Position: Strong Consumer Protection is an Inalienable Defense for AI Safety in the United States

Serena Booth

TL;DR: This paper argues that strong enforcement and development of consumer protection laws can support AI safety.

Abstract: Consumer protection laws are designed to protect consumers from unethical business practices. In this position paper, I argue that these laws serve an emergent dual purpose: if appropriately enforced and strengthened, consumer protection laws can serve as an inalienable defense for AI safety. These laws are well established and can be enforced and strengthened to incentivize businesses to design and deploy safer AI systems. This position runs counter to two prevailing trends in AI policy. The first alternative position is that AI safety requires an entirely new set of focused laws to protect humanity's prosperity. Though I find these efforts valuable, I argue that such focused laws are both hard to write and easy to skirt. The second alternative position is that consumer protection is nothing more than red tape; I argue that existing laws dating back many decades have already reigned in some nefarious business practices related to the development and deployment of AI, and that the litigious society of the United States is well-positioned to use consumer protection laws to encourage new AI safety guardrails. This paper takes a tour of some existing consumer protection laws in the United States and their effects on the development and use of AI systems. This paper also calls to enforce and preserve these laws in a rapidly changing, de-regulatory political landscape.

Lay Summary: Consumer protection laws are designed to protect consumers from unethical business practices. In this position paper, I argue that these laws serve an emergent dual purpose: if appropriately enforced and strengthened, consumer protection laws can serve as an inalienable defense for AI safety. These laws are well established and can be enforced and strengthened to incentivize businesses to design and deploy safer AI systems. This position runs counter to two prevailing trends in AI policy. The first alternative position is that AI safety requires an entirely new set of focused laws to protect humanity's prosperity. Though I find these efforts valuable, I argue that such focused laws are both hard to write and easy to skirt. The second alternative position is that consumer protection is nothing more than red tape; I argue that existing laws dating back many decades have already reigned in some nefarious business practices related to the development and deployment of AI, and that the litigious society of the United States is well-positioned to use consumer protection laws to encourage new AI safety guardrails. This paper takes a tour of some existing consumer protection laws in the United States and their effects on the development and use of AI systems. This paper also calls to enforce and preserve these laws in a rapidly changing, de-regulatory political landscape.

Verify Author Names: My co-authors have confirmed that their names are spelled correctly both on OpenReview and in the camera-ready PDF. (If needed, please update ‘Preferred Name’ in OpenReview to match the PDF.)

No Additional Revisions: I understand that after the May 29 deadline, the camera-ready submission cannot be revised before the conference. I have verified with all authors that they approve of this version.

Pdf Appendices: My camera-ready PDF file contains both the main text (not exceeding the page limits) and all appendices that I wish to include. I understand that any other supplementary material (e.g., separate files previously uploaded to OpenReview) will not be visible in the PMLR proceedings.

Latest Style File: I have compiled the camera ready paper with the latest ICML2025 style files <https://media.icml.cc/Conferences/ICML2025/Styles/icml2025.zip> and the compiled PDF includes an unnumbered Impact Statement section.

Paper Verification Code: MTY0N

Primary Area: System Risks, Safety, and Government Policy

Keywords: consumer protection, AI safety, AI policy

Submission Number: 82