AI enforcement and penalty provisions define how state regulators investigate violations of AI laws and what consequences organizations face for non-compliance. Enforcement mechanisms range from attorney general investigations and administrative fines to private rights of action and injunctive relief.
Penalty structures vary significantly by state and by the type of AI law violated, with per-violation fines, statutory damages, and in some cases criminal liability for the most egregious offenses. Legal practitioners should map enforcement risk across jurisdictions to advise clients on compliance prioritization.
Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act
Illinois' SB 315, the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act, regulates developers of frontier AI models (foundation models trained with more than 10^26 operations). All frontier developers must publish a transparency report when deploying a new or substantially modified model and report critical safety incidents within 72 hours. Large frontier developers (over $500 million revenue with affiliates) need a state disclosure statement from January 1, 2027, and from January 1, 2028 a published frontier AI framework and annual independent audits. Large developers face Attorney General penalties up to $1 million, then $3 million. Signed July 6, 2026 (P.A. 104-0538); effective January 1, 2027.
Enacts the New York privacy act to require companies to disclose their methods of de-identifying personal information, to place special safeguards around data sharing and to allow consumers to obtain the names of all entities with whom their information is shared.
New York's A 8158 (the "New York privacy act") would add General Business Law Article 42-A (§§ 1200-1207). Among other consumer rights, people could opt out of "profiling in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects" (such as lending, housing, insurance, employment and health care), and controllers would have to run data protection assessments for profiling that presents a reasonably foreseeable risk of unfair treatment or unlawful disparate impact. Only the Attorney General could enforce it, with penalties of up to $20,000 per violation. Introduced May 2, 2025 and referred to Consumer Affairs and Protection (again January 7, 2026); not passed.
An act relating to data brokers and personal information
Vermont's H.211 (Act 138 of 2026) overhauls Vermont's data broker law, with higher fees and fines, checks before brokers disclose data, and a data broker breach-notice law. Its AI-relevant provision is in the annual registration under 9 V.S.A. § 2446: a data broker must state whether, in the past year, it shared consumers' data with or sold it to a developer of a generative AI ("GenAI") system or model, alongside disclosures about sales to foreign actors, governments and law enforcement. The act defines a GenAI system as an AI system that can generate synthetic text, images, video and audio. These provisions take effect January 1, 2027.
South Carolina Social Media Regulation Act
South Carolina's H. 3431 (Act No. 96 of 2026) adds an Age-Appropriate Code Design chapter (S.C. Code Title 39, Chapter 80) for online services, including AI-based ones, meeting revenue or data thresholds and reasonably likely to be accessed by minors. They must use reasonable care to prevent listed harms to minors, offer tools to turn off features like infinite scroll and autoplay, let users opt out of personalized recommendation systems (the default for known minors), minimize minors' data, limit profiling of known minors, stop targeted ads to minors, provide parental tools and publish annual independent audits. The Attorney General enforces. Signed February 5, 2026; effective on approval.
Establishes criteria for the use of automated employment decision tools; provides for enforcement for violations of such criteria.
New York's S 4394-A would add Labor Law Article 20-D (§§ 750-757) for automated employment decision tools, AI systems specifically developed, marketed or modified to be the controlling factor in a decision to hire, promote or terminate. Deployers may not use them in a way that violates Executive Law Article 15; deployers and developers must perform impact assessments within one year and annually, keep governance programs and give notice to individuals. The Attorney General enforces after notice and a 45-day cure period. Referred to Labor January 7, 2026.
relative to the use of artificial intelligence to provide services requiring a professional license.
New Hampshire's SB 640 (2026), as amended by the Senate, would bar anyone from offering mental health or therapy services, including through AI, unless provided by a New Hampshire licensed mental health professional, reenact RSA 310:13 on unlicensed practice with a $10,000 civil penalty per violation, and create a review commission. It passed the Senate March 12, 2026; the House voted it Inexpedient to Legislate on May 14, 2026.
Prohibits the use of an algorithmic device by a landlord for the purpose of determining the amount of rent to charge a residential tenant; declares that such use is an unfair or deceptive trade practice.
New York's S 2697 would add Real Property Law § 222-a barring a landlord from using or relying on an algorithmic device that uses, incorporates or was trained with nonpublic competitor data to set initial rent or any rent change on renewal, or causing another to do so. A violation would be a deceptive act or practice under General Business Law § 349, with the penalties of Article 22-A. Referred to Judiciary January 22, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Relates to the use of automated decision tools by landlords for making housing decisions; sets conditions and rules for use of such tools.
New York's S 7735-A (2023-2024) would have added Real Property Law § 227-g regulating landlords' automated decision tools for housing decisions. Landlords would need an independent auditor's disparate impact analysis at least annually, post a summary on their website, and notify applicants at least 24 hours before use, including reasons for a denial. The Attorney General could investigate and sue. Amended April 2, 2024 and left in committee; it died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Prohibit Surveillance Price & Wage Setting
Colorado's HB 26-1210 would have banned individualized price and wage setting: using an algorithm that applies statistical modeling, data analytics, AI or similar techniques to surveillance data about a person's characteristics, online behavior or biometrics, as more than a de minimis factor in the price offered to a consumer or the wage offered to a worker. Cost-based, supply-and-demand, public-discount, loyalty and need-based pricing, consumer-report credit refusals, and wages based solely on seniority or hired-for tasks and performance with plain-language disclosure, would have been allowed. Violations would have been deceptive trade practices. Vetoed by the Governor on June 2, 2026.
Updates the definition of cyberbullying in the dignity for all students act to include intentionally using artificial intelligence to mimic or alter a person's likeness or voice without their consent.
New York's S 10049 would amend Education Law section 11(8) so that the definition of cyberbullying (harassment or bullying through electronic communication) includes, but is not limited to, intentionally using artificial intelligence to mimic or alter a person's likeness or voice without their consent. It sets no penalty, enforcer or private right of action. The Senate passed it 60 to 0 on May 28, 2026 and delivered it to the Assembly, where it was referred to Education; it takes effect immediately if enacted.
Requires third party verification of compliance with transparency and safety requirements for developers of artificial intelligence models; requires publication of such compliance reports.
New York's S 10373 would require a large frontier developer to retain a third party verifier each year to report on its compliance with its frontier AI framework, including any noncompliance and whether its public statements on catastrophic risk conflict with the findings. The verifier must publish a summary within sixty days of completing the report. The Attorney General could seek civil penalties of up to $1 million for a first violation and up to $3 million for each later one. Referred to the Senate Internet and Technology Committee May 15, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Data brokers: data collection and deletion.
California's SB 361 expands what data brokers must report when registering with the California Privacy Protection Agency. Registrations must say whether the broker collects data such as account logins, government ID numbers, citizenship or immigration status, union membership, sexual orientation, gender identity or biometric data, and whether in the past year it shared or sold consumers' data to a developer of a generative AI system or model, a foreign actor, governments or law enforcement. Signed October 8, 2025 (Chapter 466); effective January 1, 2026.
Consumer Protection and Labor and Employment - Surveillance-Based Price and Wage Setting - Prohibition
Maryland's HB 148 (2026) would have barred surveillance-based price setting (new Commercial Law section 14-1330) and surveillance-based wage setting (new Labor and Employment section 3-718): using surveillance data with an automated decision system to offer or inform a customized price or wage for an individual or group. It was pre-filed August 14, 2025, introduced January 14, 2026 and referred to Economic Matters, where the last recorded action was a February 10 hearing notice. It died when the 2026 session ended.
Consumer Protection and Labor and Employment - Electronic Shelving Labels and Surveillance-Based Price and Wage Setting - Prohibitions
Maryland's SB 889 (2026, first reader text) would have barred surveillance-based price setting (pricing consumer goods or services based on profiling or processing of consumer or device data), barred food retailers of at least 15,000 square feet from using electronic shelving labels to display prices, and barred employers from surveillance-based wage setting using surveillance data with an automated decision system. It had a Senate Finance hearing set for March 12, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.
Law Enforcement – Use of Facial Recognition Technology – Images Captured by Camera Affixed to Dwelling Exterior
Maryland's HB 762 (2026, first reader text) would have added an exception to Criminal Procedure section 2-503 letting law enforcement use facial recognition technology on images captured by a camera affixed to a dwelling's exterior by the dwelling's owner or lawful tenant, to investigate arson, burglary and trespass offenses. It had a House Judiciary hearing set for February 24, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.
Consumer Protection - High-Risk Artificial Intelligence - Developer and Deployer Requirements
Maryland's SB 936 (2025) would have added Commercial Law sections 14-47A-01 to 14-47A-08 requiring developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used for consequential decisions to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination starting February 1, 2026, with impact assessments, consumer notices and appeals. The Attorney General would enforce, with fines up to $1,000 per violation ($1,000 to $10,000 if willful). A Senate Finance hearing was set for February 27, 2025; the bill went no further and died when the session ended.
Research and Oversight of AI in Courts Act of 2026
The federal H.R. 7997 (Research and Oversight of AI in Courts Act of 2026) would require the Attorney General, through the National Institute of Justice, to set up a 15-member task force within 60 days of enactment to assess AI speech-to-text and automatic speech recognition use in U.S. courts. A final report is due 18 months later. Referred to the House Judiciary Committee March 19, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Research and Oversight of AI in Courts Act of 2026
The federal S. 4154 (Research and Oversight of AI in Courts Act of 2026) would require the Attorney General, through the National Institute of Justice, to establish within 60 days after enactment a 15-member task force on AI speech-to-text and automatic speech recognition technology in U.S. courts, with a final report due 18 months after it is established. Introduced March 19, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee; no further action.
Residential Leases - Use of Algorithmic Device by Landlord to Determine Rent, Occupancy, and Lease Terms - Prohibition
Maryland's HB 434 (2026, first reader text) would have added Real Property section 8-222 barring a landlord from using, relying on, or causing another to use an algorithmic device that uses, incorporates or was trained with nonpublic competitor data to set rent (including renewal changes), lease renewal terms, occupancy levels or other lease terms. A violation would be an unfair, abusive or deceptive trade practice. It had a House Economic Matters hearing set for February 19, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.
Artificial Intelligence in Education
Florida's SB 1194 (Jones) would require the State Board of Education to adopt statewide standards and a policy for school and student use of AI, direct the Department of Education to collect AI metrics, train teachers and review district compliance, require instruction in digital literacy and AI ethics for grades 6 to 12, and add AI policies to student codes of conduct. Filed January 6, 2026; it died in the Education Pre-K - 12 Committee March 13, 2026.
Child Exploitation Material - Civil and Criminal Actions (Safe Kids Act)
Maryland's HB 924 (2026, the Safe Kids Act, cross-filed with SB 989) would have let a parent or guardian sue an online platform that knowingly and intentionally distributes, or creates or develops, unlawful child exploitation material, and would have amended Criminal Law section 11-208 so a computer-generated image includes one created through the use of artificial intelligence software. It was assigned to House Judiciary with a hearing set for March 4, 2026, and died when the 2026 session ended.
Prohibits the publication of a digital or physical newspaper, magazine, or periodical which was wholly or partially produced or edited through the use of artificial intelligence without significant human oversight.
New York's S 9542 (2023-2024) would have added General Business Law § 338 barring a digital or physical newspaper, magazine or periodical from publishing material wholly or partially produced or edited with AI without significant human oversight. It did not define "significant human oversight" and stated no penalty or enforcer. Referred to the Consumer Protection Committee May 16, 2024; it never passed either chamber and died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Relating To The Patients' Bill Of Rights.
Hawaii's HB 2537 (2026), the Patients' Bill of Rights, would have amended HRS chapter 432E for managed care plans. It would set prior authorization deadlines (one business day urgent, three non-urgent), require notice and independent board-certified clinician review before an adverse action to which an automated decision support tool materially contributed, and require governance and bias-testing records by June 30, 2027. It was referred to HLT and CPC February 2, 2026 and died.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's SB 2967 (2026) would have added a part to HRS chapter 480 regulating businesses ('deployers') that use AI systems or automated decision tools with consumers. They would have to disclose AI interactions, give notice and explanation, correction, appeal and human review for AI-influenced consequential decisions, keep risk programs, do annual impact assessments and report incidents within 90 days. A violation would be an unfair or deceptive act. The Senate committee on LBT deferred it February 11, 2026; it died.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's HB 2500 (2026) would have added a chapter on algorithmic decision systems. Developers would have to give deployers risk disclosures; deployers would have to give notice before use and post-decision information (including the 20 most influential characteristics) when a system affects education, employment, finance, government services, health care, housing, insurance or legal services; generative AI would have to be disclosed to users. Developers and deployers would be jointly and severally liable for violations facilitated by the deployer. House committee ECD deferred it February 6, 2026; it died.
Relating To Antitrust.
Hawaii's HB 831 (2025) would have made it unlawful for rental property owners to use a 'coordinator', a software or data analytics service whose coordinating function collects price, supply or lease-date data from two or more owners, analyzes it through computation (including training an algorithm) and recommends rents, lease renewal terms or occupancy levels; for coordinators to facilitate agreements among owners that restrict competition or for owners to engage in consciously parallel pricing coordination. It was referred to CPC, JHA and FIN in January 2025, carried over to 2026 on December 8, 2025 and was not enacted.
Relating To Permitting.
Hawaii's HB 1968 HD 1 (2026) would have directed the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, with a county it selects, to build a pilot permitting-intake platform that uses AI to support intake, routing and review of single-family-home permit applications, with a blank general-fund appropriation. It passed second reading in the House February 11, 2026 and was referred to WAL, but was not enacted.
Requesting The Department Of The Attorney General To Convene A Youth Digital Safety And Platform Accountability Working Group To Examine Technology-facilitated Abuse In The State And Develop Recommendations For Regulatory Safeguards.
Hawaii's Senate Concurrent Resolution 42 (2026) would have asked the Attorney General to convene a Youth Digital Safety and Platform Accountability Working Group on technology-facilitated abuse, including how artificial intelligence affects gender-based violence and youth safety, and to evaluate platform and technology company safety policies. A report would have been due twenty days before the 2027 session. It was only offered and referred to committee on March 19, 2026, and never adopted. It does not change the law.
Relating To Antitrust.
Hawaii's House Bill 2611 (2026) would have made it unlawful for a software or data analytics service to collect rent, supply or lease-date data from two or more landlords, process it with computation (including to train an algorithm) and recommend rents, lease terms or occupancy levels, and for two or more landlords to engage in consciously parallel pricing coordination. It would have amended the penalty section with fines up to $100,000 for individuals and $1,000,000 for entities. HSG deferred it February 11, 2026 and it was not enacted.
Surveillance-based price and wage discrimination prohibition
Minnesota's SF 4233 would have prohibited using an automated decision system to set individualized prices for consumers or wages for workers based on surveillance data about them, with listed exceptions, and required anyone using such a system for prices or wages to publish procedures to check and correct the data. The text names no enforcer or penalty. Introduced March 9, 2026 and never left committee.
Online platforms required to provide information pertaining to algorithm use, design transparency and user choice required, civil penalties provided, and rulemaking authorized.
Minnesota's HF 3980 would have required online platforms doing business in Minnesota that use personal-data-based algorithmic recommender systems to publicly disclose each system's inputs and weights (grouped in quartiles), default to maximizing users' long-term value, give users controls over recommended and blocked item types, and keep a holdout group with an annual public disclosure and independent audit. Violations would have been an unfair and deceptive practice, with the attorney general able to enforce and users able to recover $5,000 per violation. It was introduced March 5, 2026 and never left committee.
Acquisition and use of facial recognition technology by government entities prohibited.
Minnesota's HF 3661 would have barred state and local government entities, law enforcement agencies and officials from obtaining, retaining, accessing or using face surveillance systems or their information, or contracting with private entities to do so. Evidence from violations would have been inadmissible, and people could sue for damages of at least $1,000 or $100 per violation, whichever is greater, plus injunctions. Introduced February 23, 2026 and referred to Judiciary Finance and Civil Law and it never left committee.
Acquisition and use prohibition of facial recognition technology by government entities
Minnesota's SF 129 (93rd Legislature) would have barred state and local government entities, law enforcement agencies and officials from obtaining, retaining, accessing or using face surveillance systems or their information, or contracting with private entities to do so. People could have sued for damages of at least $1,000 or $100 per violation, whichever is greater, plus injunctions. Introduced January 11, 2023 and never left committee.
Interactions with Artificial Intelligence
Not law: died in committee. Florida's HB 659 would have created s. 501.172, F.S., requiring operators of companion chatbots to display a notice that companion chatbots are AI-generated, not human and may not be suitable for some minors, maintain a protocol against suicide and self-harm content that refers users to the 988 lifeline, offer age verification and, for known minors, disclose the AI, show a break reminder at least every 3 hours and take reasonable measures against sexually explicit material. Annual reports to the Department of Legal Affairs would have started July 1, 2027. It died in subcommittee on March 13, 2026.
Public Records/Artificial Intelligence Transparency Violations
Not law: died in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Florida's SB 1682 (2024) would have made confidential and exempt from public records the information the Department of Legal Affairs receives from notices of violations of a proposed AI transparency section (s. 501.174) or from its investigations, until the investigation is completed or ceases to be active. Its linked bill CS/CS/SB 1680 became Chapter 2024-118, but as enacted it did not create s. 501.174 or this exemption, so none of SB 1682 became law.
Autonomous Vehicles
Not law: died in committee. Florida's CS/HB 725 (2017) would have let a person with a valid driver license engage a vehicle's autonomous technology and treated that person as the operator for traffic laws, deemed the technology validly licensed in autonomous mode, and required registered autonomous vehicles to alert people to a technology failure and, if no human takes control, be capable of bringing the vehicle to a complete stop. It was indefinitely postponed and died in the Government Accountability Committee on May 5, 2017.
Information Technology Act Amendments
Utah's SB 131 requires paid election communications that contain AI-generated synthetic media to carry set disclosures. Audio must say "Contains content generated by AI." at the beginning and end; visuals must show a set AI label throughout the synthetic portions; online versions must also carry embedded tamper-evident content provenance data. A court may impose a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation on the creator or sponsor. Judges and the parole board may treat committing or facilitating a crime with the intentional or knowing use and material assistance of AI as an aggravating factor. Signed March 13, 2024; effective May 1, 2024 (the sentencing provision July 1, 2024).
AN ACT relating to privacy protection.
Kentucky's HB 63 (2026 session) would have created a civil cause of action and a felony for disseminating a 'deep fake': realistic media that appears to show a person saying or doing something they did not, depends substantially on technical means, and lacks adequate labeling. A natural person who willfully and knowingly disseminated one without the depicted person's written consent would have been liable for damages, with a three-year limitation period; a criminal offense would have been a Class D felony. Referred to House Judiciary January 14, 2026; died when the session ended.
An act relating to artificial intelligence
Vermont's H.821 (2026) would have required anyone using generative AI to interact with consumers to clearly disclose, when asked, that the consumer is dealing with AI, and would have required licensed professionals to disclose high-risk generative AI interactions. Violations would have been unfair and deceptive acts enforced by the Attorney General, and a person could not blame generative AI as a defense. It would also have added members to the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council and required a report by January 15, 2027. Referred to committee January 29, 2026; died.
An act relating to liability standards for developers and deployers of artificial intelligence systems
Vermont's H.792 (2026) would have added 9 V.S.A. chapter 118 on liability for developers and deployers of AI. A developer would have been liable in a products liability action only if it failed to use reasonable care in design, warnings or express warranty, with a rebuttable presumption of non-defect for developers that test, mitigate, disclose risks and keep an AI data sheet. Deployers would have been treated as developers if they materially changed or misused a product. Violations would have been unfair and deceptive acts. Referred to committee January 28, 2026; died.
An act relating to consumer data privacy
Vermont's S.93 (2025-2026 biennium) would have enacted a consumer data privacy law applying to businesses that process personal data of at least 100,000 consumers, or at least 25,000 consumers while deriving over 25 percent of revenue from selling data. It would have given consumers rights including opting out of profiling for solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, required consent for sensitive data including biometrics, and given the Attorney General exclusive enforcement. It died in committee after referral on February 27, 2025.
Prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination and surge pricing for retail goods.
Washington's SB 6312, the Senate companion to HB 2481 (2026 session), would have barred non-small businesses selling grocery products from surveillance-based price discrimination (prices set from monitoring or automated analysis of a consumer's personal data) and from surge pricing based on real-time or predicted demand; 'algorithm' is defined to include AI. It would also have barred electronic shelf labels in stores of 15,000 square feet or more until January 1, 2030; violations would be Consumer Protection Act violations. It got no committee action on February 4, 2026 and died at adjournment.
Artificial Intelligence Amendments
Utah's HB 452 regulates mental health chatbots: generative AI that holds therapy-like conversations and that the supplier represents, or a reasonable person would believe, can provide mental health therapy or help manage mental health conditions. Suppliers may not sell or share Utah users' identifiable health information or input (limited exceptions), may not use input to target or tailor ads, must label in-chat ads, and must disclose the chatbot is AI before access, after seven days of non-use and when asked. Fines up to $2,500 per violation. Signed March 25, 2025; effective May 7, 2025.
Relating to pornography access for minors
West Virginia's SB 498 (2026 regular session) would have added W. Va. Code 61-8A-6, requiring commercial adult websites (where sexually explicit material is more than 25% of content) to verify age with biometric facial recognition, a government-issued ID and an adult's credit card, repeated every 24 hours, without storing biometric data after verification. Penalties would include $1 million per violation and civil damages. It was sent to Senate Judiciary on January 19, 2026 and died when the session ended March 14, 2026.
Providing for 4th Amendment Restoration Act
West Virginia's SB 688 (2025 regular session), called the Responsible Use of Facial Recognition Act in its text, would have limited law enforcement use of six listed technologies, including facial recognition, to uses under a warrant based on probable cause, created a facial recognition working group in the Department of Homeland Security to publish a model policy by January 1, 2026, and required agencies to use only U.S.-made facial recognition technology with algorithms tested by NIST. It was sent to Senate Government Organization on March 4, 2025 and went no further.
Prohibiting creation, production, distribution or possession of artificially generated child pornography
West Virginia's SB 741 (2024 regular session, committee substitute) would have added W. Va. Code 61-8C-12 making it a felony to knowingly and intentionally create, produce, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute an AI-created visual depiction of a minor in obscene sexually explicit conduct, even if no actual minor is depicted. The penalty would be a fine up to $20,000, 1 to 10 years in prison, or both. It passed the Senate on February 20, 2024 but was still on House third reading on March 8, 2024 and did not pass.
An Act to implement the recommendations of the special commission on facial recognition technology
Massachusetts' H 4359 (193rd General Court, 2023-2024) would have made it unlawful for law enforcement to use biometric surveillance technology, including facial recognition, absent express legal authorization. The registrar of motor vehicles could use facial recognition to verify identity for licenses, and State Police could run searches for limited purposes such as a judge-authorized warrant for a felony or an emergency. Reported by Judiciary and sent to House Ways and Means on February 12, 2024, it saw no further action and died with the session.
Provides for the regulation of mental health chatbots that use artificial intelligence technology. (gov sig)
Louisiana's SB5 would have required operators of AI mental health chatbots to disclose clearly that the chatbot is AI and not a human, to maintain protocols for suicidal ideation, self-harm and harm to others, and not to sell or share users' identifiable health information. It would also have restricted advertising in chatbot conversations. The Attorney General could seek fines up to $10,000 per violation after a 45-day cure notice. It stayed in Senate Health and Welfare and died.
