Insights

Emerging Technology Frontiers: Redefining Risk, Control, and Value in Transactions

As Silicon Valley develops the next evolution of technologies from artificial intelligence (AI) to next generation computing, private equity (PE) and venture capital (VC) investors are also facing the next evolution in legal and regulatory challenges that did not exist even five years ago. Historically, innovation outpaces the regulations designed to govern it, and that is certainly true today. So, for investors and legal advisors, transactions involving these frontier technologies are not just about identifying opportunity, but rather rethinking the fundamentals of dealmaking and how risk, control, and value are defined.

The Evolution in Evaluating Transactions

In a traditional VC or PE transaction, there is a clear sense of ownership, intellectual property (IP), and governance. However, when dealing with these cutting-edge technologies, the lines are blurred, and traditional assumptions do not necessarily hold.

Risk must be redefined to expand well beyond just financial exposure or regulatory compliance. It should account for algorithmic accountability, data integrity, and technological sustainability. Control also becomes more complex when value flows through distributed networks, open-sourced frameworks, or autonomous systems. And then there is the recalibration of value itself, as it can no longer be defined solely by tangible assets or traditional revenue models.

The Increasing Importance of Strategic Foresight

Dealmakers should take a more fluid approach to diligence and structuring, thinking beyond the restrictions of static agreements and traditional deal models. Legal teams must anticipate how these rapidly evolving technologies will intersect with regulation, competition, and market expectations, which are also continually changing.  And investors must examine not only the value of the technologies companies are developing, but also how resilient that technology and the business model will be as policies shift and new disruptive technologies come online in the future. This kind of strategic foresight is critical.

Strategic foresight involves evaluating how emerging technologies will interact with issues such as shifting antitrust enforcement, data privacy laws, and geopolitical concerns. To effectively do this, harder questions must be asked. Does the company’s core technology depend on data that may later be restricted or regulated? Could its algorithms or AI models trigger new forms of liability as standards evolve? Or are there export control or national security concerns tied to the company’s R&D partnerships? These are the kinds of issues that must be considered as they can affect valuation, timing, and risk.

Bridging the Innovation and Regulation Gap

It is critical to bridge the gap between innovation and regulation. Legal advisors play a key role here, helping founders and investors align cutting-edge technology with practical, enforceable business terms. Legal teams can help shape how risk is allocated and mitigated by crafting and negotiating agreements that are flexible enough to accommodate technological change and consider alternative structures such as staged acquisitions, earn-outs, or joint ventures that let buyers and investors calibrate exposure as a company’s technology matures or as regulatory clarity improves.

When strategic foresight is coupled with a deep understanding of the rapidly changing technology landscape, attorneys can help clients build deal structures that are capable of withstanding policy shifts, public scrutiny, and the relentless pace of innovation that defines Silicon Valley. The best legal advice isn’t just about closing the deal, it’s about positioning the company, and its investors, to be prepared and to thrive no matter what comes next.

AUTHOR(S):

Natasha Allen
Andre Thiollier

POSTED:

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.