeping the most serious First Amendment arguments at bay. But it also leaves platforms free to self-preference outside of trade practices, such as in the promotion of certain communications. This is not to say that commercial agentic AI regulations have nothing to do with larger speech issues. Piloting rules to secure agentic AI power for the people might have beneficial effects in discourse even if the regulations don’t reach there. By accelerating standard setting and interoperability interfaces, the Act could promote an ecosystem that makes it easier for users to deploy agents in noncommercial contexts as well as for commerce.

The deeper questions about delegation to agents

As a consumer protection bill, the Act seeks to protect consumer sovereignty. This is already extremely ambitious. What it doesn’t touch is the harm that comes from ceding cognitive work to an agent. It’s interesting to think about those harms even in the narrower confines of commerce. Bartholomew and Becher observe how even shopping requires, and can build, cognitive capacity in balancing conflicting values (price, ethics, quality, etc) and shaping and reforming preferences. “A shopping agent trained on a consumer’s past shopping behavior risks becoming a machine for freezing the self, ossifying consumer identity into an algorithmic profile. It also compresses anticipation into an instant notification, while narrowing exposure to the unexpected.”

This cognitive offloading and flattening will happen even with the most faithful and interoperable agent. This is not a criticism of the discussion draft, just an observation that commercial regulation cannot address the deeper questions swirling around AI: what human capacities should persist and be nurtured, and through what mechanisms?

The European Commission's child safety push is no longer just about keeping children off social media. 

 from an expert panel delivered Monday to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sets out a broader framework that would require platforms to prove their services are safe before making them available to children.

 of the Commission's Special Panel on Child Safety Online will form the basis of legislation the Commission plans to propose after the summer. The report arrives days after the Commission issued 

 that Meta's Facebook and Instagram breached the Digital Services Act (DSA) through addictive design features.

"The status quo — a world where we continue to allow Big Tech unrestricted access to our children — will only consign another generation to more mental harm, addiction and misery," von der Leyen 

"Social media is not a toy," she said. "While ultimately it is up to parents to decide when children get their first smartphones, what we already have is a consensus that there needs to be a start date for the age at which children can join social media."

The report was co-authored by Prof. Jörg Fegert of Ulm University Hospital and Dr. Maria Melchior of France's national health research institute INSERM, drawing on 

 held between March and June, with input from academics, national governments, civil society organizations and international bodies, including the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the European Data Protection Board.

The panel's recommendations apply not only to conventional social media but to what the report terms "social media plus" — any digital service with age-inappropriate or addictive features. The proposed framework would cover gaming platforms, messaging services and AI companions alongside established platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat.

The report argues that a narrow approach limited to conventional social media would push children toward less-regulated services. It also flags generative AI as a distinct risk, noting that conversational systems can simulate authority, empathy and companionship in ways that may lead children to place unwarranted trust in automated systems.

The report's central recommendation is an EU-wide restriction on access to social media and other digital services for children under 13, with limited exceptions for parental supervision or education. Individual EU member states could set higher age thresholds.

Von der Leyen made clear the Commission is not proposing a blanket ban. "This is not about whether children can access social media," she said. "It is about whether and when social media can access our children." She added: "We need to consider a phased and gradual access for different age ranges."

EU governments move on their own timelines

, and as the limits of national action are becoming apparent. Last week the 

 that its proposed under-15 social media ban conflicts with EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), because requiring platforms to enforce age limits is a matter of EU jurisdiction, not national competence. France must revise the law before Aug. 10. Denmark, Greece, Germany, Spain, Austria and Sweden face the same constraint as they 

 has called for a higher EU-wide minimum age of 16. The panel warns that diverging national standards risk fragmenting the EU's digital single market, creating uneven protections for children and higher compliance costs for platforms. It recommends a harmonized EU-wide floor at 13, with member states free to set higher precautionary thresholds above that age.

