Q: Does compliance really need to review every algorithm or software update?
CLICBrain: No. The better approach is to define which changes are material from a compliance perspective.
A change may deserve additional review when it alters something such as:
-
what data the system collects;
-
how personal information is used;
-
how a customer is charged;
-
how a consumer is classified;
-
how advertisements are ranked;
-
how leads are allocated;
-
what an AI system can do;
-
how consent operates;
-
what safeguards apply; or
-
what customers have been told about the system.
A useful test is:
-
BEFORE CHANGE: What did we say the system did?
-
AFTER CHANGE: What does the system actually do now?
-
GAP: Is the representation still accurate?
If the answer is uncertain, the organization may need to review the related contract, disclosure, marketing claim, sales material, privacy notice, or other representation.
The goal is not to put compliance in the middle of every software deployment. It is to prevent a material system change from quietly making an existing representation inaccurate.
Have another compliance question? Ask CLICBrain on CLIClaw.com.
CLICBrain Weekly Briefings provide operational compliance intelligence and commentary for internet businesses. Regulatory developments, enforcement activity, and legal requirements discussed herein should be evaluated in the context of your organization’s specific operations, systems, data practices, jurisdictions, and risk profile. This briefing is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.