Establishes a cause of action for misuse of artificial intelligence
Louisiana's HB157 would have made it a violation of the state's identity-misappropriation law to use AI to generate an audiovisual work of a person's identity (name, voice, likeness or digital replica) for a commercial purpose without prior consent. Violators could be liable for the greater of $1,000 or actual damages plus disgorgement of profits, with injunctions and discretionary attorney fees. It was referred to House Civil Law and Procedure March 9, 2026 and died.
Relating to explicit digital forgeries.
Not law. Oregon HB 2230 (2025), sponsored by Representative Osborne, would have made it a crime, with intent to harass, humiliate or injure, to create, possess, distribute or purchase a sexually explicit image digitally forged with software or AI to appear as a realistic depiction of an individual. First degree (depicted person a minor) would have been a Class C felony; second degree (without the person's consent) a Class A misdemeanor. It was referred to Judiciary and Ways and Means and was in committee upon adjournment June 27, 2025.
Relating to autonomous vehicles.
Not law. Oregon HB 4085 (2026) would have let autonomous vehicles run on Oregon highways with the driving system engaged if they can reach a minimal risk condition or request intervention, follow state vehicle law and meet federal safety standards. It would have required at least $1 million per occurrence third-party liability coverage, state authorization for driverless for-hire service and local preemption. It had a public hearing in the House Transportation committee and was in committee upon adjournment March 6, 2026.
A bill for an act relating to restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence, and creating a civil cause of action.
Iowa's HF 406 would require device companies and AI developers to disclose and get separate agreement before AI accesses private data on smart devices, let users uninstall preinstalled AI, and bar using AI to recreate a person's likeness without consent for commercial or deceptive uses. It creates a private right of action with punitive damages up to $250,000 per violation. A House subcommittee recommended passage March 5, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Biometric data and license plate readers-regulation.
Wyoming's HB 0181 (2026) would have barred governmental entities from using biometric data to identify or verify people, geolocation data to locate people or vehicles, and automatic license plate reader (ALPR) systems to identify vehicles, with narrow law enforcement exceptions (mostly warrant-based), a seven-day retention limit for data not tied to an investigation, and a civil action for damages or injunctive relief. Received for introduction February 11, 2026; the House did not consider it for introduction on February 13, 2026, so it died.
Use of fabricated media in elections.
Indiana's SB 7 (2024) would have barred disseminating 'fabricated media' made with generative AI, or contracting to do so, fewer than 90 days before an election to injure a candidate or influence the outcome, when the person knows or reasonably should know it is fabricated, the depicted person did not consent (for altered recordings and imitations of real people), and it lacks the disclaimer 'Elements of this media have been digitally altered or artificially generated.' A knowing and intentional violation would be a Class B misdemeanor, with enhancements. Referred to committee January 8, 2024; it did not pass.
Use of altered media in elections.
Indiana's HB 1283 (2024) would have barred anyone who finances a candidate communication from disseminating 'fabricated media' (altered recordings or generative-AI imitations made without consent) of a candidate in an election within 90 days, to injure the candidate or party or influence the outcome, unless it carries the disclaimer 'This media has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence.' A depicted candidate could sue; the bill sets no criminal penalties. Referred to committee January 9, 2024; it did not pass.
Eavesdropping, Peeping, and Voyeurism
South Carolina's H. 5394 (2023-24) would have amended Code 16-17-470 (eavesdropping, peeping and voyeurism) to increase penalties and to cover knowingly creating or altering images, audio, video or digital files with a generative adversarial network or other digital technology to make a realistic but false depiction of another person without consent, for sexual arousal or gratification, and knowingly selling or distributing such material without consent. It would also have required destruction of evidence and notice to additional victims. Referred to House Judiciary April 10, 2024; it did not pass.
Deceptive and fraudulent deepfake media in elections
South Carolina's H. 4660 (2023-24) would have added Code 7-25-230 barring distribution, within ninety days of an election, of synthetic media the distributor knows or should know is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate on the ballot, unless it carries the disclosure 'This _____ (image, video, or audio) has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence.' A first violation would be a misdemeanor (up to 90 days, $500) and a second within five years a felony. Referred to House Judiciary January 9, 2024; it did not pass.
Public Safety Protections Artificial Intelligence
Not law. Colorado's HB 25-1212, as introduced, would have protected workers at developers that trained a foundation AI model costing at least $100 million in compute. Developers could not prevent or retaliate against workers who disclose information they have reasonable cause to believe shows a legal violation, a substantial public safety or security risk, or false or misleading statements about such risks, and would have had to notify workers and offer an anonymous internal disclosure process. Workers could sue for reinstatement, the greater of $10,000 or lost pay, and attorney fees. House Judiciary amended it; it never passed the House and its status is Lost.
Prohibits use of algorithm or artificial intelligence to set residential rental amounts and prohibits landlord price fixing of residential rents. Violations constitute a deceptive trade practice and violators are subject to civil suit.
Rhode Island S 2892 (2024), as introduced on March 22, 2024, would add section 34-18-15.1 barring any landlord or person from using an algorithm, commercial computer program or digital technology, including AI, to set or determine residential rent. It would also bar sharing rental information with intent to stabilize rents across owners. Violations would be deceptive trade practices, and aggrieved persons could seek injunctions, damages and treble damages. The text says it takes effect upon passage.
Relating to the unlawful production or distribution of sexually explicit images or videos using deep fake technology; increasing a criminal penalty.
Texas HB 1092 (2025), as introduced, would have made it an offense to knowingly produce or distribute by electronic means a deep fake image or video that appears to show a real person with intimate parts exposed or in sexual conduct, without that person's effective consent. It would have been a Class A misdemeanor, or a state jail felony if a depicted real child was younger than 14 when the depiction was created. It did not pass both chambers and died when the regular session adjourned June 2, 2025.
Relating to the regulation and reporting on the use of artificial intelligence systems by certain business entities and state agencies; providing civil penalties.
Texas HB 1709 (2025), as introduced, the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, would have set duties for developers, distributors and deployers of high-risk AI systems that are a substantial factor in consequential decisions, with attorney general enforcement and civil penalties of $50,000 to $100,000 per uncured violation. It also would have banned certain uses, created a regulatory sandbox and an AI Council. It died when the regular session adjourned June 2, 2025.
Relating to the unlawful production or distribution of sexually explicit images or videos using deep fake technology; increasing a criminal penalty.
Texas HB 387 (2025), as introduced, would have amended Penal Code Sec. 21.165 so that knowingly producing or distributing by electronic means a deep fake image or video that appears to show a real person with intimate parts exposed or in sexual conduct, without effective consent, is a state jail felony instead of a Class A misdemeanor. It did not pass both chambers and died when the regular session adjourned June 2, 2025.
To Require Public Entities To Create A Policy Concerning The Authorized Use Of Artificial Intelligence.
Act 848 requires every Arkansas public entity, from state departments to cities, counties, school districts and colleges, to adopt an artificial intelligence and automated decision tool policy. The policy must define the authorized uses of AI and automated decision tools and require an authorized human employee or designee to make every final decision, whatever the AI recommends. Entities must train employees on the policy and create a disciplinary procedure for violations. Because the act has no emergency clause, it took effect August 5, 2025.
Relating to an automated artificial intelligence review of library material purchased by public schools; providing an administrative penalty.
Texas HB 4448 (2025), as introduced, would have required school districts and open-enrollment charter schools to have library material reviewed by a Texas Education Agency-approved third party using an automated AI review to rate it sexually explicit or sexually relevant. Explicit material could not be purchased, and relevant material would need parental consent. The agency could assess penalties up to $10,000 per library material acquired in violation. It did not pass both chambers and died June 2, 2025.
Relating to the use of artificial intelligence-based algorithms by health benefit plan issuers, utilization review agents, health care providers, and physicians.
Texas SB 1411 (2025), as introduced, would have regulated AI-based algorithms in health coverage and care. Health benefit plan issuers and physicians could not discriminate on race, color, national origin, gender, age, vaccination status or disability using clinical AI algorithms. Issuers would have had to disclose AI use in utilization review, submit algorithms and training data to the insurance department, and have a specialist review before an adverse determination. Physicians and providers could have faced license sanctions and fines up to $5,000 per violation. It died June 2, 2025.
Relating to the use of artificial intelligence-based algorithms in utilization review conducted for certain health benefit plans.
Texas SB 1822 (2025), as engrossed, would have added Insurance Code Sec. 4201.156 requiring health benefit plan issuers and their utilization review agents to disclose whether they use AI-based algorithms in utilization review, ensure the algorithm and its training data minimize bias and follow evidence-based clinical guidelines, and file an annual compliance statement by December 31. It passed the Senate, but no enrolled version exists, so it died June 2, 2025.
A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 12.1-31 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to prohibiting deepfake videos and images; and to provide a penalty.
North Dakota's HB 1320 (2025) would have created a new section of Century Code chapter 12.1-31 making it a class A misdemeanor to intentionally produce, possess, distribute, promote, advertise, sell, exhibit, broadcast or transmit a 'deepfake video or image' without the consent of the person shown. A deepfake was any video or audio recording, film, image or photograph digitally altered or created by AI with intent to deceive that depicts a person's image or voice in something that did not occur. The House defeated it 17-69 on January 21, 2025.
Relating to biometric identifiers used in the performance of artificial intelligence.
Texas SB 2490 (2025), as introduced, would have amended Business & Commerce Code Sec. 503.001 (biometric identifiers) to define artificial intelligence and add Subsection (f) exempting AI-related training, processing or storage of biometric identifiers, unless done to uniquely identify a specific individual or the identifier is later used for another and separate commercial purpose. It states no penalty amounts. No enrolled version exists, so it died June 2, 2025.
Relating to establishing a framework to govern the use of artificial intelligence systems in critical decision-making by private companies and ensure consumer protections; authorizing a civil penalty.
Texas SB 2966 (2025), as introduced, would have added Business & Commerce Code Chapter 551 requiring a private company that uses an AI system to make a consequential decision, meaning one with a material, legal or similarly significant effect on a consumer, to establish a framework to govern the system's use to protect consumers. A company that violates it would be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one dollar. No enrolled version exists, so it died June 2, 2025.
Relating to the use of an automated employment decision tool by an employer to assess a job applicant's fitness for a position; imposing an administrative penalty.
Texas SB 2991 (2025), as introduced, would have added Labor Code Chapter 95 barring employers from using an automated employment decision tool on an applicant unless they notify the applicant, explain how it is used and what characteristics may be evaluated, and get written consent. Tools could not use protected-class status or the applicant's zip code. Employers would have had to make reasonable efforts to destroy assessments within 30 days, and the commission would assess administrative penalties of $2,500 to $7,500 per violation. No enrolled version exists, so it died June 2, 2025.
Relating to the disclosure of information with regard to artificial intelligence.
Texas SB 668 (2025), as engrossed, would have added Business & Commerce Code Chapter 2003 requiring a person that uses AI to provide services to individuals in Texas and generated, or is more than 25 percent owned by a person who generated, at least $100 billion in total revenue to disclose on its website each AI model used, its purpose, and any third-party input and resulting model changes. A violation would have been a deceptive trade practice. It passed the Senate, but no enrolled version exists, so it died June 2, 2025.
Relative to licensing requirements for autonomous vehicle testing and establishing an automated and connected vehicle testing and deployment commission.
Vetoed. HB 314 (2017-2018) would have created a New Hampshire autonomous vehicle testing license, requiring at least $10 million in insurance, bond or self-insurance, a $500 annual fee, federal safety-standard compliance and a law enforcement interaction plan; allowed SAE level 5 fully automated vehicles on the road only for licensed testers with an escort vehicle; and set up an automated and connected vehicle testing and deployment commission. Governor Sununu vetoed it on July 2, 2018. The House voted to override (279-66) but the Senate sustained the veto (5-19) on September 13, 2018.
AN ACT relating to addictive online platforms.
Not law. As introduced, HB 227 would have regulated both AI companion platforms and large social media platforms in Kentucky: addictive features for minors, age verification, verifiable parental consent for children's accounts, a private right of action and Attorney General enforcement. The House committee substitute removed the AI companion platform provisions, leaving a social media bill, which the House passed 96-0 on March 9, 2026. It then stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee and died when the 2026 session ended.
Relative to the use of information technology and artificial intelligence systems by state agencies.
Did not pass. SB 657 would have expanded New Hampshire's oversight of AI in state government: the information technology council would advise on agencies' development, procurement and use of AI, including compliance with the state's AI code of ethics (RSA 5-D) and privacy safeguards, and the Department of Information Technology would keep a public inventory of executive-branch AI systems and report each October 1 on their use, compliance, incidents and workforce effects. Both chambers passed versions, but the Senate refused the House amendment on May 21, 2026 and no further action followed.
Requires DLPS to establish training program to prepare law enforcement to interact with autonomous vehicles.
New Jersey's A958 would require the Attorney General, consulting the Commissioner of Transportation, to develop or approve a training course on safely interacting with autonomous vehicles in emergency and traffic enforcement situations and make it available to all law enforcement agencies. New officers would have to complete it before permanent appointment.
Establishing the Kansas community harmed by AI technology act, mandating user accounts and age verification for AI chatbot access, classifying users by age, requiring parental consent for minors, blocking explicit content, protecting age information confidentiality, monitoring for suicidal…
Not law. The Kansas CHAT Act (Community Harmed by AI Technology Act) would have required anyone offering a companion AI chatbot in Kansas to require user accounts, verify every user's age (freezing existing accounts until verified), and link minors' accounts to a verified parent account with parental consent. Minors would have been blocked from chatbots that engage in sexually explicit talk, and cut off with their parent alerted if they expressed suicidal thoughts. Chatbots would have had to show a pop-up at least every 60 minutes saying the user is not talking to a human. It died in committee on April 10, 2026.
Making it unlawful for a person to knowingly train artificial intelligence to encourage or support suicide or the unlawful killing of another person, provide emotional support, develop emotional relationships, act as a healthcare professional, simulate humans or encourage isolation.
Not law. SB 405 would have made it unlawful in Kansas to knowingly train AI, including chatbots, to encourage suicide or killing, give emotional support, act as a companion, pose as a licensed mental health or healthcare professional, act like a human friend, encourage isolation from family, or simulate a human being. The Attorney General or a harmed person could have sued for actual damages or $150,000, plus punitive damages and fees; courts could order the AI shut down until retrained and fine up to $50,000 per violation. It had a hearing on February 9, 2026 and died in committee on April 10, 2026.
Creates provisions relating to artificial intelligence chatbots
Not law. SB 1455, Missouri's Senate version of the GUARD Act, would have made it unlawful to design or offer an AI chatbot knowing or recklessly disregarding that it risks soliciting minors into sexually explicit conduct, or that it encourages suicide, self-injury or violence (fines up to $100,000 per offense). Operators would have had to require accounts, verify every user's age, freeze existing accounts until verified, bar minors from their chatbots, and disclose at the start of each conversation and every 30 minutes that the chatbot is AI, not a human. It was referred to committee and got no further action before the May 15, 2026 deadline for passing bills.
Ban on employer use of automated decision systems.
Not law. HB 1421 would have barred Indiana employers with 11 or more workers, and state and local government employers, from relying solely on an automated decision system for hiring, firing, pay, scheduling or other job decisions. Using such a system's output would have required bias testing before use and independent testing every year, advance notice to workers and applicants, human review, plain-language documentation within 7 days, and a right to dispute and appeal to a person. Workers could opt out of algorithmic management. It was referred to committee on January 8, 2026 and got no further action before the 2026 session adjourned.
AN ACT relating to artificial intelligence and declaring an emergency.
Not law. As passed by the House 88-7 on February 23, 2026, HB 455 would have barred anyone from providing or advertising therapy or psychotherapy in Kentucky, including through internet-based AI, unless a licensed professional performs it. Licensed therapists could have used AI only for administrative and supplementary support such as scheduling, billing and notes, with written notice and consent before using AI on recorded sessions, and AI could not make therapeutic decisions or treatment plans without their approval. Fines up to $10,000 per violation. It reached the Senate but got no further action before the 2026 regular session ended.
Regulates artificial intelligence in news media industry; establishes "Artificial Intelligence In Communications Oversight Committee."
New Jersey's A3307 would regulate AI in the news media. News entities could use AI to assist staff but not replace them, and generative AI content would need a prominent label, source credit and an accuracy disclaimer. Civil penalties would be $10,000, $20,000 and then $30,000 per violation. It would also create the Artificial Intelligence In Communications Oversight Committee. Pre-filed for introduction in the 2026 session.
Prohibits advertising artificial intelligence system as licensed mental health professional.
New Jersey's A5603 would bar anyone who develops or deploys an AI system in New Jersey from advertising or representing to the public that it is, or can act as, a licensed mental health professional. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. Introduced May 5, 2025. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2, Chapter 19, relative to the Transparency for Deepfakes in Political Advertising Act.
Tennessee's Transparency for Deepfakes in Political Advertising Act (Public Chapter 625) requires political ads that contain a deepfake of a candidate to say so. Audio impersonating a candidate must state at the start and end that it contains fake content; video must show a large notice for its full length. For non-incumbents, the rule covers ads distributed within 120 days before voting begins. Platforms, internet providers and paid broadcasters are not liable unless they created the deepfake. Depicted candidates can seek damages and equitable relief, and violations are a Class C misdemeanor. Effective July 1, 2026.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2, Chapter 19, relative to the Transparency for Deepfakes in Political Advertising Act.
SB 1624 is the Senate companion of HB 1513, which became Tennessee Public Chapter 625 after the Senate passed the House bill in its place on March 12, 2026. The law requires political ads that contain a deepfake of a candidate to say so: audio must state at the start and end that it contains fake content, and video must show a large notice for its full length. For non-incumbents, it covers ads within 120 days before voting begins. Platforms and paid broadcasters are not liable unless they created the deepfake; violations are a Class C misdemeanor. Effective July 1, 2026.
Establishes Deepfake Technology Unit in DLPS; appropriates $2 million.
New Jersey's A2364 would have the Attorney General, consulting the State Chief Technology Officer, create a Deepfake Technology Unit in the Division of Criminal Justice to give technical help and training to law enforcement, prosecutors and State courts, and would appropriate $2,000,000 to the Department of Law and Public Safety. First Reprint, reported by the Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on March 4, 2024, with amendments. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Establishes Deep Fake Technology Unit in DLPS; appropriates $2 million.
New Jersey's S2545 would have the Attorney General, consulting the Chief Technology Officer of the Office of Information Technology, create a Deep Fake Technology Unit in the Division of Criminal Justice to give technical help and training to law enforcement, prosecutors and State courts, and would appropriate $2 million to the Department of Law and Public Safety. Introduced February 8, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Requires DLPS to establish training program to prepare law enforcement to interact with autonomous vehicles.
New Jersey's A3757 would require the Attorney General, consulting the Commissioner of Transportation, to develop or approve a training course for law enforcement officers on safely interacting with autonomous vehicles in emergency and traffic enforcement situations. The Attorney General would have to ensure all officers complete in-service training by December 31, 2020, a date that falls before the bill's introduction, and new officers would complete it before permanent appointment. Introduced February 22, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8, Chapter 27; Title 56 and Title 71, relative to health insurance.
Not law. SB 1261 would have regulated how Tennessee health insurers, TennCare and state employee plans use AI, algorithms and software in utilization review. Tools would have had to base decisions on the patient's own clinical history rather than group data alone, not replace provider judgment or discriminate, and be reviewed periodically. AI could not deny, delay or modify care based on medical necessity; only a licensed physician or qualified health professional could decide that. Violations would have been unfair claims practices, with a right to sue. It never left committee and died when the 114th General Assembly adjourned.
Relating to digital replication rights in the voice and visual likeness of individuals; providing private causes of action; authorizing a fee.
Texas SB 1960 (2025), as engrossed, would have added Business & Commerce Code Chapter 651 giving individuals a licensable property right in computer-generated digital replicas of their voice or visual likeness. Producing or publishing a replica without written consent would have been prohibited, subject to exceptions such as news, commentary, satire and parody; online services would have had to designate a takedown agent, and rights holders could sue for injunctions and damages. It passed the Senate but died in a House committee at sine die adjournment June 2, 2025.
Artificial intelligence business; attorney general
Arizona's HB 4098 (2026) would have required an 'artificial intelligence business' using a frontier model from a large developer to assess each high-risk AI system for bias, child-safety, privacy and catastrophic risks, file a transparency report with the attorney general and post it publicly, and run quarterly audits. The attorney general could impose civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation. It was held in House committees with no action and died when the 2026 session ended June 13, 2026.
Autonomous vehicles; safety; data
Arizona's SB 1417 (2026) would have amended the autonomous vehicle chapter (A.R.S. 28-9701 et seq.) so that a fully autonomous vehicle could run without a human driver only if its operator submitted a law enforcement interaction plan, a written compliance statement, proof of at least $5,000,000 in liability coverage per occurrence, update notices and quarterly safety reports. It was held in Senate committees with no action and died when the 2026 session ended June 13, 2026.
Rental price fixing; algorithmic pricing
Arizona's HB 2490 (2026) would have barred a coordinator or a residential landlord from using an algorithmic device that uses nonpublic competitor data to perform a coordinating function in order to set or adjust rents, renewal terms or occupancy levels or to facilitate an agreement not to compete. Use in violation would, in specified circumstances, create a rebuttable presumption of a contract or conspiracy to restrain trade. It was held in House committees with no action and died when the 2026 session ended June 13, 2026.
Election communications; prohibition; deep fakes
Arizona's SB 1515 (2024) would have added A.R.S. 16-1023, barring distribution within ninety days before an election of a synthetic media message that the distributor knows or should know is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate or political party on the ballot, unless it carries the disclosure 'This [image/video/audio] has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence.' A depicted candidate could seek an injunction. It was held in Senate committees with no action and died with the 2023-24 (56th Legislature) session.
Crimes and offenses; obscenity; repeal and replace Code Section 16-12-80
Not law. HB 171 passed the Georgia House 160-0 in February 2025. Its final Senate Rules Committee substitute (March 27, 2026), the Ensuring Accountability for Illegal AI Activities Act, would have made it a felony (1 to 15 years) to knowingly create, distribute, solicit or possess for distribution AI-generated visual material harmful to minors, even if no real child is shown. It would also have added longer sentences when a defendant knowingly used AI to commit offenses such as stalking, elder exploitation, child enticement, theft, fraud or election interference. It never got a Senate floor vote before the 2025-2026 session ended.
Artificial intelligence systems that simulate humanlike relationships with children and providing a penalty.
Not law. AB 965 would have barred operators from making a companion chatbot available to Wisconsin children unless safety measures kept it from encouraging self-harm, suicide, violence, drug or alcohol use or disordered eating; offering mental health services; encouraging illegal acts; sexual content with a child; putting validation ahead of accuracy or safety; or optimizing engagement over those safeguards. Until 2027 it would have applied only when the operator knew the user was a child. Forfeitures up to $25,000 per violation, and harmed children could sue. It failed to pass when the session's floor period ended on March 23, 2026.
Deceptive and fraudulent deepfake media in elections
Not law. H 3517 would have barred anyone from distributing, within 90 days of an election, synthetic media they knew or should have known was a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate on the ballot, unless it carried a disclosure that it was manipulated or generated by AI. Depicted candidates could have sought injunctions and damages; violations would have been a misdemeanor (up to 90 days or $500), and a felony for a repeat offense within five years. News coverage, paid broadcasters acting in good faith and satire were exempt. It never left the House Judiciary Committee before South Carolina's 2026 regular session ended.
