Comparing an Apple and an Orange: A Look at the Diverging Approaches to AI Privacy Between the US and EU

As the world becomes increasingly digitized, the need for online privacy becomes more pressing. This is especially true when it comes to artificial intelligence (AI). AI can be used to track and record a vast amount of personal data, and it can be very difficult to delete this data once it has been collected.

The United States and the European Union have taken very different approaches to AI privacy. The United States has taken a laissez faire approach, allowing companies to collect and store data without any restrictions. The European Union, on the other hand, has taken a more restrictive approach, limiting the amount of data that companies can collect and requiring that they delete any data that is no longer needed.

The divergence between these two approaches is evident in the way that they have reacted to recent privacy scandals. The United States has largely dismissed these scandals as no big deal, while the European Union has responded by tightening its regulations.

So, which approach is better? This is a difficult question to answer, as both approaches have their pros and cons. However, it is clear that the divergence between these two approaches will have a significant impact on the future of online privacy.

Introduction of Artificial Intelligence and Online Privacy

You have likely heard of both Apple and Orange, two of the largest and most influential companies in the world.

Apple is an American company, while Orange is a French company. They both deal in telecommunications and, more recently, artificial intelligence. However, they have taken very different approaches to online privacy.

Apple has been very protective of its users’ data, whereas Orange has been far more willing to share it with third-party companies. This difference was highlighted earlier this year when the European Union fined Orange for violating its data protection laws.

Overview of the US Approach

While the US approach is more laissez-faire, the EU’s is much more restrictive.

The US approach to AI privacy is based on the belief that people should be able to share as much information as they want without government interference. This is embodied in the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

The EU approach, on the other hand, is based on the belief that people need protection from government interference. This is embodied in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which gives people the right to know what information is being collected about them and the right to have that information erased.

Overview of the EU Approach

The EU has taken a much stricter approach to online privacy than the US.

Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), companies must get explicit consent from users before collecting, storing, or using their data. Users also have the right to access their data and to request that it be deleted.

GDPR applies to all companies that process the data of EU citizens, regardless of where they are located. This has led to a number of lawsuits against American companies, such as Facebook and Google, who have been accused of violating GDPR.

Contrast this with the laissez-faire approach of the US, which is based on the belief that users should be able to take responsibility for their own privacy. Under US law, companies are not required to get consent from users before collecting their data, and there is no right to access or delete data.

The two approaches could not be more different, and it will be interesting to see which one wins out in the end.

How the GDPR Is Supporting User Privacy

You may be surprised to learn that the EU is actually doing a better job at protecting user privacy than the US. This is largely due to the GDPR, which was introduced in 2018. It was created in order to protect people’s personal data from being misused and abused.

The GDPR sets a high standard for how personal data should be collected and processed, and if organizations fail to comply, they are subject to hefty fines. More importantly, it gives individuals more control over their personal data, allowing them to view and delete it if they wish. This is a stark contrast to many US laws, which often leave users with few rights when it comes to their own data.

How Different Companies Are Responding to Regulatory Pressures

You can see this divergence in how different companies are responding to regulatory pressures. American companies, especially tech giants such as Facebook and Google, are resistant to strict regulations that might limit their ability to use personal data for AI and other purposes. In the European Union, however, there is greater pressure on companies to comply with stricter privacy policies and laws that protect individuals’ online rights more than in the US. The implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018 is a prime example of this divergence between US and EU approaches to AI privacy.

Exploring the Future of AI Privacy Regulation

It’s difficult to predict the future of AI privacy regulation. What is certain is that the diverging approaches of the U.S. and EU will continue to shape the legal landscape and create a complex environment for companies operating on both sides.

You’ll need to understand both legal frameworks in order to understand how your company should approach data protection in the AI age. While this can be a daunting task, it is a task that must be undertaken if your organization is committed to safeguarding user privacy in the long term.


Although the U.S. and the EU have both implemented regulations to protect user data, there are stark differences in the way they approach data privacy. The U.S. focuses on self-regulation and allows companies more freedom to collect and use user data, while the EU takes a more restrictive approach, regulating the use of data and holding companies accountable for data breaches. While the U.S. approach has been criticized for being ineffective, the EU approach has been praised for its strong data protection laws.