Safety-by-design and platform responsibility

The report's most significant proposal is a reversal of the burden of proof. Currently, European regulators must demonstrate that a platform is causing harm. Under the panel's recommendations, platforms would have to demonstrate their services are safe for children before accessing them. Adult features would remain disabled until effective age verification is in place.

"The burden of proof needs to be on providers, not regulators, parents and children," the report states. "Until they demonstrate that their services are safe by design, social media and other digital services providers should have restricted access to children under the age of 13 in the EU."

To back that up, the panel calls for binding rules — currently only guidelines — requiring platforms to remove or disable specific harmful design features by default, including infinite scrolling, autoplay, push notifications and personalized recommendation systems tuned for maximum engagement.

The report calls for harmonized and adaptable safety-by-design rules covering infinite scrolling, autoplay, push notifications and problematic personalized recommendation systems, with protective settings on by default. Any rules should be adaptable so regulators can address new harmful design features without requiring entirely new legislation.

On age assurance, the panel recommends against processing identity documents or biometric data for age estimation. Instead it specifically recommends zero-knowledge proof standards, which would allow users to confirm they meet a minimum age requirement without disclosing identity or personal data to platforms or third-party verification providers.

Von der Leyen pointed to the Commission's 

 as "one of the tools to get it done — easy to use, privacy preserving, and open source." The report says the technology could be integrated into the EU Digital Identity Wallet, with oversight by the European Board for Digital Services through common benchmarks, mandatory audits and harmonized enforcement.

The panel also recommends converting the Commission's 

existing non-binding guidelines on minors under Article 28

 of the DSA into a binding code of conduct, and proposes a pre-certification regime requiring services likely to be accessed by children to demonstrate compliance before entering the market.

The report recommends a developmental approach to children's digital access more broadly, with children younger than 3 having no screen exposure, and older children introduced to digital services gradually with supervision from parents, caregivers or teachers.

Von der Leyen drew an explicit comparison between digital platforms and manufacturers in other regulated industries. "In Europe, whoever develops a product is responsible for its safety," she said. "Car manufacturers must make their vehicles safe. We do not expect children to design their own seatbelts. We do not expect parents to fit airbags at home. And the very same must be true for big tech."

 against Meta last week put flesh on those principles. The Commission issued 

 that Meta had failed to adequately assess the risks of Facebook and Instagram's addictive design — the second such finding against a major platform after 

"We have already taken strong action — against TikTok's addictive design, and just last week against Meta," von der Leyen said. "Because the rule in Europe is safety-by-design."

Ahead of Monday's report, a coalition of more than 170 child rights organizations — including Save the Children, Plan International, Eurochild and the 5Rights Foundation — 

 urging the Commission to avoid a blanket age-based ban and instead require safety-by-design across all services accessible to children. "It would leave children unprotected in other equally problematic online spaces and encourage their migration to unregulated services," the coalition wrote.

Leanda Barrington-Leach, executive director of the 5Rights Foundation, which participated in all three panel sessions, said the report marked a genuine shift. "The conversation has clearly moved from asking children and parents to manage risk to requiring that platforms are safe and age-appropriate before they can access children," she said. "This is a shift in the burden of proof and a win for children's rights."

Jessica Galissaire, senior policy researcher at Interface Europe, argued the report should go further. Safety-by-design requirements should apply to all users, not just children, she said — otherwise platforms have little commercial incentive to actually redesign their products. She also flagged an internal contradiction: the report leaves open the possibility of member states imposing additional restrictions for 13- to 18-year-olds, which sits uneasily with the Commission's position on France. "I hope the Commission will maintain its clear and consistent position on this issue when we see their proposal," she told Tech Policy Press.

Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, chief executive of HateAid, said an age limit alone would not be enough. "Platform operators know exactly what they're doing," she said. "Their business models are based on maximizing attention — through manipulation, addictive mechanisms, and the exploitation of security vulnerabilities."