Law Enforcement Artificial Intelligence Amendments
Utah's SB 205 (2026), Law Enforcement Artificial Intelligence Amendments (second substitute), would have amended the 2025 law on police use of generative AI to require agency policies to cover available oversight or safeguard settings and to require agencies to post their policy publicly. It passed the Senate on February 26, 2026 (20-0-9); the House struck the enacting clause on March 6 and the Senate filed it.
Requires advertisements to disclose the use of a synthetic performer
New York requires advertisers to disclose when an ad contains a synthetic performer: a digital asset created or modified with generative AI or software to look like a human performer who is not any identifiable real person. Anyone who produces or creates an ad for goods or services, in any medium, must conspicuously disclose it if they actually know the synthetic performer is there. Penalties are $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for each later one. Audio ads, AI used only to translate a performer, and promos for films, shows or games that use the performer as the work does are exempt, as are the outlets that run ads. Signed December 11, 2025 (Chapter 617); effective June 9, 2026.
"Ensuring Likeness, Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act of 2025"; enact to expand protections against artificial intelligence deep fakes.
Mississippi's HB 768 (2025), the "Ensuring Likeness, Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act of 2025," would have given every individual, living or dead, a property right in the use of the individual's name, photograph, voice or likeness, with the stated purpose of expanding artificial intelligence protections. It would have created civil liability, including for distributing a tool that produces a particular person's voice or likeness without authorization, and a misdemeanor. It was referred to committee on January 16, 2025, and died in committee on February 4, 2025.
Artificial Intelligence Fraud and Accountability Act; enact.
Mississippi's SB 2354 (2026), the "Artificial Intelligence Fraud and Accountability Act," would have created a civil cause of action for anyone injured by use of AI systems (including deepfakes, voice cloning, generative tools, chatbots or automated decision-making systems) to deceive, impersonate or obtain money, property, data or other assets. It would have allowed the greater of compensatory damages or $500 per violation. It was referred to Judiciary, Division A on January 19, 2026, and died in committee on February 3, 2026.
Mental health professionals: artificial intelligence.
Vetoed. SB 903, the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act, would have limited AI in California psychotherapy to administrative and supplementary support. Recording or transcribing sessions, or AI triage, would have needed the patient's informed consent, and AI could not make therapeutic decisions, produce diagnoses or treatment plans, detect emotions or screen patients without a licensed professional's review. Companion chatbots could not be marketed as therapy. Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 30, 2026, calling it overly broad and saying it would restrict useful clinical tools and reach general-purpose AI.
Urging Congress To Begin A Discussion Considering The Benefits And Risks Of Artificial Intelligence Technologies.
Hawaii's Senate Concurrent Resolution 179 (H.D. 1) (2023) urges Congress to begin a discussion of the benefits and risks of AI technologies. It states that AI software wrote all of its whereas clauses in seconds when asked to "write an essay explaining the potential dangers of artificial intelligence," which should alert policymakers to the technology's power and dangers. It urges national leaders to evaluate AI in public sector identification technologies, such as law enforcement and military uses, and says universal safety guidelines, such as Asimov's three rules of robotics, should be considered. Adopted in final form April 28, 2023; a concurrent resolution does not change the law.
Toys: companion chatbots.
California bans toys with companion chatbots until 2031. From January 1, 2027, no one may make, sell, exchange, possess for sale, or offer to a retailer a toy (a physical product designed, marketed or made for play by children under 16) that includes a companion chatbot: an AI system with a natural-language interface that gives adaptive, human-like responses and can meet a user's social needs, including by sustaining a relationship across interactions. Violations carry the same civil liability as the state's companion chatbot rules. The ban is repealed January 1, 2031. Signed September 10, 2026 (Chapter 189).
Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding unbiased artificial intelligence in state government purchasing.
Did not pass. H 687 would have let Idaho executive-branch agencies, including public colleges, buy or use a large language model only if it is 'truth-seeking' and 'ideologically neutral.' Agencies could not use models designed to alter facts or history to advance diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) outcomes, restrict lawful content based on race or sex, embed DEI-based guardrails, or require users to affirm DEI concepts. Contracts would have given agencies access to system prompts, training directives and test results to check compliance. It passed the House 56-11 but died in the Senate State Affairs Committee.
Political campaign advertisements; synthetic media, penalty.
Vetoed. Virginia's SB 775 (2025) would have barred sponsoring an electioneering communication (a paid message naming a candidate, aimed at voters within 60 days of the election) containing synthetic media, meaning deceptively altered or AI-generated images or audio of an identifiable person, unless it conspicuously stated that it contains synthetic media that may present conduct or speech that did not occur. Violations would have carried civil penalties up to $25,000 and, if willful, a Class 1 misdemeanor; voters could have sued to stop the ads. Governor Youngkin vetoed it (the Senate received the veto March 25, 2025), and the Senate sustained the veto April 2, 2025.
Criminal Offenses - As introduced, prohibits a person or entity from distributing an electoral deepfake within 90 days of an election that the person or entity knows or should have known is a deceptive and fraudulent depiction of a candidate or political party; creates civil penalties and outlines…
Tennessee's HB 2214 (114th General Assembly) would have barred a person, corporation, committee or other entity, within 90 days of an election, from distributing an electoral deepfake that it knows or should have known deceptively or fraudulently depicts a candidate for state or local office or the candidate's party, unless the media carries a required AI disclosure. County election commissions could impose civil fines of up to $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000. Companion: SB 2321. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Taken off notice for cal in s/c Elections & Campaign Finance Subcommittee of State & Local Government Committee (March 10, 2026).
Relative to providing multimodal transportation technologies
Not law. S 2379 would have allowed fully autonomous vehicles (SAE Level 4 or 5) to drive on Massachusetts highways without a human driver once licensed by MassDOT, if they can reach a minimal-risk condition after a system failure and follow traffic laws. Vehicles of 10,000 pounds or more would still need a human driver aboard; owners would file a law-enforcement interaction plan and carry $1 million in liability coverage, and on-demand autonomous ride networks would be allowed. It was sent to a study order on July 31, 2026, ending it for the session.
Mississippi Fully Autonomous Vehicle Enabling (MS FAVE) Act of 2023; establish to regulate operation of autonomous vehicle on public roads.
Mississippi's MS FAVE Act of 2023 lets fully autonomous vehicles run on public roads without a human driver if the system is engaged and the vehicle will reach a minimal risk condition if it fails, can obey traffic laws, and bears any federally required certification label. Operators must first file a law enforcement interaction plan and proof of insurance with the Department of Public Safety. The engaged system counts as the licensed driver; vehicles are registered and titled as autonomous; on-demand AV networks may operate; and state agencies and local governments cannot ban AVs or add AV-specific taxes, fees or rules. Effective July 1, 2023.
Personal rights: liability: social media platforms.
Vetoed. California's SB 771 would have made social media platforms with more than $100 million in yearly gross revenue liable for civil penalties when they violate state civil rights laws (Civil Code §§ 51.7, 51.9, 52 and 52.1) through algorithms that relay content to users, or aid, abet, conspire in or are joint tortfeasors in such violations: up to $1,000,000 per intentional, knowing or willful violation and $500,000 per reckless one, up to double if the platform knew or should have known the plaintiff was a minor. Vetoed by Governor Newsom October 13, 2025; veto sustained March 2, 2026.
Employment: automated decision systems.
Vetoed. California's SB 7 would have regulated employers' use of automated decision systems (ADS) such as AI tools in employment decisions. Employers would have had to give workers written notice at least 30 days before deploying an ADS for decisions other than hiring (by April 1, 2026 for systems already in use), tell applicants when one is used in hiring, not rely solely on an ADS to discipline, fire or deactivate workers, use a human reviewer when relying primarily on one, and give a post-use notice, with a $500 civil penalty. Vetoed by Governor Newsom October 13, 2025; veto sustained March 2, 2026. A later bill, SB 947, was signed in 2026 (Chapter 859).
Leading Ethical AI Development (LEAD) for Kids Act.
Vetoed. California's AB 1064, the LEAD for Kids Act, would have barred businesses and government agencies from making a companion chatbot available to a child unless it was not foreseeably capable of encouraging self-harm, suicidal ideation, violence, drug or alcohol use or disordered eating; offering unsupervised therapy; encouraging harm or illegal acts; sexually explicit interactions; favoring validation over accuracy or safety; or optimizing engagement over those guardrails. The Attorney General could seek $25,000 per violation and harmed children or parents could sue. Vetoed by Governor Newsom October 13, 2025; veto consideration stricken January 22, 2026.
High-risk artificial intelligence systems: duty to protect personal information.
California's SB 468 (Becker) would add Civil Code Title 1.81.28 requiring a business that deploys a high-risk AI system (a high-risk automated decision system) that processes personal information to develop, implement and maintain a written comprehensive information security program. A violation would be a deceptive trade act under the Unfair Competition Law. Held in Senate Appropriations May 23, 2025; returned to the Secretary of the Senate under Joint Rule 56 on February 2, 2026; it did not pass the Senate.
Enacts the New York artificial intelligence bill of rights to provide residents of the state with rights and protections to ensure that any system making decisions without human intervention impacting their lives do so lawfully, properly, and with meaningful oversight.
New York's A 3265 would enact the New York artificial intelligence bill of rights as new Article 5 of the State Technology Law, giving residents rights against persons developing automated systems that have the potential to meaningfully impact their civil rights, equal opportunities or access to critical resources: safe and effective systems, protection from algorithmic discrimination, data privacy, notice and explanation, and human alternatives. The Attorney General could seek penalties of at least three times the damages. Referred to the Science and Technology Committee January 27, 2025 and again January 7, 2026; it has not passed either house.
California AI Transparency Act.
California's AB 853 amended the California AI Transparency Act (SB 942 of 2024), moving its operative date from January 1, 2026 to August 2, 2026. From January 1, 2027, large online platforms (over 2,000,000 monthly users) must detect provenance data, show whether content was generated or substantially altered by GenAI or captured by a device, and, where feasible, not knowingly strip it; GenAI hosting sites may not knowingly offer noncompliant systems. From 2028, new capture devices must embed latent disclosures by default where feasible. $5,000 per violation. Amended by AB 2713 and SB 1000 (Chapters 856, 861 of 2026). Signed October 13, 2025 (Chapter 674); effective January 1, 2026.
Artificial intelligence models: large developers.
California's SB 53, the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, covers developers of frontier models (foundation models trained with more than 10^26 operations). Large frontier developers (over $500 million in prior-year revenue with affiliates) must publish and follow a frontier AI framework for catastrophic risks. All frontier developers must publish transparency reports at deployment, report critical safety incidents to the Office of Emergency Services within 15 days, and not retaliate against whistleblowers. Large developers face penalties up to $1 million per violation. Signed September 29, 2025 (Chapter 138); effective January 1, 2026.
Law enforcement agencies: artificial intelligence.
California's SB 524 (Penal Code § 13663) requires every law enforcement agency to have a policy that official reports written fully or partly with AI name each AI program used, state "This report was written either fully or in part using artificial intelligence," and carry the preparer's signature verifying the facts. The AI first draft must be kept as long as the report, agencies must keep an audit trail, and vendors may not share or sell agency data except as allowed. Signed October 10, 2025 (Chapter 587); effective January 1, 2026.
Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024.
California's AB 2655, the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024, requires large online platforms (1M+ California users) to remove reported deepfakes of candidates, elections officials and elected officials within 72 hours during set periods around elections and to label other reported deceptive election content; candidates, officials and prosecutors may seek injunctions. Signed September 17, 2024 (Chapter 261); effective January 1, 2025. In August 2025 a federal court held it preempted by Section 230 and barred the Attorney General and Secretary of State from enforcing it against X and Rumble; they later agreed not to enforce it against any platform. California appealed.
Political Reform Act of 1974: political advertisements: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 2355 adds Government Code § 84514 to the Political Reform Act. A committee that creates, originally publishes or originally distributes a political ad containing images, audio or video generated or substantially altered using AI must include, clearly and conspicuously, "Ad generated or substantially altered using artificial intelligence." The statement goes where the Act's rules place ad disclosures for radio, video, print and online ads. The Fair Political Practices Commission may seek an injunction or use its administrative and civil remedies; a violation is not a misdemeanor. Signed September 17, 2024 (Chapter 260); effective January 1, 2025.
An Act To Amend Titles 10 And 11 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Deep Fakes.
Delaware's HB 353 (84 Del. Laws c. 479), the Amelia Kramer Act, extends Delaware's intimate-image laws to deep fakes, meaning realistic but false sexual images made with generative adversarial network techniques or other digital technology. An identifiable person harmed by the intentional disclosure or threatened disclosure of a deep fake without consent may sue for damages or statutory damages up to $10,000, the defendant's gains, punitive damages, fees and an injunction. The violation-of-privacy crime now covers deep fakes without proof of an expectation of privacy, and an adult creating a depiction of a minor is an aggravating factor. Signed and effective October 9, 2024.
Elections: deceptive media in advertisements.
California's AB 502 rewrites Elections Code § 20012 on deceptive election deepfakes. No one may, with malice, knowingly distribute an ad or election communication with materially deceptive content (intentionally digitally created or altered media, such as deepfakes, that falsely appears authentic) of a California candidate or elected official, if material to voters or to election confidence, in the 30 days before an election, or of an elections official or voting equipment from 30 days before to 38 days after. Recognizable satire is exempt. Those depicted, candidates, committees and elections officials may sue. Urgency statute signed September 19, 2026 (Chapter 333); effective immediately.
Facial recognition technology, use of match as the sole basis of probable cause or arrest, prohibited
Alabama's SB 56 (Act 2022-420) bars state and local law enforcement agencies from using facial recognition technology match results as the sole basis to establish probable cause in a criminal investigation or to make an arrest; match results may be used for those purposes only together with other lawfully obtained information and evidence. Facial recognition technology is software that, to try to identify an unknown person, generates facial biometric data (a facial template), searches a database of many people's templates linked to identifying information, and returns matches by similarity. Signed April 14, 2022; effective July 1, 2022.
Artificial intelligence: transparency and governance.
California's SB 1159 makes clear that AI systems, autonomous agents, robots and other nonhuman entities are not 'persons' or 'members of the public' who can engage with government under the Public Records Act, the open-meeting laws, the Legislative Open Records Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Coastal Act and CEQA. People may still use AI or assistive technology for their own participation at an ordinary volume. Agencies may use AI detection tools, and knowingly using AI to falsely represent that a natural person engaged with an agency is banned. Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 863); effective January 1, 2027.
THERAPY RESOURCES OVERSIGHT
Illinois' Public Act 104-0054 (HB 1806) creates the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act. No one may provide, advertise or offer therapy or psychotherapy services to the public in Illinois, including through Internet-based AI, unless a licensed professional conducts them. Licensed professionals may use AI only for administrative and supplementary support, need written notice and consent for supplementary-support AI on recorded or transcribed sessions, and may not let AI make independent therapeutic decisions, communicate therapeutically with clients or detect emotions or mental states. Civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. Approved and effective August 1, 2025.
LIMIT PREDICTIVE ANALYTICS USE
Illinois' Public Act 103-0804 (HB 3773) amends the Illinois Human Rights Act. It is a civil rights violation for an employer to use artificial intelligence that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes in recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, or the terms, privileges or conditions of employment, or to use zip codes as a proxy for protected classes. Failing to notify employees that the employer uses AI for these purposes is also a violation; the Department of Human Rights must adopt rules on notice. Approved August 9, 2024; effective January 1, 2026.
INS-ADVERSE DETERMINATION
Illinois' Public Act 103-0656 (HB 2472) is a broad health insurance act (explanation-of-benefits statements, prior authorization penalties, utilization review accreditation, adverse determinations). Its AI-related part covers algorithmic automated processes in utilization review: even when a plan or utilization review program uses one, only a clinical peer may make an adverse medical necessity determination or review an appeal. Programs using such processes must use objective, evidence-based criteria compliant with URAC or NCQA standards, set by board-certified physicians, and file proof with their registration. Approved July 19, 2024; effective January 1, 2025.
SOS-FACIAL RECOGNITION INFO
Illinois' Public Act 102-0354 (SB 225) bars the Secretary of State from providing facial recognition search services, or photographs obtained in issuing driver's licenses, permits or state identification cards, to any federal, State or local law enforcement agency or other governmental entity for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws. The ban does not apply to requests for facial recognition searches or photographs whose purpose relates to criminal activity other than immigration violations. It amends the Illinois Identification Card Act and the Illinois Vehicle Code. Approved and effective August 13, 2021.
Relates to the training and use of artificial intelligence frontier models; defines terms; establishes remedies for violations.
New York's RAISE Act (S 6953-B, Chapter 699 of 2025) as signed covered "large developers" spending over $100 million on compute, required safety protocols and set penalties up to $10 million, then $30 million. Chapter 96 of 2026 (signed March 27, 2026) repealed and replaced Article 44-B and set the effective date at January 1, 2027. From then, developers of frontier models (over 10^26 training operations) must publish transparency reports when deploying and report critical safety incidents to a Department of Financial Services office within 72 hours; those with over $500 million in revenue must also publish a frontier AI framework and file disclosure statements. Signed December 19, 2025.
Prohibits the use of biometric surveillance technology by law enforcement; establishes the biometric surveillance regulation task force; and provides for the expiration and repeal of certain provisions
New York's A 1045 would bar police agencies, police officers, peace officers and state police members from acquiring, possessing, accessing or using any biometric surveillance system, or information derived from one, in their duties, and let a person sue for equitable or declaratory relief. Mobile fingerprint scanning, DNA index and fingerprint database comparisons are excepted. It would create a 12-member task force reporting between 2029 and 2030. Introduced January 8, 2025 and referred to the Governmental Operations Committee; it has not passed either house.
"AI Image Disclosure Act"; concerns disclosure of certain AI-generated content.
New Jersey's A 5089, the AI Image Disclosure Act (as introduced), would require a covered provider of a publicly accessible generative AI system to put a manifest (clear and conspicuous) and a latent (not visible or audible) disclosure in AI-generated images, video and audio. Social media platforms with at least five million account holders worldwide would have to label detected provenance data and could not strip it. Civil penalties would be $5,000 per violation. Introduced May 14, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee; it has not passed either house.
Relates to privacy rights involving digitization; provides that such right of privacy and action for injunction and damages shall include a portrait, picture, likeness or voice created or altered by digitization.
New York's A 3924 (the "right to your own image act") would amend Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 so that using a person's name, portrait, picture, likeness or voice for advertising or trade without written consent covers one created or altered by digitization: software, machine learning, artificial intelligence or other technological means. Both the misdemeanor and the civil action for an injunction and damages would apply. Introduced January 30, 2025 and referred to the Judiciary Committee (again January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits state agencies and state-owned entities from utilizing large language models or any artificial intelligence systems to make decisions that affect individuals' rights, benefits, or services; requires such decisions to be made by human personnel of the respective state agency or state-owned…
New York's A 7278 would add State Technology Law § 106-c, barring state agencies and state-owned entities from using large language models or any AI system to make decisions that affect individuals' rights, benefits or services; those decisions would have to be made by human personnel. Purely advisory use is allowed if a person makes the final decision, and AI may be used for data analysis and research. The attorney general could investigate and enforce. Introduced March 21, 2025 and referred to the Science and Technology Committee (again January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Relating To The Hawaii Patients' Bill Of Rights And Responsibilities Act.
Hawaii's SB 2167 (2026) would have amended HRS chapter 432E, the Patients' Bill of Rights, to set prior authorization deadlines (one business day urgent, three non-urgent) and require that a denial initiated by an automated decision system be reviewed and co-signed by a board-certified specialist, with written notice to enrollees and providers whenever such a system is used. It was referred to HHS and CPN January 26, 2026 and died.
Automated driving systems; requirements for operation, civil penalties, report.
Virginia's HB 1125 (2026), in the proposed House Transportation Committee substitute (HB1125HC1), would have allowed fully autonomous vehicles (SAE level 4 or 5) to carry property or passengers commercially without a human driver if the Department of Motor Vehicles issued an autonomous operation license, and would have required $1 million in third-party liability coverage, set civil penalties of up to $1,000 per offense, and barred localities from prohibiting their operation. It was left in the Transportation Committee on February 18, 2026 and died.
A bill for an act establishing requirements and guidelines for conversational AI services, and providing civil penalties, and including applicability provisions.
Iowa's HF 2507 (formerly HSB 611) would have required operators of conversational AI services to protect minors (AI disclosures, no unpredictable rewards, limits on sexual and human-like content), adopt suicide and self-harm protocols, and not pose as licensed mental health providers. Attorney general penalties were the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation up to $500,000 per operator. After amendment H-8357, Senate File 2417 was substituted and HF 2507 was withdrawn April 15, 2026.
School Safety Firearm Detection Software Pilot Program; established.
Virginia's HB 1818 (2025 Regular Session) would have created a School Safety Firearm Detection Software Pilot Program under the Public School Security Equipment Grant Act of 2013, awarding grants for AI software that analyzes school security-camera video to detect firearms in two Title 1 schools in each congressional district. Left in House Appropriations on February 4, 2025; it failed.
A BILL for an Act to provide an appropriation to the agriculture commissioner, the attorney general, the department of career and technical education, the department of health and human services, and the department of transportation to increase the use of uncrewed aircraft systems, autonomous…
North Dakota's HB 1037 (2025), introduced by the Legislative Management Workforce Committee, would have appropriated $750,000 from the general fund to each of five agencies ($3.75 million in total) for grants to increase the use of uncrewed aircraft systems, autonomous vehicles or other autonomous technology, and would have directed a legislative management study of the economic impact of autonomous technology. The House defeated it 12-80 on February 24, 2025.
Adopt the Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Act
Not law. Nebraska LB642, introduced by Senator Bostar, would have enacted the Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Act. Developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems that make consequential decisions without human review would have had to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with impact assessments, consumer notices and appeals, and Attorney General enforcement after a 90-day cure period. Indefinitely postponed April 17, 2026.
Regards AI-generated products, AI-systems acting as humans
Ohio's HB 813 would add sections 1349.12 to 1349.16 requiring AI systems to be programmed to put a distinctive watermark on AI-generated products, barring public or commercial distribution of AI-generated products without one, and requiring anyone using an AI system to clearly inform users whenever it is acting as or emulating a human. The Attorney General could seek an injunction and a civil penalty of $2,500 to $10,000 per instance. Introduced April 13, 2026; referred to the House Technology and Innovation Committee May 13, 2026.
ELEC CD-DECEPTIVE MATERIAL
Illinois's HB 1860 (104th General Assembly) would add Section 29-21 to the Election Code. A person could not distribute, or agree to distribute, materially deceptive media within 90 days before an election if the person knows it falsely represents a depicted individual, intends to harm a candidate or otherwise deceive voters, and intends to change votes by deceiving electors, with that result reasonably likely. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee March 27, 2026.
General Regulatory Provisions -- Generative Artificial Intelligence Models
Rhode Island H 6286 (2023), as introduced on April 19, 2023, would add chapter 6-59 setting operating standards for companies running large-scale generative AI models (at least one billion parameters). Companies would have to watermark or authenticate text output, obtain informed consent before using personal data, run risk assessments and register with the attorney general within 90 days. The text sets no penalties and takes effect September 1, 2023.
