Written by Josh Lee Kok Thong
TechLaw.Fest 2024 Quick Chats: Chris Watson, Partner and Chair of Technology, Media and Communications, CMS
TechLaw.Fest 2024 (“TLF”) took place from 11 to 12 September 2024, positioning participants at the forefront of groundbreaking discussions at the intersection of law, technology and business. This year, LawTech.Asia received a special opportunity to interview Chris Watson, Partner and Chair, Technology, Media and Communications at CMS. This interview came shortly after Chris Watson’s fireside chat titled “Breaking Barriers: A Conversation with Chris Watson and Emma Watson on Diversity, Inclusion and the Future” with Emma Watson, writer, actress and activist (who joined the conference via audio call).
With his vast and extensive expertise, Chris offers invaluable insights on a myriad of issues around technology regulation. We sought his views on the evolving AI regulation landscape, cross-border legal challenges, and the important role young legal professionals play in shaping the future of law and technology.
LTA: Chris, thank you for speaking with us today. You spoke on a panel on global AI regulation at this year’s TechLaw.Fest. What are your thoughts on where AI regulation is headed, be it in the UK, or in terms of the global context?
Chris: It’s important to consider AI regulation within the larger framework of cross-border trade and data movements. Regulations naturally create trade barriers. These barriers in turn impact economies of scale and the cost of doing business in a new jurisdiction. A service that complies with regulations in one jurisdiction may not be allowed in another, which results in high investment costs. Businesses need to balance these costs.
For example, in Europe, clients talk about the “cost of doing business.” While compliance with tighter regulations may be more expensive, the payoff comes from the scale of the market. In contrast, if you are complying with a smaller market, such as the UK, the cost might not be worth it. This is especially relevant in the context of Brexit. There was an initial hope that leaving the EU would allow the UK to adopt a looser regulatory regime and attract investment, but the reality has proven otherwise. The gravitational attraction of the larger EU market is going to pull in adjacent markets.
At the same time, the EU has had some very conspicuous successes in its attempts to create global regulation. The first was GSM, where they created the GSM standard. The EU was the first to do it and because the use of frequences was tied to the technical standard for USM, that became the global standard. Likewise, to a great extent, the GDPR: it became a global standard because of the need to address the EU market, but eventually provided a global passport for data services. I think AI regulation will follow a similar trajectory.
LTA: You touched on the Brussels effect with GDPR. Do you think a “Brussels Effect 2.0” is in the cards for the AI Act?
Chris: Absolutely. In fact, I think the Brussels effect is an explicit goal of the AI Act. The EU aims to set the standard not just for internal harmonisation within the bloc but also to create a global benchmark. Of course, the official line is that it is about harmonising within the internal market. The EU can only regulate where EU Member States cannot act individually — that’s a fundamental jurisdictional principle. But the economic reasons go beyond that. Much like GDPR, the AI Act is intended to have a global influence by virtue of the EU’s market size and the necessity for businesses to comply if they want access to that market.
LTA: Switching gears to international frameworks, we are seeing a growing number of international frameworks and initiatives, such as the G7 Hiroshima AI Process, ASEAN’s AI Guide on Governance and Ethics, the UN’s High-Level Advisory Body on AI and most recently, the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on AI. How do you think these will influence global AI governance?
Chris: The legitimacy of any AI regulation depends on its alignment with universal fundamental principles. The closer these regulations adhere to fundamental principles — such as human rights — the more likely they are to be globally accepted. Everyone is trying to identify these core principles to create something that is widely operative. International frameworks like the Council of Europe’s treaty are efforts to identify and set these standards.
However, there’s a delicate balance. On one hand, we have regional efforts — like the AI Act — that aim to set standards for specific regions. On the other hand, there are international initiatives that seek broader consensus. It’s challenging to reconcile these, especially when some significant players, like China, operate under different regulatory philosophies.
LTA: Speaking of China, how do you think jurisdictions like China – an AI powerhouse in its own right – could be involved in global AI regulatory conversations?
Chris: China’s regulatory system is fundamentally different from many other global frameworks, and these fundamental differences make it difficult to harmonise. During the panel yesterday, we heard a description of China’s vision and system for AI governance. It is clear that there are significant differences between their regulatory approach and what we see elsewhere. Discussions about AI regulation often mix trade, human rights, and democratic processes, but we cannot forget that regulations are also trade barriers. Historically, the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) has mediated these issues – such as telecom liberalisation and data protection – but the WTO’s role is no longer in the foreground the way it used to be. These discussions are important, and it was my impression that the WTO could have been one of the bodies through which the issue of bringing China into the fold could be approached, but bringing China into global AI regulation discussions will be a challenge.
LTA: Moving to Southeast Asia, what can Singapore or the broader APAC region learn from the UK when it comes to tech regulation?
Chris: Singapore has an extraordinary advantage due to its geography and the political dynamics surrounding it. One of the lessons the UK has learned in the last five years — especially post-Brexit — is that isolation can be costly. You need to align with global economic flows to remain competitive. In regulatory terms, this means ensuring that your market is accessible and your regulations are adaptive. Trying to fight these flows is an uphill battle that comes with a heavy cost.
LTA: Let’s focus on young professionals. What role do you think young lawyers play in technology law?
Chris: Young lawyers, especially digital natives, have a unique advantage. They understand the digital landscape intuitively, but there’s a caveat. While they’re adept at navigating digital platforms, they might not fully grasp the foundational principles — like privacy rights and freedom of expression — that underpin tech regulation. Understanding these principles is important because these are the superstructure on which technology regulation is devised. In my experience, younger lawyers can sometimes be taught to dive too deeply into the technicalities without fully appreciating the broader frameworks at play. It is essential to have a strong understanding of these principles, as they are a fundamental construction element of every legal system, and legal systems exist to protect precisely those rights.
Young lawyers, who are digital natives… understand the digital landscape intuitively, but they must grasp the foundational principles of privacy and human rights to navigate tech law effectively.
Chris Watson, Partner and Chair of Technology, Media, and Communications, CMS
LTA: As a final question, what’s one piece of advice you’d give to young professionals in law and technology?
Chris: If something feels wrong, it probably is. My advice to young lawyers is to trust their instincts, but also to use their legal training to dig into the fundamental principles when something does not sit right. Early in my career, I had a client who fully lost a deposit because they filed a document late by a few hours. It seemed unjust, so I dug into the principles of EU law and developed a proportionality argument (i.e., that losing the deposit was wholly out of proportion to a penalty that would have been imposed had there been a breach of a subsidiary obligation). The client got their money back. That moment shaped my entire career. In the world of technology, where technology is constantly disrupting many aspects of our lives, we need legal professionals to be architects of what the new rules should be.