Clifford Sarkin

A new California law (FIP VCC) is forcing VCs to ask portfolio company founders about their sexual orientation, disabilities, and more – all so it can be reported to the state. We built a new system to help funds on AngelList comply without ever seeing individual founder responses. To preserve founder privacy everywhere, we've decided to make the system available to any fund for free, regardless of who they work with for fund admin. You can use it today: fipvcc.com

10

Join my Partners, Andrew Roeder, Lia Schmidt and Nina Ngo, for an informative discussion regarding California's new Fair Investment Practices by Venture Capital Companies Law.

10

🚨 California's SB 53 “Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act” was officially signed into law yesterday by Gov. Newsom Who does it apply to? ✅ Large frontier developers: companies with > $500M in annual revenue that train/initiate the training of frontier models. ✅Frontier models: foundation models trained using ≥ 10²⁶ floating-point or integer operations. *These thresholds are intentionally high, but the bill's preamble notes that additional legislation could target smaller companies in the future. 📋 What does the law require? ✅ Risk frameworks: Companies must publish (on their websites) a “frontier AI framework” detailing how they assess and mitigate catastrophic risk, the cybersecurity practices leveraged, and the governance practices they put in place. ✅Transparency reports: Must be issued when deploying or substantially modifying a frontier model. ✅Reporting to state regulators: Summaries of risk assessments must be filed with California’s Office of Emergency Services, and critical safety incidents must be reported within 15 days (24 hours for imminent risks). ✅Whistleblower protections: Companies cannot prevent employees from reporting violations of the law or concerns that a developer's actions pose a danger to public health or safety. Penalties: Noncompliance can result in civil penalties of up to $1 million per violation, enforced by the Attorney General.

46

2 Comments

There Is No Shortage Of Recent Headlines About States Pushing Back on Federal AI Preemption – Let's Briefly Look At Why It Matters for Business California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta joined 23 attorneys general in a letter to the FCC opposing efforts to preempt state AI laws. The letter argues the FCC lacks authority to override state regulation and warns that removing states from AI oversight would harm consumers. Attorney General Bonta said, "states can nurture innovation and protect residents at the same time and pledged to fight any federal overreach." As companies build and use AI products, they must prepare for a legal landscape where federal and state authorities vie for control. While the FCC may not have authority today (courts will determine this), Congress and to some extent the POTUS can definitely impact the conversation. This development signals that state legislatures and the federal government will continue to wade in to the AI and business use policies and highlights the importance of strategic compliance and advocacy. Maven Advocacy Partners is a vertically integrated state and federal advocacy firm. We are uniquely positioned to provide access, advice, and develop strategies to guide your business decisions at every level. Want to further engage in controlling how state vs. federal authority might affect your business? Let’s discuss ways to navigate evolving regulatory landscapes and safeguard your company. #ArtificialIntelligence #AIRegulation #TechPolicy #ConsumerProtection #StateLaw #FederalPreemption #Innovation #Compliance #GovTech #Business #Government #Policy #Lobbying #Advocacy

11

California recently issued a law requiring covered investment companies to register with California’s DFPI by March 1, 2026 and submit demographic survey data from portfolio company founders by April 1, 2026. The law may capture entities beyond traditional venture capital funds and firms not based in California if they have a California touchpoint. Read more to see if you may be affected, and what next steps you should take for compliance: https://lnkd.in/ebr7D6Vm

7

1 Comment

It’s not an accident that in nearly every state, only licensed attorneys can own a law firm. That’s a design choice. And like most design choices in legal, it has a tradeoff that doesn’t get discussed enough. The consumer protection argument is real. Non-lawyer ownership can introduce incentives that don’t serve clients. But limiting who can build legal businesses limits competition, and limited competition keeps prices high. That cost doesn’t fall on people with corporate legal budgets. It falls on everyone already priced out. Arizona loosened the rules, and over 100 alternative structures got approved almost immediately. More entrants, more models, more options for people who currently have none. Most states aren’t following. Which is defensible. It just means the affordability problem stays exactly where it is, by design. Who actually bears the cost when we make it harder to build cheaper alternatives to traditional law firms? Link: https://lnkd.in/epuHg_Ae

5