An Act to Enact the Maine Consumer Data Privacy Act
Not law. Maine's LD 1088, the Maine Consumer Data Privacy Act, as introduced would have applied to controllers handling data of 100,000 or more consumers (50,000 from 2028), or 25,000 with more than 25% of gross revenue from data sales. Consumers could have accessed, corrected, deleted and ported data and opted out of targeted advertising, sales and profiling in furtherance of solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. The Attorney General would have enforced it exclusively, with no private right of action. The Judiciary Committee split three ways on June 13, 2025, and Report A, Ought Not To Pass, was accepted June 25, 2025.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SAFETY
Illinois's HB 3506 (104th General Assembly) would create the Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security Protocol Act. As introduced, developers would publish a safety and security protocol, publish risk assessment reports at least every 90 days, and obtain an annual third-party compliance audit, with civil penalties. House Committee Amendment No. 1 narrows this to 'large developers' and adds whistleblower protections. Re-referred to Rules April 11, 2025.
Political communication; require to contain disclaimer if generated by artificial intelligence algorithms.
Mississippi's HB 1267 (2024) would require political communications generated in whole or in part by synthetic media using artificial intelligence algorithms to carry a clear and prominent disclaimer that they were generated using AI. It would add the same disclaimer duty for published campaign materials (Section 23-15-897) and for newspaper editorials or news stories generated by AI (Section 23-15-877). The bill text adds no penalty of its own for the new disclaimer duties. It died in committee on March 5, 2024.
Relating to the unlawful dissemination of intimate images.
Oregon's HB 2299 amends the crime of unlawful dissemination of an intimate image (ORS 163.472) so that "image" includes a digitally created, manipulated or altered depiction that is reasonably realistic, however stored. The crime applies when a person, intending to harass, humiliate or injure another, knowingly causes an image of that person's intimate parts or sexual conduct to be disclosed, knowing or having reason to know the person does not consent, and the person is harmed. It stays a Class A misdemeanor, or a Class C felony with a prior conviction. Signed May 22, 2025 (Chapter 116, Oregon Laws 2025); effective January 1, 2026.
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
Illinois's HB 5220 (104th General Assembly) would add an Autonomous Vehicles Article to the Illinois Vehicle Code. It would set requirements for testing autonomous vehicles on public roads by a properly licensed driver, let the Secretary of State adopt rules, set manufacturer requirements, and prohibit certain acts by dealers and manufacturers. Re-referred to Rules March 27, 2026.
An Act to Enact the Maine Online Data Privacy Act
Not law. Maine's LD 1822, the Maine Online Data Privacy Act, as introduced would have applied to controllers handling data of 35,000 or more consumers (or 10,000 with over 20% of gross revenue from data sales). Consumers could have accessed, corrected and deleted data and opted out of targeted advertising, sales and profiling in furtherance of solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. It would have banned selling sensitive data and required data protection assessments, including for risky profiling. Committee amendment C-A and later floor amendments were adopted. The Attorney General would have enforced it exclusively. It died between houses April 13, 2026.
AN ACT relating to the use of algorithmic devices in setting the amount of rent to be charged to a residential tenant.
Kentucky's HB 201 (2026 session) would have barred a landlord from employing, using or relying on an 'algorithmic device', or causing another person to, in setting residential rent. An algorithmic device is a device using algorithms to perform calculations of data that advises a landlord on rent, including products incorporating one, but not a product designed internally and used exclusively by a landlord or its affiliates. A violation would have been an unfair or deceptive practice under KRS 367.170 enforced by the Attorney General. Referred to House Judiciary January 14, 2026; died when the session ended.
Algorithmic pricing of essential consumer goods, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty.
Wisconsin's SB 1140 would restrict grocery retailers' use of personalized algorithmic pricing on essential consumer goods: required disclosure on each such price, no electronic display of those prices in grocery stores of 15,000+ square feet, no pricing that varies by protected traits, and no buying consumer data from data brokers for pricing. Introduced March 19, 2026 and referred to the Senate Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs Committee; failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 23, 2026, so it did not pass.
To Prohibit Deceptive And Fraudulent Deepfakes In Election Communications.
Arkansas HB 1041 (2025), as engrossed, would have added Ark. Code § 7-6-106 to bar distributing, within 90 days before an election, synthetic media the person knows or should know is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate or party on the ballot, unless it carries a disclosure such as 'This content has been manipulated or artificially generated.' Depicted candidates could seek injunctions, and the State Board of Election Commissioners could fine violators up to $10,000, $5,000 or $1,000 depending on the case. It died in the House committee at sine die adjournment on May 5, 2025.
Fully autonomous vehicles; extend repealer on requirement that law enforcement interaction plan be submitted to DPS before operating.
Mississippi's HB 1770 (2026) would amend Section 63-35-7 to extend the repealer on the requirement that a person submit a law enforcement interaction plan to the Department of Public Safety before operating a fully autonomous vehicle without a human driver on public roads, moving the repeal date from July 1, 2026 to July 1, 2029. It died in committee on February 3, 2026.
CONSUMER FRAUD-AI DISCLOSURE
Illinois's HB 4869 (103rd General Assembly) would have added Section 2EEEE to the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. A person who, for a commercial purpose, makes, publishes or places an advertisement that the person knows or should have known contains synthetic media would have had to disclose that fact, and a violation would be an unlawful practice under the Act. Died at Session Sine Die on January 7, 2025.
Artificial intelligence; require disclosure when used in political advertisements.
Mississippi's SB 2423 (2024) would have amended Miss. Code 23-15-897 to require a clear and conspicuous disclosure on "qualified political advertisements" that contain an image, audio or video generated in whole or in part with artificial intelligence and are made by or on behalf of a candidate, committee or other person. It would also have required an AI disclaimer on prerecorded phone messages generated in whole or substantially by AI. It was referred to Elections and Technology on February 16, 2024, and died in committee on March 5, 2024.
ALGORITHMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
Illinois's HB 5322 (103rd General Assembly) would have created the Illinois Commercial Algorithmic Impact Assessments Act. By January 1, 2026, and annually after, deployers and developers of an automated decision tool would have to complete and document an impact assessment, and developers would have to give deployers documentation on intended uses and limitations. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).
ALGORITHMICS PROHIBITED-RENT
Illinois's HB 5871 (103rd General Assembly) would have created the Prohibition of Algorithmics in Rent Act. In setting residential rent, including a change on renewal, a landlord could not use or rely on, or cause another to use, an algorithmic device that uses, incorporates or was trained with nonpublic competitor data. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).
PROTECTS VOICE & IMAGES
Illinois's SB 3248 (103rd General Assembly) would have created the No AI FRAUD Act, giving every individual a property right in their own likeness and voice, with a private cause of action against anyone who, without consent, distributes a personalized cloning service or publishes an unauthorized digital voice replica or depiction. Damages would include $50,000 or $5,000 per violation (depending on the conduct) or actual damages plus attributable profits. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).
PUBLICITY ACT-USE OF AI
Illinois's SB 3325 (103rd General Assembly) would have amended the Right of Publicity Act to give recording artists additional enforcement rights and remedies, make liable anyone who materially contributes to, induces or facilitates a violation after having reason to know of it, and define AI and generative AI. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 7-0 but died at Session Sine Die on January 7, 2025.
Relating to digital replication rights in the voice and visual likeness of individuals; providing private causes of action; authorizing a fee.
Texas HB 3950 (2025), as introduced, would have created a digital replication right in an individual's voice and visual likeness, and barred producing a digital replica or making one available to the public without the right holder's written consent. The right would last the individual's life plus 10 years, extendable. Eligible plaintiffs could sue over knowing violations, with statutory damages of $5,000 or $25,000 per work depending on the violator, and online service providers would have had notice-and-removal duties. It died when the regular session adjourned June 2, 2025.
BIOMETRIC DATA-COMMERCIAL USE
Illinois's HB 2411 (100th General Assembly) would have amended Section 15 of the Biometric Information Privacy Act to bar a private entity from requiring a person or customer to provide a biometric identifier or biometric information as a condition of goods or services, except as needed for employer background checks or employee security protocols. It would not have applied to companies providing medical services, law enforcement agencies or governmental entities. It was not passed before the 100th General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 8, 2019).
BIOMETRIC DATA-COMMERCIAL USE
Illinois's HB 4330 (100th General Assembly) would have amended Section 15 of the Biometric Information Privacy Act to bar a private entity from requiring a person or customer to provide a biometric identifier or biometric information as a condition of goods or services, except as needed for employer background checks or employee security protocols. It would not have applied to companies providing medical services, law enforcement agencies or governmental entities. It was not passed before the 100th General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 8, 2019).
Artificial intelligence.
California's AB 3050 (2023-24, as introduced) would have required the Department of Technology to set watermark standards, including digital content provenance, for covered AI-generated material (material that impersonates a specific individual or group or is represented as original), and barred AI-generating entities from creating it without a compliant watermark, with a civil penalty of $250 to $500. It would also have made creators of deepfakes using a person's likeness without permission liable for actual damages. Introduced February 16, 2024 and referred to committee; it died when the session ended.
Preventing Algorithmic Price Fixing Act: prohibition on certain price-setting algorithm uses.
California's SB 384 (2025-26 Regular Session), the Preventing Algorithmic Price Fixing Act, would have barred selling, licensing, providing or using a price-setting algorithm with the intent or reasonable expectation that 2 or more competitors in the same market use it, if the person knows or should know it processes nonpublic data to set a price, supply level, rent or occupancy level. Civil penalty up to $1,000 per violation. The Senate passed it 28-10; it was held in Assembly Appropriations on August 29, 2025 and was not passed before the session ended.
Workplace surveillance tools.
California's AB 1221 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have regulated workplace surveillance tools and employer use of worker data. Employers would have had to give affected workers 30 days' written notice before introducing a tool, and could not use tools incorporating facial, gait or emotion recognition technology, except as specified. Civil penalty $500 per violation. It was held in Assembly Appropriations May 23, 2025 and died under Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution on January 31, 2026.
Companion chatbots: children’s safety.
California's AB 2023 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have required an operator of a companion chatbot to, on or before July 1, 2027, take child-safety steps including an annual risk assessment, and to submit to an independent audit whose report goes to the Attorney General. The Assembly passed it 66-8 on May 26, 2026; it was ordered to the Senate inactive file on August 30, 2026 and was not passed before the session ended.
Autonomous vehicles.
California's AB 2193 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have amended Vehicle Code Section 38750 to say who receives a traffic citation when an autonomous vehicle commits a violation: the registered owner if no one is in the driver's seat, the driver if someone is, with exceptions, and the manufacturer of the autonomous technology for level 4 or 5 vehicles, as specified. It was held in Assembly Appropriations on May 14, 2026 and was not passed before the session ended.
Autonomous vehicles.
California's AB 33 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have barred delivering commercial goods through an autonomous vehicle without a human safety operator on California highways, with a $10,000 administrative fine for a first violation and $25,000 for later ones. The Assembly passed it 57-7 on May 29, 2025; it was ordered to the Senate inactive file on September 9, 2025 and not taken up again.
Artificial intelligence program: Attorney General.
California's SB 69 (2025-26 Regular Session) would add Government Code section 12525.6 to require the Attorney General to establish and maintain a program to build internal expertise in artificial intelligence, including its applications, risks, regulatory implications and civil rights impacts. The Attorney General would have to submit a public annual report starting on or before July 1, 2027. Passed the Senate 35-0; held in Assembly Appropriations August 29, 2025; not passed.
Social media platforms: artificial intelligence models.
California's AB 2169 (2025-26 Regular Session), the Digital Choice Act, would require a social media company, or a person that deploys an AI model (a deployer), to give a consumer a copy of their personal information, contextual data and social graph within five business days in a portable format where technically feasible. It would also require interoperability interfaces. Held under submission in Assembly Appropriations May 14, 2026; not passed.
Mental health service providers; use of artificial intelligence system, civil penalty.
Virginia's HB 668 (2026 Regular Session) would have let mental health service providers use AI for administrative and supplementary support but barred using AI to provide therapy or counseling without a provider. As introduced, violations carried a civil penalty up to $10,000. It failed: left in House Communications, Technology and Innovation Committee on February 18, 2026.
Artificial intelligence; sexual abuse materials
Arizona's HB 2307 (2024) would have barred a person or entity that creates or uses an artificial intelligence system from allowing it to create, store or use child sexual abuse material, defined as a visual depiction of sexual exploitation of a minor. Only the attorney general could enforce it, with a civil penalty capped at $500,000 per violation or series. It was referred to House Judiciary and Rules, held in committees, and died without becoming law.
Fostering Access, Innovation, and Responsibility in Artificial Intelligence Act; established.
Virginia's HB 713 (2026 Regular Session) would have created the FAIR AI Act, requiring developers of base AI models to disclose listed items in their terms of service and limiting defenses in harm actions. As introduced it would have taken effect July 1, 2027. It failed: left in House Appropriations Committee on February 18, 2026.
Political campaign advertisements; synthetic media, penalty.
Virginia's HB 982 (2026 Regular Session) would have barred electioneering communications containing synthetic media from being published or broadcast without a conspicuous statement that the message may present conduct or speech that did not occur, with a civil penalty up to $25,000, a Class 1 misdemeanor for willful violations, and voter injunction suits. Left in committee on February 18, 2026; it failed.
Synthetic media; use in furtherance of crimes involving fraud, etc., report.
Virginia's HB 697 (2024 Regular Session) would have made it a Class 1 misdemeanor to use synthetic media to commit a criminal offense involving fraud, let the person depicted sue for actual damages and attorney fees, and had the Attorney General convene a work group on deepfake enforcement. It passed the House 98-0 but was continued to 2025 in Senate committee on February 19, 2024; it failed.
Artificial Intelligence Training Data Transparency Act; transparency and disclosure requirements.
Virginia's HB 2250 (2025 Regular Session) would have amended the Consumer Data Protection Act and added an Artificial Intelligence Training Data Transparency Act (new Title 59.1 chapter, §§ 59.1-607 through 59.1-611) with requirements for generative AI developers. It would also have allowed third-party opt-out of data processing and required consent to process adolescents' data. Left in committee on February 4, 2025; it failed.
Emerging Technologies, Cybersecurity, and Data Privacy, Division of; established.
Virginia's HB 2268 (2025 Regular Session) would have created a Division of Emerging Technologies, Cybersecurity, and Data Privacy in the Department of Law to oversee and enforce laws on cybersecurity, data privacy and the use of AI, with an annual report to the Joint Commission on Technology and Science by November 1. Left in Appropriations on February 4, 2025; it failed.
Law-enforcement agencies; use of certain technologies and interrogation practices.
Virginia's HB 2433 (2025 Regular Session) would have had the Department of Criminal Justice Services set a framework for law-enforcement use of generative AI, machine learning systems, audiovisual surveillance technologies and interrogations, with model policies by January 1, 2026 and agency policies by July 1, 2026. It also covered forensic laboratory accreditation. Left in committee on February 5, 2025; it failed.
Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act; established.
Virginia's SB 1161 (2025 Regular Session) would have created the Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act, requiring developers of generative AI systems that produce audio, images, text or video to include a clear and conspicuous disclosure on AI-generated content and to prevent downstream use without it. Passed by indefinitely in committee on January 24, 2025; it failed.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29; Title 45; Title 47 and Title 66, relative to algorithmic pricing.
Tennessee's SB1807 (114th General Assembly) would have barred an entity from setting the price of a specific good or service for a consumer in Tennessee using personalized algorithmic pricing, meaning dynamic pricing set by an algorithm that uses personal data. A violation would have been an unfair or deceptive act under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977. Insurers, certain financial institutions and some subscription prices were exempt. Companion: HB 1468. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Assigned to General Subcommittee of Senate Commerce and Labor Committee (April 7, 2026).
Criminal Offenses - As introduced, prohibits a person or entity from distributing an electoral deepfake within 90 days of an election that the person or entity knows or should have known is a deceptive and fraudulent depiction of a candidate or political party; creates civil penalties and outlines…
Tennessee's SB 2321 (114th General Assembly) would have barred a person, corporation, committee or other entity, within 90 days of an election, from distributing an electoral deepfake that it knows or should have known deceptively or fraudulently depicts a candidate for state or local office or the candidate's party, unless the media carries a required AI disclosure. County election commissions could impose civil fines of up to $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000. Companion: HB 2214. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Passed on Second Consideration, refer to Senate State and Local Government Committee (February 5, 2026).
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2; Title 4; Title 8; Title 38; Title 39 and Title 47, Chapter 18, relative to synthetic media.
Tennessee's HB 2340 (113th General Assembly) would have let a person whose appearance, action, or speech is altered by synthetic media (made with AI or other digital technology), in a public communication knowingly distributed with intent to mislead the public and damage reputation, sue the publisher for an injunction and damages. Per the official summary, a disclosure that the media was manipulated would be an affirmative defense. Companion to SB 2460. Last action March 19, 2024; the bill never passed and died with the session.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2; Title 4; Title 8; Title 38; Title 39 and Title 47, Chapter 18, relative to synthetic media.
Tennessee's SB 2460 (113th General Assembly) would have let a person whose appearance, action, or speech is altered by synthetic media (made with AI or other digital technology), in a public communication knowingly distributed with intent to mislead the public and damage reputation, sue the publisher for an injunction and damages. Per the official summary, a disclosure that the media was manipulated would be an affirmative defense. Companion to HB 2340. Last action March 13, 2024; the bill never passed and died with the session.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, relative to school safety.
Tennessee's SB 814 (114th General Assembly), as introduced, would have required the Department of Education to run a three-year pilot grant program for eligible LEAs (school districts) to buy AI weapons detection systems that identify weapons such as knives and firearms and immediately notify law enforcement and school administration. Companion to HB 933. The Senate Education Committee recommended it with amendments 9-0 on February 19, 2025; last action February 24, 2025; it died with the session.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, relative to school safety.
Tennessee's HB 933 (114th General Assembly), as introduced, would have required the Department of Education to run a three-year pilot grant program for eligible LEAs (school districts) to buy AI weapons detection systems that identify weapons such as knives and firearms and immediately notify law enforcement and school administration. Companion to SB 814. Last action March 18, 2025; the bill died when the General Assembly adjourned in April 2026.
Commerce and trade; require that AI generated content include a disclaimer indicating such content was generated using artificial intelligence
Georgia's HB 478 would add Code section 10-1-393.20 to the Fair Business Practices Act. On or after July 1, 2025, any individual disseminating AI-generated video, audio or still images to facilitate commerce or trade would have to ensure the content discloses that artificial intelligence made all or part of it, in a specified readable or audible form, and omitting the disclosure would be unlawful, each item being a separate violation. The bill reached House Second Readers on February 20, 2025 and died when the session ended.
Fair and Future Ready Housing Act; enact
Georgia's HB 715, the Fair and Future Ready Housing Act, would add Code section 8-3-224 to the fair housing law. Discriminatory housing practices resulting from AI or automated decision tools would be prohibited, reliance on such tools would not be a defense, and no person could use them to make sale, rental or financing determinations without individual review or without disclosing their use. After notice and hearing, the Attorney General could impose a penalty of up to $10,000 for violating subsection (c) or (d). The bill reached House Second Readers on March 6, 2025 and died when the session ended.
Trade Practices; surveillance based price discrimination and surveillance based wage discrimination; prohibit
Georgia's SB 164 would add Article 37 to Title 10, Chapter 1, prohibiting 'surveillance based price discrimination' and 'surveillance based wage discrimination', meaning use of an automated decision system to set individualized prices or wages based on surveillance data about a consumer or worker. Defined exceptions would apply, such as cost-based price differences. According to its title, it would provide civil penalties and enforcement. The bill was read and referred on February 13, 2025 and died when the session ended.
Creates regulations of artificially generated online content using artificial intelligence
Missouri's SB 1324 (Missouri Artificial Intelligence Transparency and Accountability Act) would require anyone creating AI-generated content for public consumption to label it "AI-generated", add a disclaimer and obtain consent for content depicting a real person (except parody or satire), and require developers and deployers to keep usage logs for seven years. The attorney general would enforce it with civil penalties. The Senate General Laws Committee voted do pass on March 25, 2026, but the bill died when the 2026 regular session ended in May 2026 without being truly agreed to and finally passed.
Creates provisions relating to synthetic media
Missouri's SB 1183 would add section 115.645 to bar a creator who uses AI or other digital technology from distributing, within eighteen weeks of an election, synthetic media the creator knows or should have known is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake, unless it carries the disclosure "This [image/video/audio] has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence." Violations would carry misdemeanor or felony penalties and civil penalties. Referred to the Senate General Laws Committee January 27, 2026; the bill died when the 2026 regular session ended in May 2026 without being truly agreed to and finally passed.
Creates provisions relating to artificial intelligence in mental health
Missouri's HB 2318, as introduced, would bar any person or entity that develops or deploys artificial intelligence in the state from advertising or representing to the public that the AI is, or can act as, a mental health professional or provide therapy services. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, enforced by the attorney general with civil penalties of $10,000 for a first violation and $20,000 for later ones. A House committee substitute (filed under HB 2368) was reported do pass March 12, 2026, but the bill died when the 2026 regular session ended in May 2026 without being truly agreed to and finally passed.
An Act regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in providing mental health services
Massachusetts' H 1974 (193rd General Court, 2023-2024) would have required a licensed mental health professional who wants to provide mental health services through AI to first seek approval from the relevant licensing board, keep the AI system continuously monitored, tell patients in advance, get their informed consent and offer them treatment from a licensed professional. A violation would bring licensing-board discipline. The bill accompanied a study order on June 6, 2024 and died when the session ended.
Artificial intelligence; prohibiting distribution of certain media and requiring certain disclosures. Effective date.
Oklahoma's SB 894 (Senate floor version) would bar any person or entity, within 90 days of an election, from creating or originally distributing synthetic media it has actual knowledge is a deepfake of a candidate or political party on the ballot, unless the media carries the disclosure "This ___ (image, audio, or video) has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence." The State Election Board could impose fines of up to $10,000, $5,000 or $1,000. The Senate committee reported it do pass as amended; it was placed on General Order and died when the 2026 legislative session ended on May 14, 2026 without passing.
Surveillance and Investigatory Technology Amendments
Utah's H.B. 606 (Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox), Surveillance and Investigatory Technology Amendments, would have limited a law enforcement agency's use of surveillance or investigatory technology, defined to include facial recognition systems, biometric surveillance information, and location tracking, with "technology" defined to include AI technology. The limits would start July 1, 2027. The enacting clause was struck and the bill filed as not passed on March 6, 2026.
Protecting kids from deepfakes and exploitative images.
Wyoming's AI deepfake and child-protection law (Chapter 91, Session Laws of 2026, effective July 1, 2026). It makes it a felony to knowingly distribute realistic AI-generated or digitally altered intimate images of an identifiable person without consent when it causes or is meant to cause harm, or to threaten to do so for gain (up to 10 years; 12 for a repeat offense). Using AI to create child sexual abuse material, or knowingly possessing AI-generated material, is sexual exploitation of a child. Building or distributing AI systems designed to produce such material or to promote self-harm is a felony, and using AI is no defense to any crime.
Health care professions: deceptive terms or letters: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 489 (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 4999.8-4999.9) makes the laws barring use of terms, letters or phrases that imply a health care license one does not hold enforceable against anyone who develops or deploys AI or generative AI that uses them in its advertising or functionality. AI technology may not use terms implying that its care, advice, reports or assessments come from a licensed natural person. Each use is a separate violation, under the jurisdiction of the relevant licensing board. Signed October 11, 2025 (Chapter 615); effective January 1, 2026.