European parent movements, including Kids Unplugged Belgium and Spain's Adolescencia Libre de Móviles, called for a higher threshold than the panel recommends, arguing that platforms should not have access to children under 16 until they are independently proven safe. "If toys, medicines or food caused comparable harm, they would be withdrawn from the market immediately until they were made safe," said Lies Craeynest, founder of Kids Unplugged Belgium in a statement shared with Tech Policy Press. "Social media should meet the same standard."

John Livingstone, head of digital policy at UNICEF Australia, cautioned against treating age restrictions as a solution in themselves. "Age restrictions are an important part of how we tackle this challenge," he told Tech Policy Press. "But even the Australian government has acknowledged that this won't solve all the challenges of the online world for young people."

UNICEF Australia's data from thousands of young people 

 from Australia's ban: some removed from platforms report being glad for it, others feel they lost something important, and for most, little has changed. The ban is too early to assess, Livingstone said.

The panel report itself cites Australia as a key reference case, noting that its social media ban has produced mixed results — some young people report benefits, others say they lost something important, and for most little has changed.

, lawmakers pressed Commission officials on why existing EU rules protecting children online are not being enforced more vigorously. Italian MEP Brando Benifei said enforcement had been "far too slow."

The panel urges the Commission to move quickly on child sexual abuse material legislation. The temporary rules that allowed platforms to voluntarily scan messages for child sexual abuse material expired in April and were 

 when Parliament failed to reach the supermajority needed to block the Council's move — even though more MEPs voted against than for. The reinstated rules, known as Chat Control 1.0, apply only to unencrypted services and run until 2028. A permanent regulation requiring platforms to scan for CSAM — Chat Control 2.0 — remains deadlocked after five rounds of negotiations, with talks resuming in September. The central dispute is whether scanning can be extended to end-to-end encrypted communications. More than 80% of child sexual abuse investigations begin with reports from platforms, the panel notes, making the legal uncertainty a direct problem for investigators.

The Commission is expected to present legislation after the summer. EU consumer protection commissioner Michael McGrath 

 the new law would "recognise children as vulnerable consumers" and that minors "must be protected by design."

Any proposal will require approval from EU governments and the European Parliament, where debate is likely to focus on the minimum age threshold, the scope of services covered, the design of age verification systems and the extent of platforms' obligations to build products safe for children by default.

"This report comes during a unique window of opportunity," von der Leyen said. "We have heard from parents, educators, experts and young people themselves. Now we need action at European level."

 last month as workers demand job protections against the South Korean carmaker’s plans to deploy humanoid robots on factory floors.

“Not a single robot” will be allowed onto the assembly floor without a labor-management agreement, the union 

The dispute reflects a broader struggle unfolding across Asia as artificial intelligence reshapes workplaces and raises questions over who should benefit from productivity gains. In South Korea, unions at technology companies that have benefited from the AI boom are demanding larger bonuses and a greater share of corporate profits.

Major semiconductor companies, including SK Hynix and 

, have already agreed to record-high payouts, with some memory chip workers expected to receive bonuses up to $416,000.

But the debate extends beyond compensation. The 

 have called on companies benefiting from AI-driven profits to share gains not only with their own employees but also with workers in different departments, suppliers and subcontractors. Samsung union’s own win has 

. Those in less lucrative sections received much smaller bonuses and, in protest, left the union in droves.

Across Asia — from South Korea to Singapore, China and the Philippines — workers and governments are taking steps to respond to AI’s impact on employment. The approaches vary widely depending on each country’s political system, labor institutions and stage of AI adoption.

 dismissed after employers considered replacing them with AI. In Singapore, 

 laid-off workers access retraining programs. In the Philippines, where business process outsourcing (BPO) workers largely lack a union, workers are 

“Before, it could be predictable. Maybe 10 years later, we still have this job. But (now) we cannot expect our existing job to really exist in the next two or three years,” Kan Matsuzaki, assistant general secretary at global union IndustriALL, told Tech Policy Press. "This is why I think the government, the employer, and the union should have a proper social dialogue.”

