Builders should navigate altering security rules whereas getting ready shopper robots, say Cooley consultants. Supply: Haris, AI, by way of Adobe Inventory
The patron robotics market is exploding – with the humanoid robotics phase alone projected towards $34 billion by 2030. Humanoid robots that may carry out family duties, synthetic intelligence-powered companions for aged care, autonomous garden upkeep programs, and interactive academic robots are transferring from prototypes to manufacturing.
Main retailers are scrambling for progressive merchandise to fulfill surging demand – with 65% of U.S. households already utilizing AI-powered units. The expertise provides nice promise. The market is hungry for it. And corporations now face a essential strategic resolution whereas they race to deliver their progressive merchandise to market: Learn how to navigate basically completely different regulatory approaches of their key markets?
EU and U.S. take divergent approaches
The European Union and U.S. have to date chosen reverse paths for regulating AI-powered shopper merchandise. The EU Equipment Regulation, which replaces the EU Equipment Directive and comes on-line absolutely in January 2027, creates baseline necessities for promoting robots in Europe, together with these incorporating AI.
The EU AI Act establishes a complete ex-ante framework with considerably extra regulatory readability than the U.S. provides. The AI Act’s risk-based classification system gives outlined classes and outlined obligations, significantly for AI deemed to be “excessive danger.” Robotics incorporating AI will normally fall into this class the place AI is appearing as a security part.
Alternatively, the U.S. at present has no single, nationwide regulatory framework for AI. As a substitute, particular person states have adopted various approaches, together with passing new guardrails on AI corresponding to Colorado’s AI Act, Texas’ Accountable AI Governance Act (HB 1709), and California’s Transparency in Frontier Synthetic Intelligence Act.
The Federal Commerce Fee (FTC) and state attorneys basic are establishing AI boundaries utilizing present authorized frameworks on a case-by-case enforcement, together with enforcement actions beneath present shopper safety authority. And the Shopper Product Security Fee (CPSC) is in wait-and-see mode on shopper robotics whereas collaborating in associated voluntary requirements efforts.
Current coverage developments sign potential shifts within the federal strategy. Government Order 14179, issued in January 2025, revoked the earlier administration’s complete AI order and established a brand new framework emphasizing private-sector innovation and lowered regulatory limitations.
The order directs companies to get rid of insurance policies that unduly prohibit AI growth whereas sustaining give attention to nationwide safety and worldwide competitiveness. This alerts a regulatory philosophy favoring market-driven growth over prescriptive federal frameworks.
Legislative efforts are additionally beneath approach that would additional form the federal panorama. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) has proposed a nationwide coverage framework for AI that may, amongst different issues, search to codify components of the chief order’s strategy and probably preempt sure state AI legal guidelines. If enacted, it may considerably alter the patchwork of state-level necessities corporations at present face.
The present U.S. surroundings presents each challenges and alternatives for shopper robotics producers and builders of AI-enabled merchandise. The shortage of clear ex-ante guidelines creates uncertainty, significantly for corporations accustomed to outlined compliance frameworks.
Nonetheless, it additionally creates house for product growth aware of market wants fairly than predetermined regulatory classes. Working with skilled advisors – together with authorized counsel specializing in product security, privateness, and AI regulation – is important for navigating U.S. market entry.
Three strategic compliance priorities
1. Product security requirements
Trade security requirements for shopper robots have initially drawn from automotive and industrial robotic guidelines. This strategy has appreciable benefit, as these requirements are time-tested.
Nonetheless, this strategy additionally has essential limitations. Most significantly, the hazard eventualities contemplated by these requirements don’t all the time align with potential dangers for in-home robotic use, particularly round weak populations, corresponding to youngsters, older customers, and people with disabilities.