Vehicle Code (75 Pa. C.S.) - omnibus amendments (Act 130 of 2022), including highly automated vehicles and platooning
Pennsylvania's Act 130 of 2022 rewrites Chapter 85 of the Vehicle Code on highly automated vehicles (vehicles with an automated driving system). Operating one on a highway requires a certificate of compliance issued by PennDOT after a self-certification, which is deemed approved if not rejected within 30 days. The act sets operation, commercial operation, enforcement and penalty rules, updates the Highly Automated Vehicle Advisory Committee, and makes PennDOT the lead agency on platoons of up to three vehicles. Most provisions took effect in 240 days (July 1, 2023).
An Act to prevent abuse and exploitation
Massachusetts Chapter 118 of the Acts of 2024 criminalizes non-consensual distribution of intimate images, including fabricated ones. Under G.L. c.265 s.43A(b), knowingly distributing visual material, including material produced by "digitization" (creating or altering images, including through computer-generated images, so they falsely appear authentic), that shows an identifiable person nude, partially nude or in sexual conduct, with intent to harm or reckless disregard of harm or lack of consent, is criminal harassment. The act also creates an Attorney General sexting diversion program.
An Act relative to justice, equity and accountability in law enforcement in the Commonwealth
Massachusetts' 2020 police reform law (Chapter 253 of the Acts of 2020) regulates police use of facial recognition. Under new G.L. c.6 s.220, a law enforcement agency may perform or request a facial recognition search only through a written request to the Registry of Motor Vehicles, State Police or FBI, and only with a court order, except to identify a deceased person or in an emergency. Each search must be documented and reported quarterly to the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. Section 220 took effect July 1, 2021; a special commission was set up to study government use of facial recognition.
Ban on government social scoring with AI.
Wyoming's HB 91 (as introduced) would create W.S. 9-30-101 through 9-30-103 barring a governmental entity from using an AI system to evaluate or classify people on social behavior or personal characteristics to assign a social score that could lead to unrelated-context or disproportionate treatment or infringe rights, and from using AI to identify a person by biometric data or bulk image gathering in ways that infringe rights. A committee amendment would add law-enforcement exceptions. It would take effect July 1, 2026. The House Judiciary Committee recommended it amend and do pass 7-1, but the House did not consider it in Committee of the Whole; it died.
Possession of child pornography and providing a penalty.
2023 Wisconsin Act 224 creates the crime of possession of virtual child pornography (s. 948.125). Receiving, distributing, producing, possessing or accessing obscene material, including a digital or computer-generated image, that contains a depiction of a purported child (one that appears to depict a child, whether or not a real child) engaged in sexually explicit conduct is a Class D felony, or a Class I felony for an actor under 18. The act adds the offense to related surcharge, registry and background-check laws. It took effect the day after publication (published March 28, 2024).
Representations depicting nudity and providing a penalty.
2025 Wisconsin Act 34 adds deepfake intimate images to the state's representations-depicting-nudity law (s. 942.09). A "synthetic intimate representation" is a representation generated using technological means that uses an identifiable person's face, likeness or other distinguishing characteristics to depict them intimately and is realistic enough that a reasonable person would believe it shows that person. Posting, publishing, distributing or exhibiting one with intent to coerce, harass or intimidate is a crime under s. 942.09, and making a reproduction of a private representation without consent is also covered. It took effect the day after publication (Oct. 3, 2025).
Disclosures regarding content generated by artificial intelligence in political advertisements, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty.
2023 Wisconsin Act 123 requires AI disclosures in political communications. Audio or video containing express advocacy, issue advocacy or support for or opposition to a referendum that contains synthetic media (audio or video substantially produced by generative AI) must say so: audio states "Contains content generated by AI" at the beginning and end, and video displays a disclosure such as "This video content generated by AI." Violations carry a forfeiture of up to $1,000 each. It took effect the day after publication (published March 22, 2024).
Urging Congress To Begin A Discussion Considering The Benefits And Risks Of Artificial Intelligence Technologies.
Hawaii's Senate Resolution 123 (2023) urges Congress to begin a discussion of the benefits and risks of AI technologies. It states that AI software wrote all of its whereas clauses in seconds when asked to "write an essay explaining the potential dangers of artificial intelligence," which should alert policymakers to the technology's power and dangers. It urges national leaders to evaluate AI in public sector identification technologies, such as law enforcement and military uses, and says universal safety guidelines, such as Asimov's three rules of robotics, should be considered. Adopted by the Senate April 5, 2023; a resolution of one chamber does not change the law.
Autonomous Vehicle Testing Permit Requirement Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2025
Expired. This District of Columbia emergency act, in force from March 21 to June 19, 2025, amended the Autonomous Vehicle Act of 2012 to bar testing or operating an autonomous vehicle on District roads without an AV testing permit. Until DDOT made permit applications available, testing or operation was allowed only with a test operator in the vehicle ready to drive, compliance with other laws, and 10 business days' electronic notice to DDOT listing the vehicles, operator training and licenses, locations and dates. As a congressional review emergency act it lasted at most 90 days.
Appropriation; artificial intelligence; border security
Arizona's SB 1707 (2026) would have appropriated $5,000,000 from the state general fund in fiscal year 2026-2027 to the Department of Public Safety for artificial intelligence relating to border security. The department could distribute the money to local law enforcement agencies to enforce border security using AI. The Senate Appropriations, Transportation and Technology committee passed it 6-4 on February 17, 2026, but it was held awaiting the Committee of the Whole and died when the session ended June 13, 2026.
AN ACT relating to mental health chatbots.
Kentucky's HB 641 (the Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health Act, as introduced) would add sections to KRS Chapter 367 regulating suppliers of mental health chatbots, AI systems that use generative AI to hold therapy-like conversations. Suppliers could not sell or share users' health information or input, would have to label and disclose any advertising, and would have to disclose every 30 minutes that the chatbot is AI. The Attorney General could fine up to $2,500 per violation. Introduced February 13, 2026 and referred to the House Small Business & Information Technology Committee; it died in committee when the session ended.
A bill for an act prohibiting personalized algorithmic pricing and surveillance pricing at certain food retail establishments, and providing civil penalties.
Iowa's SF 2278 (as introduced) would add Code chapter 554J for large food retail stores. Such a store using personalized algorithmic pricing based on a particular consumer's data would have to show "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA." Stores could not use electronic shelf labels, collect data of minors under 17 or use it for targeted ads or personalized pricing, or use protected class data in pricing. Civil penalty up to $7,500 per violation. Introduced February 11, 2026; it died in committee when the 2026 session ended.
Establishes the "protect our privacy (POP) act" to impose limitations on the use of drones for law enforcement purposes; prohibits the use of drones by law enforcement at concerts, protests, demonstrations, or other actions protected by the first amendment.
New York's A 972, the "protect our privacy (POP) act," would add Civil Rights Law § 52-e: law enforcement data from drones equipped with facial recognition software, or from facial recognition run on drone video or images, including private drones, could not be used in ongoing investigations or prosecutions and would have to be promptly deleted, retroactively. It would also generally bar police drone use except for search and rescue and post-disaster inspection, bar drones at protests and armed drones, and allow suits for the greater of $1,000 per violation or actual damages. Referred to Governmental Operations January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Requires experts in professional fields to be consulted when developing and maintaining artificial intelligence technology for use in such fields.
New York's A 9219 would add General Business Law §§ 1710 to 1715. A developer of AI intended for a professional domain regulated under Title Eight of the Education Law would have to show that a licensed professional domain expert with three or more years of experience was directly and substantially involved in design, data and training, validation and ongoing risk assessment, and submit documentation to the Attorney General. Penalties up to $50,000 per violation. Would take effect one year after it becomes law. Referred to Science and Technology November 3, 2025 (and January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Relating to regulation of the use of artificial intelligence systems in this state; providing civil penalties.
Texas's HB 149, the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, bars developing or deploying AI intended to incite self-harm, harm to others or crime, with intent to unlawfully discriminate against a protected class (disparate impact alone is not enough), or solely to infringe U.S. constitutional rights, and making or distributing AI solely to produce or spread child pornography or unlawful sexual deep fakes. Government entities may not use AI for harmful social scoring or rights-infringing biometric ID. Agencies must tell consumers they are dealing with AI; health care providers must tell patients. AG enforcement; 60-day cure. Signed June 22, 2025; effective January 1, 2026.
Relating to the regulation and use of artificial intelligence systems and the management of data by governmental entities.
Texas's SB 1964 sets rules for AI used by state agencies and local governments. The Department of Information Resources (DIR) must adopt an AI code of ethics and minimum risk-management standards for "heightened scrutiny" AI (systems specifically intended to autonomously make, or be a controlling factor in, consequential decisions on access to government services), aligned with NIST's AI RMF 1.0, which agencies and local governments must adopt. State agencies and their vendors must assess such systems for risks of unlawful harm, agencies must give notice of public-facing AI, and vendors that do not cure violations can lose contracts. Signed June 20, 2025; effective September 1, 2025.
Relating to electronic health record requirements; authorizing a civil penalty.
Texas's SB 1188 is an electronic health record (EHR) law. Health care practitioners may use AI for diagnostic purposes, including recommendations on a diagnosis or course of treatment based on a patient's medical record, if acting within their license, the use is not otherwise restricted by law, and they review all AI-created records consistent with Texas Medical Board standards; they must disclose that use to patients. EHRs must be kept physically in the U.S. or a U.S. territory (for storage from January 1, 2026), and EHR algorithms that aid treatment decisions must include the recorded biological sex. AG civil penalties apply. Signed June 20, 2025; effective September 1, 2025.
Relating to prosecution and punishment of certain criminal offenses prohibiting sexually explicit visual material involving depictions of children, computer-generated children, or other persons; creating criminal offenses; increasing criminal penalties.
Texas's SB 1621 rewrites Penal Code § 43.26. Offenses for sexual material depicting an actual child cover images of a recognizable real child altered with AI or other software. New offenses cover a "computer-generated child": an AI- or software-made depiction appearing to be under 18 that a reasonable person would find virtually indistinguishable from an actual child. Intentionally or knowingly possessing or accessing such material is a state jail felony and promoting it a third-degree felony, with higher grades for prior convictions, volume and depictions appearing under 10. Signed June 20, 2025; effective September 1, 2025.
Relating to criminal and civil liability related to sexually explicit media and artificial intimate visual material; creating a criminal offense; increasing a criminal penalty.
Texas's SB 441 widens the Penal Code § 21.165 crime from deep fake videos to any deep fake media made or altered with AI or other technological means. Knowingly producing or distributing sexually explicit deep fake media of a person without signed written consent is a Class A misdemeanor, or a third-degree felony for a repeat offense or a depicted minor. Intentionally threatening to produce or distribute deep fake media to coerce, extort, harass or intimidate is a new offense. It adds civil liability for AI intimate images, including against nudification app owners, and requires websites and apps to honor removal requests within 72 hours. Signed June 20, 2025; effective September 1, 2025.
Relating to user reports of explicit deep fake material on social media platforms.
Texas's HB 3133 adds explicit deep fake material to the complaint system that large social media platforms (over 50 million monthly active U.S. users) must run under Business & Commerce Code Chapter 120. On notice of explicit deep fake material, a platform must immediately confirm to the user that it is aware of it, remove it and known identical copies, and update the user in writing within seven days; if it finds the content is explicit deep fake material, it must take measures to stop it being reposted. Platforms must post a plain-language notice of the process. Any Chapter 120 violation is now a deceptive trade practice. Signed June 20, 2025; effective September 1, 2025.
Relating to biometric identifiers used in the performance of artificial intelligence.
Texas HB 3755 (2025), as introduced, would have amended Business & Commerce Code Sec. 503.001 (the biometric identifier law) to define artificial intelligence and to exempt AI training, processing, or storage unless done to uniquely identify a specific individual. If a biometric identifier captured for an AI commercial purpose were used for another, separate commercial purpose, the holder would become subject to the section's possession, destruction and penalty rules. It died when the regular session adjourned June 2, 2025.
Use of facial recognition technology as part of the driver's license and Minnesota identification card application process required.
Minnesota's HF 560 would have required the commissioner of public safety to use facial recognition on every driver's license and Minnesota ID application or renewal to prevent multiple issuances and identification fraud, comparing applicants' faces with state, FBI and other law enforcement databases. A confirmed match would have blocked issuance and been referred to law enforcement. Introduced February 13, 2025 and never left committee.
Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act.
Vetoed. California's SB 1047 (2024) would have required developers of covered AI models (trained with more than 10^26 operations at a compute cost over $100 million) to adopt safety and security protocols and full-shutdown capability before training, assess and guard against critical harms before release, hire annual third-party auditors from 2026, and report AI safety incidents to the Attorney General within 72 hours. The Attorney General could have sued for penalties. Governor Newsom vetoed it September 29, 2024, and the Legislature did not override the veto.
Conversational Artificial Intelligence Service Operator Requirements
Colorado's HB 26-1263 regulates operators of conversational AI services: public AI systems that mainly simulate human conversation (customer-service, business and other listed uses excluded). From January 1, 2027, operators must tell users the service is AI (daily, every three hours or persistently, and when asked), run a suicide and self-harm protocol with crisis referrals, and not claim outputs come from or are endorsed by licensed health, legal or mental health professionals. For known minors they must also guard against sexual content and simulated romance, avoid unpredictable engagement rewards and offer privacy tools. Signed May 29, 2026 (Chapter 208); act effective August 12, 2026.
Consumer Protection - Online Products and Services - Data of Children (Maryland Kids Code)
Maryland's HB 603 (Kids Code) covers for-profit firms doing business in Maryland that have over $25M revenue, buy, receive, sell or share data of 50,000+ consumers, households or devices yearly, or get at least half their revenue from data sales. For online products reasonably likely to be accessed by under-18s they must do impact assessments (existing ones by April 1, 2026) and set high-privacy defaults. AI-related: no default profiling of children without safeguards and need or a compelling reason; assessments weigh algorithm harms. Fines up to $7,500 per child per violation. Signed May 9, 2024 (Chapter 461; same as SB 571); effective October 1, 2024. Not enjoined; NetChoice suit pending.
Increasing transparency in artificial intelligence.
Washington's HB 1168 (substitute, 2025-26 biennium) would have required developers of generative AI systems released on or after January 1, 2022 and available to Washingtonians to post a high-level summary of their training data on their website by January 1, 2026 and before each later release. The Attorney General would have enforced it with a civil penalty of $5,000 per day and a 45-day cure notice. Its 1st substitute was recommended by House Technology in January 2025, was reintroduced January 12, 2026 and died at adjournment.
Artificial intelligence; disclosure of artificial intelligence-generated content required, enforcement provided
Alabama's SB 129 would require developers of generative AI systems that produce images, video or audiovisual content to include a clear, conspicuous and unavoidable disclosure that the content is AI-generated, plus metadata naming the tool and creation time, and to take reasonable steps to stop licensees and end users removing it. Violations would be unlawful trade practices with a private right of action. Referred to Senate Judiciary January 13, 2026; the bill died when the 2026 regular session ended without final passage.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's HB 2357 HD 1 (2026) would have barred music streaming platforms from hosting, distributing or making available in the State music performed or attributed to an artificial intelligence music artist, a persona that is not a natural person, is created through AI and is marketed as a performer. The Attorney General would have enforced it, with violations an unfair or deceptive practice under HRS section 480-2. The House JHA committee deferred it February 18, 2026 and it was not enacted.
Georgia Entertainment Artificial Intelligence Accountability and Performer Protection Act; enact
Georgia's HB 1603, the Georgia Entertainment Artificial Intelligence Accountability and Performer Protection Act, would add Article 38 to Title 10, Chapter 1. It would make an individual or production company liable in a civil action for publishing or distributing a digital replica of a performer without consent, or for distributing a product primarily designed to produce such replicas. Consent would need a written contract of no more than ten years while the performer is living. The bill reached House Second Readers on March 31, 2026 and died when the session ended.
AI Innovation Trust Fund
North Carolina's SB 735 would create an Artificial Intelligence Innovation Trust Fund, administered by the Secretary of Commerce, for grants to AI companies and AI entrepreneurship programs, with $750,000 appropriated for 2025-2026. It would also set safety duties for developers of covered AI models and computing cluster operators, enforced by the Attorney General. Filed March 25, 2025; re-referred to Appropriations/Base Budget March 26, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Technology; deployers; AI chatbots; minors; age verification systems; emergency situations; effective date.
Oklahoma's HB 4083 (2026), as introduced, would have required deployers of generative AI chatbots to keep human-like features and social AI companions away from minors (under 18) using reasonable age verification, with an exception for qualifying therapeutic chatbots. Per its title, it would also have required emergency-situation detection and Attorney General and private enforcement. It was referred to Rules February 3, 2026 and died when the session ended May 14, 2026.
Prohibiting the use of generative artificial intelligence to create false representations of candidates in election campaign media or of state officials.
Not law. Kansas SB 375 would have barred using synthetic media, meaning realistic but false images, audio or video made with generative AI or other digital technology, in election campaign communications to alter a candidate's appearance, action or speech, and in any communication to alter that of an elected or appointed state official. Violations would have been class C misdemeanors. Including the statement 'This (image/video/audio) has been manipulated' would have been an affirmative defense. It had a Senate Federal and State Affairs hearing February 8, 2024 and died in committee April 30, 2024.
Law enforcement: facial recognition and other biometric surveillance.
California's AB 1215 added Penal Code § 832.19, which barred law enforcement agencies and officers from installing, activating or using any biometric surveillance system, such as facial recognition, in connection with an officer camera (a body-worn camera or similar device) or its data, including by having another agency or a third party run it for them. Anyone could sue for equitable or declaratory relief. The section was repealed by its own terms on January 1, 2023, so the ban is no longer in effect. Signed October 8, 2019 (Chapter 579); effective January 1, 2020.
Relating To Antitrust.
Hawaii's Senate Bill 157 (2025), as amended in SD 2, would have made it unlawful for a software or data analytics service to collect rent, supply or lease-date data from two or more landlords, process it with computation (including to train an algorithm) and recommend rents, and for two or more landlords to engage in consciously parallel pricing coordination. Penalties would have reached $100,000 for individuals and $1,000,000 for entities. It passed the Senate March 4, 2025, was carried over to 2026 and not enacted. It stated a July 1, 2050 effective date.
Fourth Amendment Restoration Act
West Virginia's HB 2431, the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act (2025 regular session), would have barred law enforcement officers, and anyone acting for law enforcement purposes, from using seven listed technologies, including facial recognition, license plate readers and surveillance drones, unless a warrant based on probable cause authorizes use against a specific person. Knowing and willful use would be a felony. It was sent to House Judiciary on February 17, 2025 and went no further.
Synthetic Media: Liability; Elections
Alaska's SB 33 (2025-26) would have made a defamation action based on synthetic media a claim for defamation per se and barred a person from knowingly using synthetic media in an electioneering communication with intent to influence an election. A harmed individual could sue for damages, attorney fees and costs or seek an injunction. It was heard and held in Senate State Affairs on April 29, 2025 and died when the session ended May 20, 2026.
Revises provisions relating to health insurance. (BDR 57-238)
Nevada's AB 295 (2025) would have set prior authorization deadlines for health carriers (5 days non-urgent, 48 hours urgent, replacing 20 days) and required carriers using AI or automated decision tools for prior authorization to notify insureds in writing, and barred using AI to make adverse determinations or reduce or modify approved care unless a physician (or dentist) independently reviews the request. Carriers would report annually. Under Joint Standing Rule 14.3.1 no further action was allowed after April 12, 2025, so it died.
Various mental health and insurance matters.
Indiana's HB 1201 (2026) would have barred using an AI system to impersonate or substitute for a licensed mental health professional in interactions that must be performed by one (discipline under IC 25-1-9; a board could impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation). It also covered insurance: downcoding limits, mental health reimbursement parity with medical providers relative to Medicare, a 180-day audit and recoupment window, and out-of-network balance-billing limits. Referred to the Insurance Committee January 5, 2026; it was not passed before the 2026 session ended.
Candidate Election Deepfake Disclosures
Colorado's HB 24-1147 bars anyone from distributing a communication about a candidate (including federal candidates and incumbents) with a deepfake to the candidate's electorate in the 60 days before a primary or 90 before a general election, if they know or recklessly disregard that the candidate did not say or do what is shown, unless it clearly states: "This (image/audio/video/multimedia) has been edited and depicts speech or conduct that falsely appears to be authentic or truthful." Secretary of State complaints bring civil penalties; candidates may sue for injunctions and damages. Qualifying news, satire and parody are exempt. Signed May 24, 2024 (Chapter 250); effective July 1, 2024.
An act relating to commerce; prohibiting access to nudification technology; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 325E.
Minnesota's Laws 2026, chapter 72 creates Minn. Stat. 325E.91, a ban on nudification technology. The owner or controller of a website, app, software, program or service may not let users nudify images or videos (alter or generate them to show intimate parts that a reasonable person would believe belong to an identifiable person), or nudify them on a user's behalf, and no one may advertise or promote such a service. Tools that require the user's own technical skill are exempt. Depicted people can sue, and the Attorney General can seek civil penalties of up to $500,000 per unlawful access, download or use. It took effect Aug. 1, 2026.
An act relating to public safety; ... regulating the use of unmanned aerial vehicles by law enforcement ... (Laws 2020, chapter 82)
Minnesota's Laws 2020, chapter 82 created Minn. Stat. 626.19 on law enforcement use of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones). Drones generally require a warrant, with listed exceptions, and under subdivision 4(b) an agency must not deploy a drone with facial recognition or other biometric-matching technology unless expressly authorized by a warrant. Agencies also may not arm drones or use them to collect data on protests without a warrant, evidence gathered in violation is inadmissible, and agencies must adopt written policies by Feb. 15, 2021. Section 626.19 took effect Aug. 1, 2020.
Concerning fabricated intimate or sexually explicit images and depictions.
Washington's Chapter 88, Laws of 2024 (SHB 1999) covers digitally fabricated sexual images, including those made with artificial intelligence. It adds "fabricated depiction of an identifiable minor" to chapter 9.68A RCW, so the child sexual exploitation offenses reach images created or altered by digitization. It creates a new crime of disclosing a fabricated intimate image without consent (gross misdemeanor; class C felony for repeat offenses) and a civil cause of action under chapter 7.110 RCW with statutory damages up to $10,000, punitive damages, fees and injunctions. "Digitization" expressly includes creating or altering images with artificial intelligence.
Establishing an artificial intelligence task force.
Washington's Chapter 163, Laws of 2024 (E2SSB 5838) creates an artificial intelligence task force run by the Office of the Attorney General. A 19-member executive committee (four legislators and 15 members appointed by the Attorney General from government, industry, labor, advocacy and research) examines public and private AI development and use and recommends guidelines and possible legislation, covering topics such as high-risk uses, algorithmic discrimination, transparency, training data and civil liberties. Reports were due December 31, 2024, December 1, 2025 and July 1, 2026. The act took effect immediately (emergency clause) and the task force expires June 30, 2027.
Establishing minimum requirements for the testing of autonomous vehicles.
Washington's Chapter 182, Laws of 2020 (ESHB 2676) sets minimum rules for testing autonomous vehicles on public roads under the Department of Licensing self-certification pilot program. Testers must carry at least $5 million in umbrella liability insurance (RCW 46.30.050). From October 1, 2021 (RCW 46.92.010), they must give the department contact details, testing locations and vehicle IDs, report collisions and moving violations annually, and notify local police or the State Patrol 14 to 60 days before testing. The department publishes the information and reports to the Legislature.