“This is a question about democracy and also freedom of association,” he added.

 for an AI transition that is just to workers, which cover transparency in algorithmic management and data privacy; developing quality jobs and re-skilling programs, occupational health and safety, progressive AI taxation, as well as rights to organizing and collective bargaining.

“Whether it's AI-based or not, US employers have always enjoyed a great deal of freedom in firing workers,” Kim Keechang, a scholar at the Korea University School of Law, told Tech Policy Press. “So this discussion only makes sense in countries where employees have traditionally enjoyed a very strong legal and institutional protection of job security.”

AI profits are fueling a new labor fight in South Korea

South Korea’s current labor push reflects a broader shift in the country’s balance of power between companies and workers. The country’s strong unions, a pro-labor government and legal changes that require companies to negotiate with workers have created conditions that are unusual compared with many other economies. But that influence was not always guaranteed.

For years, South Korean unions were actually losing leverage as companies challenged union leaders through lawsuits and courts increasingly favored employers, said Kim. Some union leaders faced financial ruin, and some 

 under the pressure. At the same time, companies increasingly relied on subcontractors to avoid some of the obligations associated with South Korea’s strict labor protections, which make dismissing permanent employees difficult.

The balance began to shift in 2025, when South Koreans elected the center-left Democratic Party of Korea and President Lee Jae-myung, who worked in a factory as a teenager before entering politics. A major labor reform was the passage of the so-called 

, which took effect in March. The law expands collective bargaining rights for subcontracted workers and limits companies’ ability to pursue large damages claims against unions. It was named after the yellow envelopes supporters used to send donations to union members facing legal costs.

The law’s implementation quickly changed the labor landscape. On the day it took effect, some 

 sought wage negotiations with management.

Around the same time, Samsung workers pushed for a larger share of the company’s gains from the global AI boom, which has driven demand for memory chips. Samsung unions 

threatened an 18-day strike by 48,000 workers

 if the company didn’t agree to share higher bonuses. The negotiations, which lasted through the night, were mediated by the labor minister Kim Younghoon, a 

, who Kim believes contributed to the workers’ massive win.

The agreement strengthened unions’ confidence across South Korea, but their demands now extend beyond pay. “As they insist that the introduction of an AI-based solution would require employees' consent,” Kim said, unions are increasingly seeking influence over how companies deploy new technologies in the workplace.

That demand puts South Korea at the center of a growing global debate over AI governance: whether workers should have a formal role in decisions about automation, algorithmic management and workplace surveillance. The country’s approach also highlights a fundamental difference between labor systems. In places where workers already have strong legal protections and collective bargaining rights, the debate often centers on how AI gains should be shared. In countries with weaker labor institutions, the focus is more often on preventing job losses and creating new protections.

Singapore bets on adaptation as workers face AI disruption

South Korea’s approach is difficult to replicate elsewhere in Asia. The region’s governments and labor movements are responding to AI disruption through very different political and economic systems.

In Singapore, where many global tech companies’ Asia headquarters are based, the scale of layoffs remains small compared to the overall economy. But the country is already preparing for what policymakers see as inevitable.

“The general approach in Singapore by all parties is to accept that AI is likely to significantly change work and the labor market, and that it's necessary to adapt and take advantage of the changes rather than resist them,” Walter Edgar Theseira, associate professor at Singapore University of Social Sciences, told Tech Policy Press.

Unlike in South Korea, where policymakers have debated whether companies benefiting from AI should share more of their gains with workers, the Singaporean government would be “reluctant” to impose something similar if it risked discouraging investments or business transformation. “What the government doesn't want is a situation where firms leave Singapore,” he added.

Still, recent layoffs at major technology companies have increased anxiety among workers, particularly those in white-collar roles. 