Within the industrial setting, as an example, danger is primarily managed by separation between people and robots, which is the precise reverse state of affairs as supposed for in-home use. As a result of danger administration shall be completely different in lots of of those eventualities, consensus efforts are beneath technique to develop and improve significant baseline shopper robotic security requirements that moderately handle in-home danger and supply corporations with extra of the design and growth readability they search and want.
Firms ought to begin, no less than, by monitoring the event of consensus requirements for robotics and AI inside organizations such because the Worldwide Group for Standardization (ISO), in addition to the Nationwide Institute of Requirements and Know-how (NIST). NIST has been actively growing AI-related frameworks and steerage, together with its AI Threat Administration Framework, and even interact by way of its nationwide requirements delegation.
Firms also needs to develop a baseline framework that identifies any related necessary necessities and maps to an affordable hybrid from among the many adjoining consensus requirements. This growth requirements map won’t be similar for each firm, as will probably be pegged to product design and danger tolerance. However no matter selections are made, they should be affordable, properly articulated and properly documented to raised face up to future authorized and compliance scrutiny.
The present absence of federal necessary security requirements for shopper robotics or AI in shopper merchandise displays the CPSC’s conventional strategy of permitting industry-led growth to proceed first. This differs considerably from the EU’s top-down regulatory strategy, the place many shopper robotics shall be required to endure third-party conformity evaluation beneath the Equipment Regulation and AI Act. The present U.S. coverage surroundings favoring private-sector innovation suggests continued reliance on industry-led tips fairly than prescriptive federal necessities.
Additional, the standard CPSC and EU jurisdictional boundary between software program and {hardware} is evolving, with AI in shopper merchandise more and more more likely to be handled as built-in part components topic to product security jurisdiction.
When a robotic’s AI decides that impacts bodily product conduct, the software program can’t be meaningfully separated from the {hardware} for regulatory functions. Firms ought to apply product-safety rigor to their AI programs, implementing thorough testing throughout each software program and {hardware} parts.
NIST has studied human-robot interplay. Credit score: Earl Bukoff, NIST
2. Transparency about AI use and knowledge practices
Transparency has turn out to be a precedence focus for each regulators and the plaintiffs’ bar, creating vital concerns for corporations bringing AI-powered merchandise to market.
Shopper robotics presents distinctive disclosure challenges as a result of these merchandise work together carefully with customers in dwelling environments, amassing operational knowledge whereas using AI programs that is probably not instantly clear to customers. The FTC has introduced enforcement actions towards a number of corporations relating to AI representations, and this enforcement exercise is predicted to proceed as AI adoption expands throughout industries.
State attorneys basic have equally pursued AI-related investigations beneath present shopper safety statutes. For instance, in August 2025, Texas opened an investigation into AI chatbots associated to potential misleading commerce practices and deceptive psychological well being advertising. Likewise, in January 2026, California opened an investigation into nonconsensual sexually express materials and deepfakes produced utilizing a number one AI platform.
“AI Litigation 2.0” focuses considerably on how corporations talk about their AI capabilities and knowledge practices to customers. Certainly, “AI washing” – making exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims a couple of product’s AI capabilities – has turn out to be a definite enforcement precedence for the FTC, as demonstrated by latest actions towards corporations overstating the position or effectiveness of AI of their merchandise.
The strategy is easy: Describe AI capabilities with specificity and accuracy. Present clear explanations of what the AI does, what knowledge it processes, retention practices and the way info is protected. Whereas there’s room for accessible language that communicates worth to customers and buyers, broad or ambiguous characterizations can invite questions and potential challenges.
For corporations deploying AI-powered shopper merchandise at scale, considerate disclosure practices can serve a number of strategic functions – constructing shopper belief, managing regulatory and litigation dangers, and establishing defensible positions ought to questions come up. Firms that spend money on clear, substantiated communications about their AI capabilities place themselves advantageously in an evolving regulatory and litigation surroundings.