Implementing recommendations of the autonomous vehicle work group.
Washington's Chapter 193, Laws of 2021 (SSB 5460) implements recommendations of the state autonomous vehicle work group by amending the self-certification testing pilot program in RCW 46.92.010. It defines "autonomous" as a level four or five driving automation system under SAE J3016, and requires testers to give the Department of Licensing contact details, testing jurisdictions, vehicle identification and proof of insurance, file annual collision and violation reports, and notify law enforcement 14 to 60 days before testing. No autonomous vehicle may be tested on public roads until the information is filed. Section 1 takes effect October 1, 2022.
Regulating personal delivery devices.
Washington's Chapter 214, Laws of 2019 (ESHB 1325) authorizes personal delivery devices: electrically powered devices under 120 pounds that carry property on sidewalks and crosswalks at up to 6 mph and are equipped with automated driving technology, supervised by a remote operator. Chapter 46.75 RCW sets operating requirements (an operator must control or monitor the device), a self-certification form, restrictions on where devices may operate, and traffic infractions for violations. Effective September 1, 2019.
Concerning personality rights.
Washington's Chapter 69, Laws of 2026 (SSB 5886) extends the state's right of publicity (chapter 63.60 RCW) to forged digital likenesses: realistic visual representations or audio recordings of an identifiable person, digitally created or altered to be indistinguishable from genuine ones, that misrepresent the person's appearance, speech or conduct and are likely to deceive. Unauthorized commercial use of a forged digital likeness is infringement, subject to injunctions and damages; for a forged digital likeness the infringer is also liable for noneconomic damages. Infringement carries a $3,000 civil penalty plus actual damages.
An Act to amend Part 3 of Article 3 of Chapter 11 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to invasion of privacy, so as to revise the prohibition on electronically transmitting or posting nude or sexually explicit photographs or videos for purposes of harassing the depicted person; to provide for an increased penalty for the electronic transmission or posting to a web page that is accessible to the general public; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
Georgia's SB 78 toughens the law against sharing nude or sexually explicit images of an adult without consent, including falsely created videos or still images such as deepfakes. Under the revised O.C.G.A. 16-11-90, posting such an image to harass the person or cause them financial loss is a felony (1 to 5 years, up to $100,000) when it is sent to a website that advertises or promotes sexually explicit content. Sharing by other electronic means stays a high and aggravated misdemeanor for a first offense and becomes a felony for repeat offenses. The law keeps the exemption for platforms hosting content posted by others.
Removal of Altered Sexual Depictions Posted without Consent
Florida's CS/CS/HB 1161 (Chapter 2025-133), Brooke's Law, amends s. 836.13, F.S. Covered platforms (sites, services or apps that mainly host user content, or regularly make nonconsensual altered sexual depictions available) had to set up by December 31, 2025 a process for people to request removal of sexual deepfakes of them posted without consent. Within 48 hours of a valid request the platform must remove the content and make reasonable efforts to remove identical copies, and it must post plain-language notice of the process. Good-faith removals are immune; unreasonable noncompliance is a FDUTPA violation. Effective June 10, 2025.
An Act amending sections 28-101, 28-661, 28-662, 28-663, 28-664, 28-665, 28-666, 28-907, 28-909, 28-941, 28-956, 28-957, 28-957.01, 28-966, 28-2157 and 28-3315, Arizona Revised Statutes; amending title 28, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding chapter 31; relating to motor vehicles.
Arizona's HB 2813 (Laws 2021, Ch. 117) writes autonomous vehicle rules into Title 28. It defines automated driving system, autonomous and fully autonomous vehicle (SAE level 4 or 5) and related terms. A fully autonomous vehicle may operate without a human driver once the operator gives ADOT a law enforcement interaction plan and a written compliance statement, and the automated driving system is treated as the driver while engaged. It also sets crash-reporting duties for driverless vehicles, allows on-demand autonomous networks and autonomous commercial vehicles, preempts local fees, and provides an ADOT safety enforcement process.
Civil Actions - Product Liability - Artificial Intelligence Systems
Maryland's HB 712 (2026, first reader text) would have added Courts and Judicial Proceedings sections 3-2701 to 3-2706 letting people sue developers and deployers of high-impact or generative AI systems for harm from a dangerous or defective product (design defect, failure to warn, express warranty), with comparative fault, joint and several liability, and Attorney General enforcement. It had a House Judiciary hearing set for February 25, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.
An Act concerning crimes, punishment and criminal procedure; relating to sexual extortion; requiring the attorney general to prepare and provide educational materials and information concerning such crime; increasing the penalties for such crime when an offender is 18 years of age or older and the victim is less than 18 years of age or a dependent adult; creating the crimes of aggravated sexual extortion causing great bodily harm and aggravated sexual extortion causing death; amending K.S.A. 21-5515 and repealing the existing section.
Kansas HB 2537 (L. 2026, ch. 45, "Caleb's Law") rewrites the sexual extortion statute, K.S.A. 21-5515. The "image, video or other recording" used in a threat now expressly includes material created, altered or modified by artificial intelligence or any digital means to depict a person, whether or not that person was involved in the original. Penalties rise when an adult targets a minor or dependent adult, and new crimes of aggravated sexual extortion causing great bodily harm or death are created. The Attorney General must prepare educational materials.
Automated Decision-Making Technology
Colorado's SB 26-189 repeals and reenacts the 2024 AI Act as rules for automated decision-making technology (ADMT) that materially influences consequential decisions such as hiring, lending, housing and health care. Developers must document covered ADMT for deployers; deployers must give notice before use, explain adverse outcomes within 30 days and, on request, give correction steps and, where commercially reasonable, human review. Signed May 14, 2026 (Chapter 131); applies from January 1, 2027. A stipulated April 27, 2026 order in X. AI LLC v. Weiser bars AG enforcement of 2026 laws replacing SB 24-205 for violations through 14 days after a ruling on xAI's planned injunction motion.
AN ACT concerning motor vehicles; relating to autonomous motor vehicles; providing for the use and regulation thereof; establishing the autonomous vehicle advisory committee; amending K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 8-2106 and 8-2204 and repealing the existing sections.
Kansas SB 313 (L. 2022, ch. 93, K.S.A. 8-2901 et seq.) authorizes driverless-capable vehicles. A vehicle with an automated driving system that can perform the entire driving task and reach a minimal-risk condition may operate without a human driver, subject to conditions such as a human on board during the first year for vehicles with manual controls and a law-enforcement interaction plan filed with the Highway Patrol. Owners must carry insurance and meet crash duties; the Highway Patrol regulates and local rules are preempted. An autonomous vehicle advisory committee reports yearly.
AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 13 of section 12.1-27.1-01 and section 12.1-27.1-03.3 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to sexually expressive images; and to provide a penalty.
North Dakota HB 1351 (2025) updates the law on sexually expressive images so it covers deepfakes. The definition in N.D.C.C. 12.1-27.1-01 now includes a "real, altered, or computer-generated" photograph or visual representation showing nudity or sexual conduct. Creating such an image surreptitiously, or distributing it to harm or humiliate or after notice that the subject does not consent, is a class A misdemeanor, and knowingly distributing an acquired image created without consent is a class B misdemeanor. A depicted person may sue for damages and attorney fees.
AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 12.1-27.2-01 and 12.1-27.2-04.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a prohibition on possessing certain computer-generated images; and to provide a penalty.
North Dakota HB 1386 (2025) covers AI-generated child sexual abuse material. N.D.C.C. 12.1-27.2-01 now defines a "computer-generated image" as one created through artificial intelligence or another computer program, and treats a computer-generated image made or altered to appear to depict someone under 18 as a minor. Knowingly possessing a motion picture, computer-generated image, photograph or other visual representation including sexual conduct by a minor is a class C felony, raised to a class B felony for 20 or more images, violent content, a very young victim or a prior offense.
Lower Grocery Prices Act
The federal H.R. 8229 (Lower Grocery Prices Act) would prohibit surveillance-based price setting for food, groceries and agricultural commodities: using an automated decision system to offer or inform a customized price for a specific person or group based on surveillance data. The FTC and state attorneys general could enforce it, and injured people could sue for the greater of actual damages or $3,000 per violation. Introduced April 9, 2026 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce and Judiciary committees; no further action.
An act relating to the regulation of social media platforms and artificial intelligence systems
Vermont's H.365 (2025-2026 biennium) would have required operators of social media platforms and AI systems used by Vermont consumers to register annually with the Secretary of State ($100 fee) and meet product safety and privacy duties. AI providers would have had to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, disclose AI interaction and get informed consent before collecting or sharing consumer data. The Attorney General would enforce. It was referred to House Commerce on February 26, 2025 and died when the biennium ended.
Public Life and Activity Zones Amendment ("PLAZA") Act of 2024 (D.C. Law 25-312)
Section 6 of D.C. Law 25-312, the PLAZA Act of 2024, amends the Autonomous Vehicle Act of 2012. No person or entity may test or operate an autonomous vehicle on a District roadway without an AV testing permit. Until DDOT makes the permit application available, testing is allowed only with a test operator ready to take over and with electronic notice to DDOT at least 10 business days ahead. DDOT may restrict testing for non-compliance, emergencies, special events or safety, reporting becomes quarterly, and the grandfather clause for earlier operators is repealed. The rest of the act is about public space, not AI.
Relating To Law Enforcement.
Hawaii's Senate Bill 2049 (2026) would have barred law enforcement agencies and officers from using biometric surveillance technology, meaning software that performs facial recognition or other remote biometric recognition, on any person. Exceptions would have covered reasonable suspicion of a crime, executing a judge-authorized warrant based on probable cause that an unidentified or unconfirmed person in an image committed a crime, and emergencies involving immediate danger of death or serious injury. It was referred to committees January 22, 2026 and not enacted.
AN ACT to amend the Code of West Virginia Code, 1931, as amended, by adding thereto a new chapter, designated §17H-1-1, §17H-1-2, §17H-1-3, §17H-1-4, §17H-1-5, §17H-1-6, §17H-1-7, §17H-1-8, §17H-1-9, §17H-1-10, §17H-1-11, §17H-1-12, §17H-1-13, §17H-1-14, and §17H-1-15, all relating to establishing the Fully Autonomous Vehicle Act; defining terms; providing for construction of the act; providing requirements for the operation of fully autonomous vehicles without a human driver and with a human driver; providing for the operation of on-demand autonomous vehicle networks; providing for the operation of fully autonomous commercial and motor vehicle carriers; providing for the platooning of fully autonomous vehicles; providing for licensing, titling, registration, and insurance requirements of fully autonomous vehicles; providing for control and regulation of fully autonomous vehicles; providing for equipment standards for fully autonomous vehicles; and providing duties following a crash involving fully autonomous vehicles.
West Virginia's Fully Autonomous Vehicle Act (new Chapter 17H) authorizes self-driving vehicles on public roads. A fully autonomous vehicle may run without a human driver if its automated driving system can reach a minimal risk condition on failure, and the operator first files a law enforcement interaction plan with the Division of Highways/DOT and proves insurance or self-insurance to the DMV. The act also covers on-demand autonomous vehicle networks, autonomous commercial vehicles, three-vehicle platooning, crash duties and equipment standards, and bars local governments from banning or separately taxing autonomous vehicles.
An Act to Ensure Transparency in Consumer Transactions Involving Artificial Intelligence
Maine's chatbot disclosure law adds a chapter on communications with consumers via artificial intelligence to Title 10. A person may not use an artificial intelligence chatbot or other computer technology to engage in trade and commerce with a consumer in a way that may mislead or deceive a reasonable consumer into believing they are talking with a human, unless the consumer is clearly and conspicuously notified that they are not dealing with a human. A violation is a violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Relating to a prohibition on the use of artificial intelligence technology for classroom instruction.
Texas SB 382 (2025), as introduced, would have added Education Code Sec. 28.0028 barring school districts and open-enrollment charter schools from using artificial intelligence technology to provide instruction to students or to replace or supplement a teacher's role in instruction or interacting with students. It has no definitions, exceptions or enforcement provision. It would have applied from the 2025-2026 school year. It died June 2, 2025.
An Act Concerning Artificial Intelligence, Automated Decision-making And Personal Data Privacy.
Connecticut's Public Act 23-16 governs AI in state government. The Department of Administrative Services (for all state agencies) and the Judicial Department must inventory the AI systems in use by December 31, 2023 and yearly after, and post them. OPM and the Judicial Branch set policies by February 1, 2024 for buying, using and assessing AI; from then, agencies may not deploy an AI system without an impact assessment showing it will not cause unlawful discrimination or disparate impact. It formed a working group on AI best practices and an AI bill of rights, and from October 1, 2023 state contracts must require compliance with the data privacy act. Signed June 7, 2023.
Health care services: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 1979 sets rules for AI in clinical care. Health facilities such as hospitals, clinics, physician offices and group practices must take reasonable steps so licensed providers keep independent professional judgment whenever care is informed by a clinical decision support system, and may not use AI to independently perform licensed clinical work, or to direct unlicensed staff doing it. Businesses offering health care chatbots that consumers use to manage their health information or to diagnose, treat or manage a condition are treated as health care providers under the state's medical privacy law (CMIA). Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 854); effective January 1, 2027.
Employment: automated decision systems.
California's SB 947 limits how employers, including public employers and labor contractors, use automated decision systems (ADS) such as AI tools, starting July 1, 2027. Employers may not use an ADS to violate labor or civil-rights laws, infer a protected status, or predict and punish workers for exercising their rights, and may not rely solely on an ADS to discipline or fire. When they primarily rely on one, a human must corroborate the output, and the worker gets a written notice and can request a description of their data used. $500 per violation. Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 859).
Elections: offenses; penalties for distributing materially deceptive media; provide for, and provide procedure for enjoining materially deceptive media.
Michigan's Public Act 265 of 2023 adds section 932f to the election law. Within 90 days before an election, a person may not distribute, or agree to distribute, materially deceptive media (an image, audio or video produced by artificial intelligence that falsely shows a person saying or doing something they did not) knowing it is false and intending to harm a candidate or deceive voters, unless it carries a disclaimer that it was manipulated by technical means. The attorney general, the person depicted, a harmed candidate or a voter group can sue for an injunction. Effective February 13, 2024.
Digital Content Authenticity and Transparency Act; established, civil penalty.
Virginia's SB 1417 (2025 Regular Session) would have created the Digital Content Authenticity and Transparency Act, requiring generative AI developers to apply provenance data to synthetic content and offer a public provenance tool and reader, with Attorney General enforcement and civil penalties. Passed by indefinitely in committee on January 24, 2025; it failed.
AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT DEPICTS A CHILD; TO INCLUDE A COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE THAT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE IMAGE OF A CHILD; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Arkansas Act 977 of 2025 brings AI-generated child sexual abuse material under the state's child exploitation laws. "Computer generated" means produced, adapted or modified in whole or part using artificial intelligence; "indistinguishable" means an ordinary person would conclude it shows an actual child (drawings, cartoons and paintings excluded). The pandering, possession, distribution and viewing offenses, and electronic facilitation of child sexual abuse (Class B felony), now cover such images. Law enforcement, interactive computer services and good-faith AI adversarial testing are exempt.
Crimes & offenses, prohibits a person from creating a private image without consent.
Alabama's HB 161 (Act 2024-96) amends Section 13A-6-240 to create the crime of knowingly creating, recording or altering an intimate image of an individual without consent where the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. A private image now includes a recording that a reasonable person would believe actually depicts an identifiable individual, even if any portion is artificially generated or depicts someone else. Violations are a Class A misdemeanor, and a subsequent offense is a Class C felony. Internet service providers, search engines, cloud providers and technology developers are not liable solely because their service was used. Effective October 1, 2024.
Crimes & offenses, provides criminal & civil penalties for distribution of materially deceptive media intended to influence an election.
Alabama's HB 172 (Act 2024-349) makes it a crime to distribute materially deceptive media (AI-produced image, audio or video falsely depicting a person's speech or conduct) within 90 days before an election when the distributor knows it is false and intends to harm a candidate or deceive voters. A disclaimer stating the media 'has been manipulated by technical means and depicts speech or conduct that did not occur' avoids liability. A violation is a Class A misdemeanor; a second conviction within five years is a Class D felony. The Attorney General, the depicted person, candidates and voter groups may seek injunctions. Effective October 1, 2024.
Relating To Elections.
Hawaii's SB 2687 (Act 191 of 2024) adds HRS 11-303 and a remedies section to the campaign law. From February of each even-numbered year through the general election, no one may recklessly distribute materially deceptive media (an ad falsely depicting someone's speech or conduct, made with AI, GAN techniques or other digital technology) in reckless disregard of the risk of harming a candidate or changing votes. Media with a clear disclaimer that it was manipulated is exempt. Violations are a petty misdemeanor (misdemeanor for a repeat within five years; class C felony if meant to cause violence); the Campaign Spending Commission may fine and injured parties may sue.
Digitizations; create a criminal penalty for the wrongful dissemination of.
Mississippi's SB 2577 (Chapter 467, Laws of 2024) creates a crime of wrongful dissemination of digitizations: realistic images or audio altered or created with software, machine learning, AI or other computer-generated means (deepfakes) that a reasonable person would believe show real speech or conduct. Knowingly disseminating one within 90 days of an election, without consent and to injure a candidate, influence the result or deter voting, carries up to one year and $5,000, or up to five years and $10,000 if meant to incite violence or after a prior conviction. Officials, the depicted person, candidates and parties may seek injunctions. Effective July 1, 2024.
An act relating to governmental structures protecting the public health, safety, and welfare
Vermont's S.124 (Act 166 of 2020) is a public safety act whose Sec. 14 imposes a moratorium on facial recognition technology: until the General Assembly authorizes it by law, a law enforcement officer may not use facial recognition technology or information obtained through it, except as permitted for drones under 20 V.S.A. 4622. Facial recognition covers automated or semi-automated identification of a person from facial characteristics and analysis of a face to infer sentiment, state of mind or dangerousness. The act took effect October 1, 2020; the Governor signed it October 7, 2020. Act 17 of 2021 later allowed use in child sexual exploitation investigations.
Provides for the Allen Toussaint Legacy Act.
Louisiana's SB 426 (Act 425 of 2022), the Allen Toussaint Legacy Act, gives each person a transferable property right in their identity, including name, voice, likeness and digital replica. A digital replica is a computer-generated reproduction of a performer's likeness or voice indistinguishable from the real one. Using a person's identity for commercial purposes without consent is a violation, and so is using a digital replica in a scripted audiovisual work or live dramatic performance to create the clear impression that the performer is actually performing a role. Remedies include the greater of $1,000 or actual damages, profits and injunctions. Effective August 1, 2022.
Criminalizes deepfakes involving minors and defines the rights to digital image and likeness.
Louisiana's SB 175 (Act 457 of 2023) adds R.S. 14:73.13, the crime of unlawful deepfakes. Creating or possessing material that uses deepfake technology to depict a minor engaging in sexual conduct is punishable by 5 to 20 years at hard labor (five without parole) or a fine up to $10,000, or both. Advertising, distributing, exhibiting, exchanging, promoting or selling sexually explicit deepfake material of a person without consent is punishable by 10 to 30 years or a $50,000 fine, or both, with at least 10 years served if a minor is depicted. Newsworthy, satirical and clearly disclosed works are excluded. Effective August 1, 2023.
MEDICAID EXPANSION TASK FORCE
SB 2655's enacted text is a criminal-justice package. Its AI-related provision amends Section 11-20.4 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (obscene depiction of a purported child, which covers computer-generated images). It defines "indistinguishable" (an ordinary viewer would conclude the image shows an actual child) and limits "purported child" to a depiction indistinguishable from an actual child under 18, rather than one that merely appears to depict a child. Related penalty provisions are conformed. Effective March 21, 2025.
Enacts into law major components of legislation necessary to implement the state transportation, economic development and environmental conservation budget for the 2024-2025 state fiscal year
Chapter 58 of 2024 (FY2025 budget). Part MM, the artificial intelligence deceptive practices act, covers commercial use of a person's likeness or voice under Civil Rights Law 50-51 and extends the intimate-image actions in 52-b and 52-c to images created or altered by digitization (AI, machine learning or other computer-generated means). It also adds Election Law 14-106(5): political communications with materially deceptive media must disclose that the content has been manipulated, and depicted candidates may seek an injunction. Part TT establishes Empire AI at the University at Buffalo. Part J extends autonomous vehicle testing. Part MM took effect immediately.
Provides for the registration and duties of model management companies; provides complaint procedures and penalties for violations
The Fashion Workers Act (Labor Law Article 36) includes protections against unauthorized digital replicas, defined as significant computer-generated or AI-enhanced representations of a model's face, body or voice. Model management companies and clients must get clear written consent, separate from the representation agreement, stating scope, purpose, pay and duration before creating or using a model's digital replica, and may not alter a model's replica with AI without it. Powers of attorney cannot cover digital replica use. A chapter amendment (A2249, Chapter 66 of 2025) clarifies that consent must come from the model. Effective on the 180th day after becoming law.
Elections: deceptive audio or visual media.
AB 730 amended Elections Code 20010 and Code of Civil Procedure 35 to address election deepfakes. Until January 1, 2023 (later extended), no person or committee may distribute, with actual malice, materially deceptive audio or visual media of a candidate within 60 days of an election to injure the candidate's reputation or deceive voters. Such media is an image, audio or video intentionally manipulated so it would falsely appear authentic. Media disclosing that it has been manipulated is allowed, and the depicted candidate may seek an injunction and damages.
Vehicles: consumer notices.
SB 1398 added Vehicle Code Section 24011.5. A dealer or manufacturer that sells a new passenger vehicle equipped with a partial driving automation feature, or that adds such a feature by software update or upgrade, must give the buyer or owner a notice describing the functions and limitations of the feature. Manufacturers and dealers are prohibited from naming or marketing these features in a way that deceptively suggests the vehicle is autonomous or more capable than it is. Violations of the notice requirement are infractions.
Telecommunications: automatic dialing-announcing devices: artificial voices.
AB 2905 amended Public Utilities Code Section 2874, which governs automatic dialing-announcing devices. The required introductory announcement for prerecorded calls must also inform the person called if the prerecorded message uses an artificial voice, as defined, including voices generated or significantly altered using artificial intelligence. Violations of Public Utilities Commission orders implementing the requirement can be crimes.
Autonomous vehicles.
AB 1777 amended Vehicle Code Section 38750 and added Sections 38751 to 38753. Commencing July 1, 2026, manufacturers of autonomous vehicles that operate without a human operator in the vehicle must maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line and equip each vehicle with two-way voice communication so emergency officials near the vehicle can reach a remote human operator. Emergency officials may issue emergency geofencing messages, and manufacturers must direct fleets to leave or avoid the area within 2 minutes. Peace officers may issue notices of autonomous vehicle noncompliance for observed Vehicle Code violations, which manufacturers must report to the DMV.
Tenancy: digitally altered images: disclosure.
AB 2025 added Civil Code Section 1940.11 and amended Business and Professions Code Section 10140.8. A person who includes a digitally altered image (an image altered through photo editing software or artificial intelligence to add, remove, or change elements), in an advertisement or promotional material for rental of real property must include a disclosure and, in most cases, provide the unaltered image. The requirement does not apply to renderings not originally created with a capture device. Violations by real estate licensees are violations of the Real Estate Law. It extends the 2025 sale-listing rule (AB 723) to rentals.
