Lina Khan Says No New Laws Needed to Prosecute AI CEOs

Public anxiety over a potential AI-driven apocalypse has surged, with some political figures dismissing the threat as exaggerated while others call for sweeping new regulations. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has already been active in the sector: in September of last year it opened an inquiry into seven tech firms—including Meta and xAI—over safety-testing protocols for AI “companions” and their impact on underage users. The agency also collaborated with the Justice Department on antitrust investigations of Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta.

Gizmodo

Former FTC chair Lina Khan argued on Sunday that lawmakers need not craft novel statutes to curb dangerous AI products. She noted that “law enforcers already have authority to charge companies and their CEOs for creating and releasing dangerous, unvetted, or defective products,” and that existing prohibitions on “unfair methods of competition” can be applied to AI developers who knowingly pursue risky behavior. Khan cited the 1934 Supreme Court decision in *FTC v. R. F. Keppel & Bro., Inc.*, which barred competitive practices that force rivals to bear undue burdens, as a precedent for preventing a “race to the bottom” in AI safety.

Gizmodo

Former commissioner Alvaro Bedoya echoed Khan’s stance in a series of Sunday X posts, urging skepticism toward any attempt by AI leaders to evade antitrust rules. Bedoya also dismissed the “hyperbolic strawman” narrative that AI will annihilate humanity, describing it as a justification for a potential cartel of billionaire AI firms. His comments reinforce the view that existing competition law, rather than new regulatory frameworks, should address the industry’s risks.

Gizmodo

• “Law enforcers already have authority to charge companies and their CEOs for creating and releasing dangerous, unvetted, or defective products,” — Lina Khan, chair and commissioner — Lina Khan, chair and commissioner

Gizmodo