The U.S. authorities has cracked down on misleading AI claims. Supply: FTC
3. Bias and discrimination prevention
Algorithmic bias and discrimination have turn out to be central issues for AI regulators, significantly on the state degree. State legislatures have enacted legal guidelines immediately focusing on algorithmic discrimination.
For instance, Colorado’s AI Act prohibits “algorithmic discrimination” and imposes obligations on deployers of high-risk AI programs to keep away from differential therapy or impression on protected teams, whereas Texas’s Accountable AI Governance Act equally addresses bias in automated decision-making. These state-level necessities create important compliance obligations for corporations deploying AI-powered shopper merchandise.
On the federal degree, the FTC has traditionally taken the place that AI programs leading to discriminatory outcomes can violate present consumer-protection legal guidelines, even with out express intent to discriminate, although the present administration’s coverage path – emphasizing private-sector innovation and questioning prescriptive algorithmic discrimination frameworks – could mood near-term federal enforcement on this space.
State regulators and attorneys basic, nonetheless, are more and more scrutinizing AI-powered merchandise for potential bias, significantly in functions affecting weak populations.
For shopper robotics, this creates each compliance obligations and reputational danger. A companion robotic that responds in another way primarily based on accent or speech patterns, a youngsters’s academic robotic that acknowledges some pores and skin tones higher than others in visible interactions, or a family assistant with voice recognition that performs inconsistently throughout age teams or gender current each regulatory and legal responsibility issues. Robots designed to work together with weak populations – significantly, youngsters, aged customers or people with disabilities – should carry out equitably throughout person teams.
Firms ought to develop strong testing protocols to guage AI efficiency throughout various populations throughout growth, monitor for bias indicators in deployed programs, and set up processes to handle efficiency disparities when recognized.
Robotics and AI builders ought to consider efficiency with various populations. Credit score: SpaceOak, by way of Adobe Inventory
Navigate requirements compliance strategically
The U.S. regulatory panorama differs basically from the EU’s. The place the EU could, on paper, present higher readability by way of its prescriptive framework – although questions stay about implementation – the U.S. provides flexibility however much less certainty.
The present coverage surroundings within the U.S. emphasizes market-driven innovation over prescriptive federal frameworks, however the particular implications for shopper robotics regulation stay unclear. Firms that spend money on understanding these dynamics, interact with requirements growth processes, and work with skilled advisors can extra successfully navigate this panorama whereas positioning themselves for achievement because it evolves.
The market alternative is substantial, significantly for early entrants that may meet shopper demand for these merchandise. Firms that construct affordable compliance capabilities now – addressing not simply bodily security necessities but additionally disclosure practices, knowledge governance and legal responsibility danger administration – shall be ready to capitalize on huge shopper demand whereas higher managing compliance, rising rules, and litigation danger throughout their key markets.
Concerning the authors
Elliot F. Kaye is a accomplice at regulation agency Cooley LLP and former chairman of the U.S. Shopper Product Security Fee (CPSC), the place he served because the chief product security official within the U.S. and because the company’s chief in executing its mandate to guard the general public from harmful merchandise.
Throughout his tenure, Elliot modernized the company, significantly the CPSC’s design, staffing and utilization of its compliance, investigatory and enforcement powers. At Cooley, he advises purchasers on the total product life cycle, with a specific give attention to the intersection of synthetic intelligence and shopper items, particularly robots.
William Ok. Pao is co-head of Cooley’s AI Activity Pressure and a litigation accomplice on the agency with over 20 years of expertise serving as a trusted advisor and first-chair trial lawyer for world corporations main technological and monetary innovation. He guides purchasers by way of their most advanced litigation and regulatory exposures and is extensively considered a go-to legal professional for rising applied sciences, novel authorized questions, and cross-border disputes.
Philip Brown is a particular counsel at Cooley with over 15 years of expertise in product security and shopper regulation, together with over a decade in federal authorities enforcement on the CPSC and FTC. At Cooley, he advises world purchasers on product compliance dangers, enforcement publicity, and litigation technique.