Workplace surveillance tools.
AB 1883 added Part 5.8 (commencing with Section 1580) to Division 2 of the Labor Code. With certain exceptions, it prohibits an employer, including public employers, from using a workplace surveillance tool that uses artificial intelligence to, among other things, collect neural data or recognize an individual's emotional state. The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors may enforce it, with civil penalties of up to $500 per violation. Exemptions apply where use is reasonably necessary to comply with federal law or federal contracts for aircraft, national security, military, or space work.
Relating to financial exploitation or financial abuse using artificially generated media or phishing communications; providing a civil penalty; creating a criminal offense.
Texas SB 2373 (2025) targets deepfake scams. It defines artificially generated media as images, audio, video, text or other media created or modified with AI or other software with intent to deceive. A person harmed by knowing or intentional dissemination of such media or phishing for financial exploitation may sue for damages, profits, fees and injunctions; the attorney general may seek up to $1,000 per day; and new Penal Code 32.56 makes financial abuse through such media or phishing a crime graded by amount, up to a first-degree felony. Platforms and broadcasters are exempt for others' content. Effective September 1, 2025.
Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penalty.
Virginia's 2019 law closes a gap in the crime of maliciously disseminating or selling nude or partially nude images of another person with intent to coerce, harass or intimidate (Code 18.2-386.2, a Class 1 misdemeanor). 'Another person' now includes a person whose image was used in creating, adapting or modifying a videographic or still image with intent to depict an actual person who is recognizable by face, likeness or other distinguishing characteristic, so deepfake intimate images are covered. Service providers are not liable for content provided by others. Effective July 1, 2019.
Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penalty.
Virginia's 2019 law closes a gap in the crime of maliciously disseminating or selling nude or partially nude images of another person with intent to coerce, harass or intimidate (Code 18.2-386.2, a Class 1 misdemeanor). 'Another person' now includes a person whose image was used in creating, adapting or modifying a videographic or still image with intent to depict an actual person who is recognizable by face, likeness or other distinguishing characteristic, so deepfake intimate images are covered. Service providers are not liable for content provided by others. Effective July 1, 2019.
Facial recognition technology; local law-enforcement agencies, etc., authorization of use.
Virginia HB 2031 (2021) prohibited local law-enforcement agencies and campus police departments from purchasing or deploying facial recognition technology unless a statute expressly authorizes it, and required any authorizing statute to keep the data under the agency's exclusive control, confidential and reachable only by warrant. Agencies already using it had to stop on July 1, 2021. Facial recognition technology is defined as an electronic system for enrolling, capturing, extracting, comparing and matching geometric facial data; airports with commercial service are exempt. SB 741 (2022) replaced the ban with an authorization framework.
Concerning preventing certain disclosures of intimate depictions, and, in connection therewith, creating a cause of action for nonconsensual disclosure of an intimate digital depiction and adding and amending related provisions in criminal law.
Colorado SB 25-288 enacts the Preventing Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Digital Depictions Act. A digital depiction is a highly realistic image falsely appearing authentic that was created, altered or produced by generative AI, image editing software or computer-generated means. A person who discloses or threatens to disclose an intimate digital depiction without signed consent can be sued for actual damages or $150,000, exemplary damages, fees and injunctions; a disclaimer is no defense. It also extends sexual exploitation of a child to realistic computer-generated depictions of an identifiable child and updates the private-image offenses.
Relating to Elections -- Deceptive and Fraudulent Synthetic Media in Election Communications
Rhode Island's 2025 election deepfake law (R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 17-30) bars candidates, campaign committees, PACs, party committees and independent spenders from distributing synthetic media they know or should know is deceptive and fraudulent within 90 days of an election. Synthetic media is an image, audio or video of a person intentionally manipulated with generative adversarial network techniques or other digital technology to look real but give a fundamentally different impression. A clear disclosure that the media 'has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence' is a safe harbor. Depicted candidates may seek injunctions and damages. Effective on passage.
Relating to Elections -- Deceptive and Fraudulent Synthetic Media in Election Communications
Rhode Island's 2025 election deepfake law (R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 17-30) bars candidates, campaign committees, PACs, party committees and independent spenders from distributing synthetic media they know or should know is deceptive and fraudulent within 90 days of an election. Synthetic media is an image, audio or video of a person intentionally manipulated with generative adversarial network techniques or other digital technology to look real but give a fundamentally different impression. A clear disclosure that the media 'has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence' is a safe harbor. Depicted candidates may seek injunctions and damages. Effective on passage.
Relating to Criminal Offenses -- Impersonation and Identity Fraud
Rhode Island's 2026 identity fraud amendment defines a forged digital likeness as a computer- or other electronic system-generated visual representation of an identifiable person, or an audio recording of their voice, made to closely resemble a genuine one, likely to deceive, and created and distributed without consent. Digital forgery, knowingly creating or distributing such a likeness as genuine to facilitate fraud, is now felony identity fraud under 11-49.1-3(a)(8). The act also covers impersonating an entity with intent to defraud. Constitutionally protected activity, law enforcement and providers or developers of the underlying technology are excepted. Effective on passage.
Relating to Criminal Offenses -- Impersonation and Identity Fraud
Rhode Island's 2026 identity fraud amendment defines a forged digital likeness as a computer- or other electronic system-generated visual representation of an identifiable person, or an audio recording of their voice, made to closely resemble a genuine one, likely to deceive, and created and distributed without consent. Digital forgery, knowingly creating or distributing such a likeness as genuine to facilitate fraud, is now felony identity fraud under 11-49.1-3(a)(8). The act also covers impersonating an entity with intent to defraud. Constitutionally protected activity, law enforcement and providers or developers of the underlying technology are excepted. Effective on passage.
Vehicle Laws - Autonomous Vehicle Converters - Sale of Autonomous Vehicles
Maryland's 2023 autonomous vehicle converter law creates Transportation Article Subtitle 9. An autonomous vehicle converter alters a new or used vehicle in compliance with federal safety requirements and installs an automated driving system, the hardware and software capable of performing part or all of the dynamic driving task, producing a converted autonomous vehicle. For vehicles intended for commercial or industrial use, a converter may sell, lease or resell converted vehicles notwithstanding dealer and manufacturer licensing laws, and may not be licensed as a manufacturer or dealer. Effective July 1, 2023.
Intimate Image Distribution Prohibition
Utah HB 193 (2021) created the offense of unlawful distribution of a counterfeit intimate image. A counterfeit intimate image is any visual depiction, including a computer-generated one, edited, manipulated or altered to depict the likeness of an identifiable person nude or engaged in sexual conduct. Distributing one without the person's consent, knowing or having reason to know it would cause emotional distress or harm, is a crime, with an aggravated offense when the person depicted is a child. Law enforcement and crime-reporting activity is exempt.
Enacts into law major components of legislation necessary to implement the state transportation, economic development and environmental conservation budget for the 2026-2027 state fiscal year
Part Y of Chapter 58 of 2026 (FY2027 budget) enacts the Safe by Design Act (General Business Law Article 45-B). Operators of covered platforms may not offer an integrated AI companion without age assurance, must disable integrated AI companions by default for users under 18, and must let parents keep or override that setting. AI characters confined to a game's fictional context are excluded. The Attorney General may set age assurance rules and enforce, and design features that subvert these choices are banned. Part Y takes effect January 1, 2027. Part E extends the autonomous vehicle testing program to April 1, 2028.
Facial recognition technology; authorized uses.
Virginia SB 741 (2022) replaced the 2021 local police ban with a regulated framework. Local police, campus police and the State Police may use facial recognition only for listed authorized uses, with systems approved by the Division of Purchases and Supply and evaluated by NIST at 98 percent true-positive accuracy or better with minimal demographic variation. The State Police publish a model policy, agencies report annually, a match cannot by itself establish probable cause for a warrant, and misuse is a Class 3 misdemeanor. The act states its provisions expire July 1, 2026.
Law-enforcement agencies; surveillance technology reporting.
Virginia HB 1496 (2024) creates an annual inventory of police surveillance technology. Every state and local law-enforcement agency and sheriff's office must give the Department of Criminal Justice Services a list of the surveillance technologies it has procured by November 1 each year. Surveillance technology expressly includes biometric surveillance technology such as facial, voice, iris and gait recognition software and databases, and software that integrates or analyzes surveillance data, including predictive policing software. DCJS shares the lists with the State Crime Commission and the Joint Commission on Technology and Science. Effective July 1, 2024.
Motor vehicles; use of personal delivery devices to transport cargo; authorize
Georgia's HB 1009 (Act 814 of 2022) authorizes delivery robots. A personal delivery device is a powered vehicle that uses an automated driving system to transport cargo, carries no passengers and weighs at most 500 pounds empty or 600 pounds loaded. Devices may operate on sidewalks and on highways with lower speed limits, must yield to pedestrians, meet equipment rules and may not carry hazardous materials. An individual able to control navigation and operation must monitor each device while it operates, and operators need at least $250,000 of liability insurance. Local governments may limit operations, and violations carry civil penalties.
sexual assault kits; victim notification
Arizona HB 2482 (Laws 2023, ch. 154) moves the law enforcement crime victim notification fund to A.R.S. 41-2414 and puts it under the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, which must use it to expand the state's automated crime victim notification system. The funded software must, among other things, "allow victims to leverage conversational artificial intelligence for bidirectional real-time communication with law enforcement agencies through voice, text messages and emails," with a virtual agent that answers and asks questions based on the victim's questions and responses. The act also set up a temporary sexual assault kit study committee. Approved May 19, 2023.
Establishes the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids act prohibiting the provision of addictive feeds to minors
New York's SAFE for Kids Act (Chapter 120 of 2024) adds GBL Article 45. An "addictive feed" is one in which user-generated media is recommended, selected or prioritized for a user based on information associated with the user or their device; the Legislature's findings describe these feeds as personalized by machine learning algorithms. An operator may not provide an addictive feed to a user unless it has used commercially reasonable methods to determine the user is not a minor or has verifiable parental consent, and may not send minors notifications between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. without parental consent. It takes effect 180 days after the Attorney General's rules take effect.
Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act.
California's SB 976 (Chapter 321 of 2024), the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, adds Health and Safety Code section 27000 and following. An "addictive feed" is one in which user-generated media is recommended, selected or prioritized for a user based on information provided by or associated with the user or their device. An operator may not provide an addictive feed to a user it knows is a minor without verifiable parental consent, and from January 1, 2027 it must reasonably determine that a user is not a minor, including under Attorney General rules, before providing one. It also limits notifications to minors between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. without parental consent.
TO CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM THAT CAUSES HARM; AND TO IMPOSE A CIVIL PENALTY ON A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM THAT KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY CONTRIBUTES TO A MINOR'S SUICIDE OR SUICIDE ATTEMPT.
Arkansas's SB 612 (Act 901 of 2025) adds Arkansas Code 4-88-1501 and following. A social media platform may not use a design, algorithm or feature that it knows, or should have known through reasonable care, causes a user to purchase a controlled substance, develop an eating disorder, commit or attempt suicide, or develop or sustain an addiction to the platform. "Promoting" content to a minor (under 16) includes algorithmic promotion based on previous searches or engagement. The act creates a private right of action for harm and a civil penalty for a platform that knowingly and willfully contributes to a minor's suicide or attempted suicide. Act date April 21, 2025.
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN – Amends and adds to existing law to provide for the crime of visual representations of the sexual abuse of children and to revise provisions regarding the Internet Crimes Against Children Unit.
Idaho's H 465 (2024) targets AI-generated child sexual abuse material. New section 18-1507C makes it a felony, punishable by up to five years and a $5,000 fine, to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, possess or access an obscene visual depiction of a child in explicit sexual conduct, 'including a video or image created using generative AI or machine learning', and the child depicted need not actually exist. Receiving or possessing five or fewer such images is excused if they were promptly destroyed or reported to police. The act also expands sexual exploitation of a child (18-1507) to material altered to show an identifiable child. Effective July 1, 2024.
Excludes a production using artificial intelligence or autonomous vehicles in a manner which results in the displacement of employees whose salaries are qualified expenses from the definition of qualified film for the purposes of the empire state film production credit.
New York's S 6751 would amend Tax Law § 24 so that a production using artificial intelligence or autonomous vehicles in a manner that results in the displacement of employees whose salaries are qualified expenses is not a "qualified film" for the Empire State film production credit, unless a current collective bargaining agreement covering those employees permits the replacement. It creates no direct duty or penalty; the consequence is ineligibility for the credit. Referred to committee January 7, 2026.
ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS – Freedom From AI-Rigged (FAIR) Elections Act: relief and actions over synthetic media in electioneering communications
Idaho's H 664 (2024), the Freedom From AI-Rigged (FAIR) Elections Act, targets deepfakes in campaign ads. Synthetic media is audio or video of a person's speech or conduct created with generative adversarial network techniques or other digital technology so that it seems real but shows something that did not happen. A candidate deceptively shown in synthetic media in an electioneering communication may seek an injunction and sue the content creator for damages and attorney's fees. Including the disclosure 'This (video/audio) has been manipulated', shown or read as the law specifies, is an affirmative defense. It took effect March 25, 2024.
California AI Transparency Act.
California's SB 942, the California AI Transparency Act, as amended, requires anyone who produces a generative AI system publicly accessible in California to offer a free, public disclosure verification tool and, where technically feasible, embed hard-to-remove latent disclosures (provider, system and version, time and date, unique ID, whether AI created or altered it) in AI image, video and audio output. Penalty: $5,000 per violation, each day a separate violation. SB 1000 (Chapter 861), effective September 30, 2026, dropped the original 1,000,000-user threshold and the visible-label option. Signed September 19, 2024 (Chapter 291); duties operative August 2, 2026, as moved by AB 853.
Education matters.
Indiana's HEA 1408 (P.L. 100-2026) is mostly an education bill, but Section 14 adds IC 24-16 on social media providers, defined in part as platforms that employ algorithms analyzing user data to select content for users. Providers must use commercially reasonable means to determine a new Indiana user's age and need verifiable parental consent to open an account for anyone under 16. Those accounts must be configured so they receive no content, content recommendations or advertising based on the adolescent's patterns of use, and no addictive features, and parents get tools to monitor and limit use. Violations are deceptive acts under Indiana consumer law. IC 24-16 is effective January 1, 2027.
DEFIANCE Act of 2025 Disrupt Explicit Forged Images And Non-Consensual Edits Act of 2025
The federal S. 1837 (DEFIANCE Act of 2025) would let an identifiable individual sue over intimate digital forgeries: sexually intimate images made with software, machine learning or AI that are indistinguishable from authentic ones to a reasonable person. Defendants who knowingly produce, possess with intent to disclose, disclose, or solicit and receive them could owe liquidated damages of $150,000 ($250,000 in cases tied to sexual assault, stalking or harassment), plus fees and injunctions. Passed the Senate by unanimous consent January 13, 2026 and held at the desk in the House.
Criminalize use of real and digitally fabricated sexually explicit images
Montana's HB 514 (Chapter 686 of 2025) extends the offense of violating privacy in communications to digitally fabricated intimate images. Digitally fabricated means created with technical means, such as artificial intelligence, to realistically show an identifiable person doing something they did not do. It is a crime to publish, distribute or disclose real or fabricated nude or sexual images of an identifiable person without consent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, injure or get money, or to possess them and threaten disclosure for money. A first offense is a misdemeanor; a second or later is a felony with up to five years and a $25,000 fine. Effective October 1, 2025.
Generally revise laws related to privacy and facial recognition technology
Montana's SB 397 (Chapter 781 of 2023), the Facial Recognition for Government Use Act, bars state and local agencies, law enforcement, public employees and officials from using continuous facial surveillance and, with exceptions, from obtaining or using facial recognition technology or contracting vendors for it. The Department of Justice and local police may use it in criminal investigations under restrictions, including a warrant requirement, must tell defendants before trial, and must report use annually. Agencies may use facial verification only under a written use and privacy policy, with notice, vendor retention limits and human review training. People harmed may sue.
An Act Establishing a Civil Action for the Office of the Attorney General and a Private Right of Action for Victims of Unlawful Dissemination of a Synthetically Created Intimate Image
Connecticut's HB 5312 (Public Act 26-55) adds civil remedies for AI-made intimate images. A person harmed by unlawful dissemination of a synthetically created intimate image may sue whoever knowingly shared it with intent to harm, for an injunction, damages including punitive damages, and attorney's fees, within two years of discovery. Covered platforms must run a notice-and-removal process for victims and the Attorney General, post plain-language instructions, and remove reported images and reasonable efforts at copies within 48 hours. The Attorney General can seek penalties of up to $25,000 per day. Effective October 1, 2026.
Criminalizing and creating a private right of action for the facilitation, encouragement, offer, solicitation, or recommendation of certain acts or actions through a responsive generative communication to a child
New Hampshire's HB 143 (Chapter 270 of 2025) targets chatbots that steer children toward harm. The owner or operator of an AI chat program, chatbot, character AI or similar service whose sole purpose is open-ended generative conversation commits endangering the welfare of a child if it knowingly directs communications to a child intended to encourage the child to imminently engage in sexually explicit conduct or its depiction, drug or alcohol use, self-harm or suicide, or violence. The same conduct creates civil liability for damages of at least $1,000 per violation, which the Attorney General, who has the sole right of action, enforces after a 90-day cure notice. Effective January 1, 2026.
Unlawful dissemination of an intimate image.
Wyoming's HB 85 (Chapter 85 of 2021) created the crime of unlawfully disseminating an intimate image, and its definition of image includes a computer generated image that purports to represent an identifiable person, so fake or AI-made intimate images count. An adult commits the offense by sharing an intimate image of another person, including on social media, when they knew or should have known the person expected privacy and did not expressly consent, and they intended to humiliate, harm, harass, threaten or coerce, or acted for sexual gratification. It is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, a $5,000 fine, or both. Effective July 1, 2021.
Enacts the New York privacy act to require companies to disclose their methods of de-identifying personal information, to place special safeguards around data sharing and to allow consumers to obtain the names of all entities with whom their information is shared.
New York's A 974-A, the "New York data protection act," would add General Business Law Article 42-A letting consumers opt out of profiling (automated processing of personal data to evaluate or predict personal traits) in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects, and requiring a data protection assessment for profiling with a reasonably foreseeable risk of unfair or deceptive treatment of, or unlawful disparate impact on, consumers. It would also add targeted-advertising and data-sale opt-outs and other rights, with Attorney General civil penalties of up to $20,000 per violation. Amended May 29, 2026 and recommitted to Codes; not passed by either chamber.
Requests a study of the use of facial recognition data by law enforcement
Louisiana's HR 199 is a House resolution, adopted 65-30 on June 10, 2021, that requests the House Committees on Administration of Criminal Justice and on Judiciary to jointly study law enforcement's use of facial recognition data, how it is obtained, and its use in investigations and legal proceedings, taking information from groups including the Department of Justice, police and sheriffs' associations, the ACLU and the NAACP. Their report, due February 1, 2022, was to include search, arrest and conviction statistics and recommendations on legislation to safeguard due process, privacy and civil liberties. As a resolution of one chamber, it does not change the law.
Technology Transparency
South Carolina's H 3401, 'Technology Transparency', would add Chapter 31 to Title 37. It would bar government entities from working with social media platforms on content moderation, give consumers rights to opt out of profiling with significant effects, require search engines to publish plain-language ranking parameters, and require data protection assessments. Introduced January 14, 2025 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
An act relating to consumer data privacy and online surveillance
Vermont's S.71 (Act 145) adds the Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act. It covers businesses that in the prior year processed personal data of at least 35,000 Vermonters or sensitive data of at least 3,000, or offered for sale personal data of at least 3,000. Consumers may access, correct, delete and port their data and opt out of targeted ads, sales and profiling for automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. Controllers must minimize data, get consent for sensitive data, say whether they use data to train large language models, and assess risky processing and profiling. Attorney General enforcement only. Signed June 16, 2026; effective January 1, 2028.
An Act Regarding Artificial Intelligence in Campaign Advertising
Not law. Maine's LD 1690 would have required political communications using images, audio or video that have been materially manipulated or altered and contain 'synthetic media' to carry the statement 'THIS COMMUNICATION CONTAINS AUDIO, VIDEO AND/OR IMAGES THAT HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED OR ALTERED.' Violations could draw penalties up to 500% of the expenditure with no 10-day cure, and the Ethics Commission could seek an injunction. The committee voted Ought Not To Pass May 19, 2025; final disposition May 27, 2025. A separate bill, LD 517 (synthetic media in campaign advertising), was enacted as Chapter 593, signed March 23, 2026.
Regulate artificial intelligence in media and political advertisements under the Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act
Not law. Nebraska LB1203 (2024), introduced by Senator John Cavanaugh, would have required a clear and conspicuous AI disclosure on paid political ads generated wholly or substantially by AI, and barred knowingly distributing materially deceptive AI media within 90 days before an election with intent to harm a candidate and deceive voters, unless it carried a disclaimer. Remedies were permanent injunctions only. Indefinitely postponed April 18, 2024.
To protect against election misinformation
Massachusetts S2631 would bar distributing, with actual malice, a materially deceptive election-related communication within 90 days of an election, with injunctions and damages as remedies; it defines synthetic media as audio or video substantially produced by generative AI. Reported favorably and referred to Senate Ways and Means October 16, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Law enforcement agencies: facial recognition technology.
California's AB 1814 (2023-24 Regular Session) would add Penal Code section 13661 to bar a law enforcement agency or peace officer from using a facial recognition technology match as the sole basis for probable cause to arrest or search, and bar a judge from granting a warrant application based solely on a match. It passed the Assembly 70-0 but was held under submission in Senate Appropriations on August 15, 2024 and was not passed before the session ended.
Sexually Related Offenses
Florida's CS/CS/SB 1798 (Chapter 2022-212) created s. 836.13, F.S. An altered sexual depiction is an image modified by digital or other means to show a realistic identifiable person with another person's or computer-generated nude body parts, or in sexual conduct they did not engage in. Willfully and maliciously promoting one without consent, knowing it is altered, is a third-degree felony; a disclaimer is no defense. Victims may sue for an injunction, the greater of $10,000 or actual damages, and attorney fees. Effective October 1, 2022.
Psychotherapy Artificial Intelligence Restrictions
Colorado's HB 26-1195 limits how licensed mental health professionals and others lawfully providing psychotherapy use AI. They may use it for administrative and supplementary support (e.g. scheduling, billing) if they stay responsible for reviewing its outputs, but may not let AI engage in therapeutic communication with clients without their synchronous, real-time participation or generate therapeutic recommendations or treatment plans without their approval. AI recording or transcription of sessions needs advance written notice and consent. No one may present AI as psychotherapy, therapist-equivalent or therapist-confidential. Signed June 3, 2026 (Chapter 358); effective August 12, 2026.
ICE Out of Our Faces Act
The federal H.R. 7363 (ICE Out of Our Faces Act) would make it unlawful for any covered immigration officer (officers, employees, agents and contractors of ICE or CBP and officials deputized under INA section 287(g)) to acquire, possess, access or use in the United States any biometric surveillance system, including facial recognition, or information from one run by another entity. Data collected would have to be deleted within 30 days after enactment. Introduced February 4, 2026 and referred to the House Judiciary and Homeland Security committees (and the Border Security and Enforcement Subcommittee); no further action.
