Welcome back to Court Vision.

.
This issue covers three developments worth watching: a proposed federal law to protect people from unauthorized AI copies of their faces and voices, a lawsuit involving hotels that used the same software to set room prices, and a new platform helping athletes control how their images are used by AI.

.

Let's get into it.

.

AI can now create convincing videos and audio of people saying or doing things they never actually said or did. But the laws protecting people from unauthorized AI copies of themselves are still catching up.

.

The NO FAKES Act aims to change that. The proposed federal law would give people more control over how their face and voice are recreated using AI. It would also allow them to take legal action against certain unauthorized uses.

.

The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously in June, but it recently hit a roadblock. Sen. Marsha Blackburn tried to move it forward before the Senate's recess, but Sen. Ted Cruz objected, arguing that it needs stronger protections for free speech. For now, the bill is stalled.

If passed, the law would create new rules for licensing someone's likeness, require platforms to address certain unauthorized AI content, and establish financial penalties for violations.

.

My take: AI is moving faster than the law, and athletes, creators, and founders shouldn't wait for Congress to catch up.

.

If you're signing a deal that allows someone to use your name, image, or voice with AI, make sure the contract answers a few basic questions: What can they create? How long can they use it? Do you get to approve it? And what happens when the deal ends?

.

Don't give someone broad rights to your identity without understanding exactly what you're signing away.

.

.

Hotels often use software to help decide how much to charge for rooms. The software looks at things like demand, occupancy, and market conditions, then recommends a price.

.

But what happens when competing hotels use the same software to set their rates? That's the question at the center of a lawsuit involving five Atlantic City casino-hotels, including Caesars, Harrah's, and Borgata.

.

The hotels used pricing software called Rainmaker. According to the lawsuit, they shared private pricing and occupancy information with the software and followed its recommended room rates about 90% of the time.

.

The concern? If competing hotels rely on the same system to set prices, they could end up charging similar rates instead of competing independently.

.

My take: Just because software recommends a price doesn't mean a business is off the hook for using it. There's nothing inherently wrong with using technology to make pricing decisions. But when competitors rely on the same tools and potentially share sensitive information, antitrust concerns can arise.

Auto-renewal is a default. Miss the notice window and the contract rolls into another full term, sometimes at a higher price.

.

Pull every vendor, platform, and agency contract and write down two dates: the term end and the last day to give notice. Put the notice date on the calendar, not the end date, with a reminder 30 days earlier.

.

Then fix it going forward. Ask for renewal only by mutual written agreement, or at minimum a reminder notice from the vendor before the window closes. Defaults are decisions made by whoever wrote the template.

.

.

Callandor runs an "AI Rights Registry" where athletes and organizations record their digital identity, consent, and licensing terms, then license approved AI content. The company says each use is logged and paid. Early users include Jorginho and match-racing skipper Chris Poole, and soccer player Cristian Volpato signed on this fall.

.

It’s a unique product, but registering content does not equal legal protection.Registering in a private system doesn't necessarily stop outsiders from making synthetic content, and doesn't by itself create or expand legal rights.

.

Why I'm watching: a registry is a receipt, not a right. Until the law catches up, the contract behind the registry is doing all the work.

.

.

It caps how much one side can owe the other if something goes wrong. Everyone reads it as boilerplate. It's often the clause that decides how much a bad day costs.

.

Why it bites: a tool that costs a few thousand dollars a year can cause a problem worth far more. If the cap is the fees paid, that's all the vendor owes.

Three questions before you sign:

.

Push for carve-outs for data breach, IP, and confidentiality, a higher cap for those, and an indemnity that sits outside the cap. An indemnity capped at the fees paid isn't much of an indemnity.

.

🕑 WORTH YOUR TIME

Know someone navigating AI, pricing technology, or complex contracts? Forward this issue their way. A little legal insight now can prevent bigger headaches later.

.

👋 I'm Drew Jacobs, founder and managing attorney at Jacobs Counsel. 

We’re a boutique law firm for ambitious businesses and the people behind them. We help founders, businesses, athletes, and creators handle contracts, transactions, and brand protection. 

.

Focused experience in gaming, sports, and entertainment.

.

Website | Free resources | Book a consultation

.

Licensed in New York, New Jersey, and Ohio. This newsletter is general information, not legal advice.