By Chris Wlach, Senior Director, Legal, Acxiom<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
In July the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), together with D.C.-based law firm Venable LLP<\/a>, published a template \u201cAI Rider<\/a>.\u201d The rider \u2014 that is, a contract you slap behind another contract \u2014 promises to help ANA member marketers \u201censure they\u2019re covering all their legal bases for incorporating AI tools<\/a>\u201d into their advertising.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Cover bases it does. At five pages, the rider is long, detailed, and chock full of lawyers\u2019 favorites. \u201cRight, title and interest,\u201d \u201crepresents and warrants,\u201d \u201cindemnify, defend, and hold harmless.\u201d All the hits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Businesspeople often see lawyers as overthinkers, formalists, and deal-delayers. That\u2019s an unfair generalization; many attorneys just want their deals done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n But considering the 3000-plus-word rider, you have to think: perhaps there\u2019s some truth in the stereotype.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n Full disclosure. I represent agencies, often counterparties to ANA advertisers. Still, my gripe with the AI rider isn\u2019t about how it allocates risks and responsibilities between advertisers and agencies. Sure, it\u2019s advertiser-friendly. But had the agencies\u2019 industry group \u2014 the 4As<\/a> \u2014 issued their own AI template, it surely would have favored agencies. That\u2019s just how contracting works: each party pushes for its own interests. Rules of the game.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n No, I\u2019ve got a pragmatic beef.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\nA pragmatic problem<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n
Contracting AI needn’t be complex<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n