 — which owns Southeast Asia’s biggest e-commerce Shopee — and rival 

 have all announced job cuts in recent months.

“The changes we are implementing vary by team and include layoffs, open role closures, and moving thousands of employees to business-critical priorities across the company,” a Meta spokesperson told Tech Policy Press. Sea and Lazada did not respond to requests for comment.

The layoffs have prompted new community efforts to support affected workers. SG60 Voices from the Heart, an informal community that organizes sharing events in Singapore, created two separate gatherings focused on retrenchment, with a third planned for July.

 drew 50 participants aged 35-45 from different industries, including a government official who was keen to better understand the situation on the ground, Sebastian Chen, SG60 Voices from the Heart co-founder, told Tech Policy Press.

“It's like an informal mental health group or collective,” Chen said. Chen said one noticeable shift was that layoffs were no longer limited to employees perceived as underperforming. Capable workers, including human resources professionals, were also being affected, creating uncertainty among people who still had jobs. While AI is one factor contributing to these changes, Chen said many workers view it as only part of a broader restructuring trend.

“Actually, the sentiment is that AI is just an excuse,” he said.

The anxiety among Singaporean workers contrasts with the more confrontational labor response in South Korea. “Generally, all parties accept that resisting changes that would result in a reduction of competitiveness for the economy and workers here is self-defeating," Theseira said.

Instead, the focus in Singapore from a policy perspective is to view “it as an economic transformation challenge” through solutions like investments in lifelong learning via the SkillsFuture program, under which AI courses have seen recent spikes in enrollment, mid-career support programs, career conversion pathways, and workforce transformation initiatives, according to Ives Tay, Independent Skills & Workforce Consultant in Singapore.

“At the same time, tripartite collaboration between government, employers, and unions has helped create a relatively coordinated response to technological disruption,” Tay told Tech Policy Press.

Singapore’s unions continue to support laid-off members by ensuring retrenchment benefits align with collective agreements negotiated with employers. But union membership has traditionally been concentrated among blue-collar workers. Technology companies such as Meta and Sea do not have unions, though interest among white-collar workers 

 as layoffs have become more common. The National Trades Union Congress has begun outreach efforts targeting these workers, including helping some nonmembers negotiate retrenchment benefits.

But skills training and severance pay only go so far. “We need stronger links between skills acquisition, job redesign, and wage growth,” Tay said. “Small and medium-sized enterprises often lack the resources to redesign jobs around AI.”

The employment data in Singapore, however, is not telling the whole story. “Companies have incentives and policy regulations that require them to favor local employment, so the impact of AI restructuring is likely to show up first in reductions or moderations of foreign employment,” Theseira said. Besides, there’s been a rise “in the use of AI to replace certain outsourced business services, such as software development and maintenance done outside of Singapore.”

Philippine BPO workers face AI disruption without strong unions

The challenges facing workers in Singapore are amplified in the Philippines, where millions of workers depend on the business process outsourcing (BPO) industry and many lack the collective bargaining protections available in countries such as South Korea. Quality analysts, workers who evaluate the quality of customer support calls, “are the first line of BPO workers' jobs to be affected by AI integration,” Renso Bajala, Secretary General of BIEN (BPO Industry Employees Network), told Tech Policy Press. The BPO industry does not currently have a union, and terminated workers have no benefits.

, a campaign to raise awareness about the threats of AI integration. One of the campaign’s key messages is that workers should not bear the entire responsibility for adapting to AI.

“Upskilling should not be a burden for the Filipino workers, so it should be the responsibility of the stakeholders such as the company and the Philippine government,” Bajala said.

For Matsuzaki of IndustriALL, the disruption facing tech workers is part of a longer history. Blue-collar workers have experienced similar pressures from automation, globalization and supply chain shifts for decades.

Latest

Podcast

Recent

Our content delivered to your inbox

Thank you!

Around the globe