Prohibits and imposes criminal penalty on disclosure of certain intentionally deceptive audio or visual media within 90 days of election.
New Jersey's S2129 would make it a fourth-degree crime to knowingly or recklessly disclose, or to solicit, intentionally deceptive audio or visual media (deepfakes) within 90 days of an election with intent to deceive a voter with false information; a repeat offense would be third-degree. Voters and depicted candidates could sue, and media carrying a prescribed disclaimer would be excepted.
Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act; established.
Virginia's HB 2554 (2025 Regular Session) would have created the Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act, requiring developers of generative AI systems that produce audio, images, text or video to include a clear and conspicuous disclosure on AI-generated content and to prevent downstream use without it. Left in committee on February 4, 2025; it failed.
Includes communications generated using artificial intelligence in the definition of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree.
New York's A 9185 would amend Penal Law § 240.50 (falsely reporting an incident in the third degree) so that each of its four types of false report, including false reports of crimes, emergencies, offenses to law enforcement, and child or vulnerable-person abuse to central registers, expressly covers reports made "including using artificial intelligence or generative artificial intelligence," as defined in General Business Law § 1700. The offense stays a class A misdemeanor. Would take effect immediately. Introduced October 17, 2025 and referred to the Codes Committee (again January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Relating To Consumer Protection.
Hawaii's SB 2036 (2026) would have added a new section to HRS chapter 481B prohibiting any person from engaging in 'surveillance pricing': offering or setting a customized price for a specific consumer or group based wholly or partly on information collected through electronic surveillance technology such as sensors, cameras, device tracking and biometric monitoring. A violation would be an unfair or deceptive practice under HRS 480-2. The Senate committee on LBT deferred it on February 11, 2026; it died.
Imposes liability for damages caused by a chatbot impersonating certain licensed professionals
New York's S 7263-A would add General Business Law § 390-f. A chatbot operator could not knowingly let its chatbot impersonate a licensed professional (a profession licensed under listed Education Law articles, or an attorney) in a way that would be a crime or unauthorized practice if done by a person, and could not disclaim liability with a not-human notice. Operators would also have to give clear notice that users are talking to an AI chatbot. The Attorney General could seek up to $15,000 per day. Reported by the Internet and Technology Committee and advanced to third reading, amended May 26, 2026 and committed to Rules June 5, 2026; no chamber has passed it.
An act relating to the regulation of chatbots
Vermont's H.784 (2026) would have regulated chatbot providers under a new 9 V.S.A. chapter 118. Providers could not use chat logs for targeted ads, sell chat logs, train on minors' data, or train on adults without affirmative consent, and would have had to disclose the chatbot is not human at the first output and hourly, assess risks monthly, and publish information. Chatbots would be products with provider liability. The Attorney General or a State's Attorney could sue, and users could recover $5,000 liquidated damages. Referred to committee January 27, 2026; died.
In preliminary provisions, providing for algorithmic pricing transparency and fairness; and imposing duties on the Office of Attorney General and Bureau of Consumer Protection.
Pennsylvania's HB 1779 would require a clear disclosure, 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.', on advertised personalized algorithmic prices, and bar using protected class data to set prices differently. The Attorney General could seek injunctions and courts could impose up to $1,000 per violation. Referred to the House Consumer Protection, Technology and Utilities Committee August 4, 2025; it has not passed.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's HB 1734 (2024) would have required campaign advertisements containing an image, video or audio created wholly or partly with generative AI to include a clear and conspicuous disclosure, with format rules by media type (printed box for images, at least three seconds for audio, at least four seconds for video). Violators would face a fine under HRS 11-410. It was referred to JHA and FIN on January 24, 2024 and died when the 2024 session ended.
Establishes "Authentic Relationships Act"; prohibits artificial intelligence relationship simulation.
New Jersey's A6246 (Authentic Relationships Act) would have barred providers from offering in the state any AI relationship simulation, meaning software or a device designed or marketed to imitate or encourage an intimate, romantic or sexual relationship between a person and AI. Supervised medical uses that do not simulate romance were exempt. The Attorney General could seek up to $25,000 per violation, harmed individuals could sue, and deceiving a person into thinking they were talking to a human would have violated the consumer fraud act. It died in committee when the 2024-2025 session ended.
Labor and Employment – Automated Employment Decision Tools – Prohibition
Maryland's SB 957 (2024) would have barred employers from using automated employment decision tools to screen applicants or decide terms of employment unless the tool passed a yearly impact assessment finding no high-risk action, and required employers to notify affected applicants within 30 days of use. Civil penalties would start at up to $500 per violation. A Senate Finance hearing was set for March 14, 2024; it went no further and died when the session ended.
Election Law - Influencing a Voter By Dissemination of a Deepfake - Prohibition
Maryland's HB 525 (2025, third reader) would have made it unlawful to influence or attempt to influence a voter's decision, with fraudulent intent, by disseminating a deepfake: a realistic but false depiction of a person (new Election Law section 16-905). A violation would have been a misdemeanor (fine up to $5,000, up to 5 years, or both). It passed the House 127-10 and was referred to the Senate Rules Committee on April 4, 2025, with no further action; it died when the session ended.
Election Law - Campaign Materials - Disclosure of Use of Synthetic Media
Maryland's HB 740 (2025) would have required candidates, campaign finance entities, certain registrants and their agents to include a disclosure when they distribute campaign material made with or containing synthetic media (an image, audio or video intentionally manipulated with generative AI or other digital technology to create a realistic but false depiction of a real individual's appearance, speech or conduct) to anyone in Maryland. Violations would have been a misdemeanor (fine up to $1,000, up to 1 year, or both). A hearing was set for February 11, 2025; it went no further and died when the session ended.
CONSUMER DATA PRIVACY
Illinois's SB 3220 would create the Illinois Consumer Data Privacy Act, giving consumers rights to access, correct, delete and port their personal data and to opt out of targeted advertising, data sales and profiling used for decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. Controllers would have to run data protection impact assessments, including for risky profiling. The Attorney General would enforce it. Filed February 2, 2026; re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Relative to social media, algorithm accountability, and transparency
Massachusetts's S.51 (194th General Court) would create an Office of Social Media Transparency and Accountability under the Attorney General. Covered platforms (processing personal information of 100,000+ Massachusetts consumers, or 25,000+ with over 25% of gross revenue from selling personal data) would register annually, file transparency reports and pay for monthly third-party algorithm risk audits focused on harms to children. Penalties of up to $500,000 per violation. Reported favorably by the Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity Committee October 16, 2025 and sent to Senate Ways and Means; not passed.
Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act; algorithmic pricing device use by certain landlords.
Virginia's HB 1252 (as introduced) would add Code § 55.1-1204.2. A landlord with more than 10 rental dwelling units (or more than a 10 percent interest in more than 10) who uses an algorithmic pricing device to set advertised, renewal or offered rent would have to disclose that use in writing, give a plain-language summary of factors on request, and allow human review of rent determinations. The Attorney General could seek an injunction and civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation. Continued to 2027 in the House General Laws Committee on February 3, 2026; it has not passed either house.
AI Chatbots - Licensing/Safety/Privacy
North Carolina's S 624 (as filed) would require a Department of Justice license to operate or distribute a chatbot that deals substantially with health information, with a $50,000 civil penalty for violating G.S. 114B-5. It would also create a Chatbot Safety and Privacy Act: covered platforms would owe users a duty of loyalty and would have to disclose that a chatbot is not human, get consent each session and de-identify user data. Filed March 25, 2025 and referred to the Senate Rules and Operations Committee; it has not passed either house.
Prohibits the use of a facial recognition system by a landlord on any residential premises.
New York's S 8223 (same as A 6363) would add Real Property Law section 235-k making it unlawful for a landlord to obtain, retain, access or use, on any residential premises, any facial recognition system or any information obtained from one. Facial recognition covers identifying people from their faces and analyzing faces to judge sentiment, state of mind or dangerousness. The Attorney General could seek an injunction and a civil penalty up to $10,000, and affected people could sue. Introduced May 23, 2025 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee (again January 7, 2026); it has not passed either house.
Warehouse employers; required disclosures and recordkeeping, civil penalties.
Virginia's HB 1451 (Labor and Commerce Committee substitute) would require employers of 500 or more employees at warehouse distribution centers to give nonexempt employees written descriptions of each quota, related incentives and potential adverse action, and to state if an automated or algorithmic management system monitors performance against a quota. Employers would keep work-speed records and could not retaliate; adverse action within 90 days would be presumed retaliatory. Continued to 2027 in House Labor and Commerce on February 10, 2026; not passed.
Synthetic digital representations and providing a penalty.
Wisconsin's AB 855 (2025-26) would have created s. 942.085 making it a Class A misdemeanor to create and post, publish, distribute or exhibit a "synthetic digital representation" of an individual with intent to coerce, harass or intimidate, and a Class I felony to do so with intent to defraud, coerce or intimidate for monetary gain. Introduced January 16, 2026, it failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 23, 2026.
Trade: business regulation; requirements and safety standards for developers of certain artificial intelligence models; provide for. Creates new act.
Michigan's HB 4668 (as introduced) would create the Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security Transparency Act. Large developers of foundation models (compute costing at least $5 million for one model and $100 million over 12 months) would have to publish a safety and security protocol for critical risks, publish transparency reports at least every 90 days, and get an annual third-party audit, with whistleblower protection. The attorney general could seek fines up to $1,000,000 per violation. Re-referred to the House Communications and Technology Committee March 19, 2026; it has not passed either house.
An Act To Amend Title 21 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Autonomous Vehicles.
Delaware's SB 46 would bar an autonomous vehicle that requires a Class A commercial driver license without an O restriction from operating on a Delaware highway for testing, transporting goods or transporting passengers unless a human safety operator is physically present in it. Violations would carry a fine of $1,000 to $3,000, and $3,000 to $7,500 for repeat offenses within 3 years. Passed the Senate March 20, 2025 (18-0, 3 absent); reported out of the House Transportation Committee May 14, 2025; not yet passed by the House.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SAFETY
Illinois's SB 3261, the Artificial Intelligence Public Safety and Child Protection Transparency Act, would require large frontier developers (models trained with over 10^26 operations; $500 million revenue) and large chatbot providers ($25 million revenue; 1,000,000+ monthly users, likely accessed by minors) to publish safety plans, and frontier developers and large chatbot providers to report safety incidents to the Attorney General. Civil penalties up to $1,000,000 (large developers) or $50,000 (chatbot providers) per violation. Introduced February 3, 2026; re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026 under Rule 3-9(a); not passed. Would take effect January 1, 2027.
Providing for consumer protection and for artificial intelligence and chatbots; imposing duties on the Bureau of Consumer Protection in the Office of Attorney General; and imposing penalties.
Pennsylvania's HB 2175 (Printer's No. 2831) would add Chapter 71 to Title 12 on AI chatbots that use generative AI to converse with consumers and are represented as helping manage a situation or treat a condition, including mental health. Suppliers could not sell or share health information or consumer input except as allowed, could not advertise in chatbot conversations, and would have to adopt, file and follow a written disclosure policy. Fines up to $2,500 per violation. Introduced January 30, 2026; re-referred to Consumer Protection, Technology & Utilities March 19, 2026; not passed.
Prohibits advertising generative artificial intelligence as able to practice regulated profession or occupation.
New Jersey's A 4733 (as introduced) would bar a person or entity that develops or deploys generative AI in the State from advertising or representing to the public that the AI can practice a profession or occupation regulated under Title 45 of the Revised Statutes or by the Judicial Branch or Administrative Office of the Courts. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the consumer fraud act. Introduced March 10, 2026; reported by two Assembly committees and referred to Assembly Appropriations May 28, 2026; not passed by either house.
Establishes Deep Fake Technology Unit in DLPS; appropriates $2 million.
New Jersey's S 2130 (as introduced) would have the Attorney General, consulting the state Chief Technology Officer, establish a Deep Fake Technology Unit in the Division of Criminal Justice to give State and local law enforcement, prosecutors and courts technical assistance, expertise and training on deceptive audio or visual media, including analyzing evidence and giving expert testimony. The unit would issue annual reports beginning one year after it forms, and $2 million would be appropriated from the General Fund. Introduced January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee; it has not passed either house.
"GAI Accountability Act;" imposes civil penalties on generative artificial intelligence platforms engaging in harmful activity, including exploitation of children.
New Jersey's A 5090, the GAI Accountability Act, would make owners, operators and developers of generative AI platforms that do business in, are based in, or are accessible to residents of New Jersey civilly liable if they fail to prevent the platform from engaging in conduct that would be murder, assault, theft by deception or extortion, endangering the welfare of children, or creating child sexual abuse or exploitation material if done by a human. The penalty would be $20,000 per violation. Introduced May 14, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee; it has not passed either house.
Promoting economic development with emerging artificial intelligence models and safety
Massachusetts' S 37 would create an Artificial Intelligence Innovation Trust Fund for grants to AI developers and research, and a new Chapter 93M on frontier AI models. Developers of covered models (trained with more than 10^26 operations costing over $100 million) would need safety protocols, annual third-party reviews and 72-hour incident reports to the attorney general. The committee reported a new draft, S 2630, instead of S 37 on October 16, 2025; S 37 itself did not advance.
A bill for an act prohibiting the use of an automated decision-making system to alter the price of a product or service for a specific individual based on surveillance data, and providing civil penalties.
Iowa's HF 2469 would add Code chapter 554J, barring a person from using an automated decision-making system (AI or algorithms making decisions with little or no human intervention) to alter the price of a product or service for a specific individual based on surveillance data. A violation would be an unlawful practice under Code sections 714.16 and chapter 714H (consumer fraud). Four exceptions apply. Introduced and referred to the House Commerce Committee February 16, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Establishes certain requirements for social media websites concerning content moderation practices; establishes cause of action against social media websites for violation of content moderation practices.
New Jersey's S861 would make it an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act for a social media website to fail to publish and consistently apply its censorship, suspension and "anonymous" ban standards, to notify users of such actions, and to let users opt out of post-prioritization and banning algorithms. It would bar those algorithms for known candidates, with Attorney General fines of $100,000 per day (statewide candidates) or $10,000 per day (others), and let users sue over inconsistent standards or censoring without notice. Referred to the Senate Commerce Committee January 13, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Requesting The Department Of The Attorney General To Convene A Youth Digital Safety And Platform Accountability Working Group To Examine Technology-facilitated Abuse In The State And Develop Recommendations For Regulatory Safeguards.
Hawaii's Senate Resolution 41 (2026) would have requested the Attorney General to convene a Youth Digital Safety and Platform Accountability Working Group to examine technology-facilitated abuse, including the impact of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence on gender-based violence and youth safety, and to recommend regulatory safeguards, with a report due 20 days before the 2027 session. It was referred to Senate committees on March 19, 2026 and never adopted. A resolution does not change the law.
Enacts the New York privacy act to require companies to disclose their methods of de-identifying personal information, to place special safeguards around data sharing and to allow consumers to obtain the names of all entities with whom their information is shared.
New York's S 8524 (the "New York data protection act") would add General Business Law article 42-A, a consumer privacy framework. Controllers would have to give notice, honor access, correction and deletion requests, let consumers opt out of targeted ads, data sales and profiling for decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, and run data protection assessments for risky profiling and other high-risk processing. Data brokers would register annually with the attorney general, who could enforce the act with civil penalties up to $20,000 per violation. Introduced October 8, 2025; referred to the Internet and Technology Committee January 7, 2026. It has not passed either chamber.
Urging The Leadership Of The Department Of Law Enforcement To Periodically Undergo Training On Crimes Relating To Artificial Intelligence Technology.
Hawaii's House Concurrent Resolution 65 (2024) would have urged the Director, Deputy Directors and Administrators of the Department of Law Enforcement to train on crimes relating to artificial intelligence, including deepfakes, at least every two years. It was referred to House committees on March 8, 2024 and never adopted; it died at the end of the biennium. A resolution does not change the law.
Modifies child endangerment statute to include AI technology; establishes criminal penalties.
New Jersey's A2767 would amend the child endangerment law (N.J.S.2C:24-4) so that a person who knowingly or recklessly causes or allows a child to be subjected to sexual conduct through the person's creation, control, possession, manipulation, use, dissemination, sale or promotion of automated interactive computer technology capable of performing or simulating sexual conduct commits a fourth-degree crime. It is not a violation if the technology is designed to refrain from sexual conduct with a child. Reported by the Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and referred to the Public Safety and Preparedness Committee March 16, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Provides that a person may operate a fully autonomous vehicle on the public roads of this state without a human driver provided that the automated driving system is engaged and the vehicle meets certain conditions; defines terms; requires insurance and that such vehicle is registered as a fully…
New York's A 4901-B (same as S 344-B) would add Article 34-E to the Vehicle and Traffic Law, letting a person operate a fully autonomous vehicle (gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less) on public roads without a human driver if the automated driving system is engaged and the vehicle can reach a minimal risk condition after a system failure. Operators would need to file insurance proof and a law enforcement interaction plan, and registration and title would be marked as fully autonomous. Referred to the Transportation Committee; amended and recommitted April 24, 2026. It has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits the use of biometric surveillance system or biometric surveillance information in places of public accommodation; prohibits entering into any agreement that authorizes any third party to use any biometric surveillance system or biometric surveillance information; provides penalties for…
New York's A 6211 (same as S 8004) would add Civil Rights Law § 40-h, making it unlawful for an owner, manager, employee or other agent of a place or provider of public accommodation to use a biometric surveillance system or biometric surveillance information, or to let a third party do so on its behalf. It would also require written notice and consent before collecting biometric information. Referred to the Assembly Governmental Operations Committee in February 2025 and again January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits the use of biometric surveillance technology by law enforcement; establishes the biometric surveillance regulation task force; and provides for the expiration and repeal of certain provisions
New York's S 5609 (same as A 1045) would add Executive Law §§ 837-y and 236 to bar police agencies, police officers, peace officers and the state police from acquiring, possessing, accessing, installing, activating or using biometric surveillance systems (such as facial recognition) or information derived from them. A 12-member task force would study whether to allow police use. Reported from the Senate Internet and Technology Committee and committed to Codes February 25, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Artificial Intelligence
Not law: died in subcommittee. Florida's HB 1395 (2026) would have created an "Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights" (new part IX of ch. 501): parental consent and controls for minors on companion chatbot platforms, an hourly not-human pop-up for bots, a ban on selling users' personal information unless deidentified, and consent for commercial use of generative-AI likenesses. It would also have barred government AI contracts with foreign-country-of-concern entities. It died on March 13, 2026.
Certain online platforms requirement to provide information pertaining to algorithm use
Minnesota's SF 4380 would have required online platforms doing business in Minnesota that use personal-data-based algorithmic recommender systems to publicly disclose each system's inputs and weights (grouped in quartiles), default to maximizing users' long-term value, give users controls over recommended and blocked item types, and keep a holdout group with an annual public disclosure and independent audit. Violations would have been an unfair and deceptive practice, with the attorney general able to enforce and users able to recover $5,000 per violation. It was introduced March 11, 2026 and never left committee.
Creates the RI Pedestrian Safety Act allows cities and town to use automated safety monitoring which a civil fine of $50 for violations.
The RI Pedestrian Safety Act authorizes cities and towns in Rhode Island to use automated safety monitoring systems, imposing a $50 civil fine for speeding and red-light violations.
Internet and E-mail Fraud; the criminal offense of digital identity fraud; establish
SB594 seeks to establish the criminal offense of digital identity fraud in Georgia, providing for criminal and civil penalties, a cause of action and damages, definitions, and repealing conflicting laws.
Establishes the NY digital choice act requiring social media companies to provide covered users with a copy of the covered user's social graph at the request of the covered user; defines terms; provides requirements for the interoperability of covered users' data; grants the attorney general the…
The NY Digital Choice Act mandates social media companies to provide users with their social graph upon request and outlines data interoperability requirements, granting the Attorney General rulemakin
Establishes the NY digital choice act requiring social media companies to provide covered users with a copy of the covered user's social graph at the request of the covered user; defines terms; provides requirements for the interoperability of covered users' data; grants the attorney general the…
The NY Digital Choice Act requires social media companies to provide users with their social graph upon request, with interoperability requirements and the New York Attorney General empowered to enfor
Use of artificial intelligence-based tools; covered artificial intelligence, disclosure of use.
Virginia's HB 1294 (2026 Regular Session) would amend Code 19.2-11.14 to require police reports to disclose any use of covered artificial intelligence in a criminal investigation, and to require that AI-assisted report drafts be retained. Continued to 2027 in the House Communications, Technology and Innovation Committee on February 2, 2026.
Law-enforcement agencies; use of certain technology & interrogation practices; forensic laboratory.
Virginia's HB 1261 (2026 Regular Session) would direct the Department of Criminal Justice Services to set a framework for law-enforcement use of generative AI, machine learning systems and audiovisual surveillance technologies and for interrogations, with model policies and training. Continued to 2027 in committee on February 2, 2026.
Digital innovation & infrastructure; establishing rights in digital property & technology resources.
Virginia's HB 1521 (2026 Regular Session) would create the Virginia Digital Innovation and Infrastructure Act (Code 59.1-607 et seq.), establishing rights in digital property and technology resources, requiring risk management policies for critical infrastructure controlled by critical AI systems, and preempting local regulation. Continued to 2027 on February 2, 2026.
AUTOMATED DECISION TOOLS
Illinois's SB 2203 (104th General Assembly) would create the Preventing Algorithmic Discrimination Act. On or before January 1, 2027, and annually after, a deployer of an automated decision tool would have to perform an impact assessment, notify people subject to consequential decisions, and keep a governance program. Re-referred to Assignments on April 11, 2025.
SURVEILLANCE DISCRIMINATION
Illinois's SB 2255 (104th General Assembly) would create the Surveillance-Based Price and Wage Discrimination Act. A person could not use surveillance data as part of an automated decision system to inform the individualized price charged to a consumer or the individualized wage paid to an employee. The Attorney General would enforce it. Re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026.
An Act to prohibit the use of a deepfake to influence an election and to provide a penalty therefor.
South Dakota's 2025 SB 164 targets election deepfakes. A deepfake is an image, audio or video created or manipulated with AI or other digital technology so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it shows a real person's speech or conduct that did not happen. Disseminating one, or contracting to, with intent to injure a candidate within 90 days of an election, without the disclosure "This (image/video/audio) has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence," is a Class 1 misdemeanor. The AG, candidates and depicted people can sue. The act states no effective date.
Political campaign advertisements; synthetic media, penalty.
Virginia's SB 141 (2026 Regular Session) would have required electioneering communications with synthetic media to carry a conspicuous statement, with a civil penalty up to $25,000 and a Class 1 misdemeanor for willful violations. It passed the Senate 34-4; the House substituted different text, and the bill failed in conference on March 14, 2026.
SURVEILLANCE-BASED WAGES
Illinois's HB 4987 (104th General Assembly) would create the Surveillance-Based Wage Discrimination Act. A person could not use surveillance data as part of an automated decision system to inform the individualized wage paid to an employee. The bill sets exemptions, Attorney General enforcement, private rights of action and penalties. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee March 27, 2026.
Eyewitness Identification
Not law: died in committee. Florida's SB 1202 would have amended s. 92.70, F.S., on eyewitness identification: officers would have had to record the eyewitness's description in the offense report, use lineups with the suspect and at least five fillers, make efforts to use a lineup instead of a show-up, and record procedures on audio and video. If facial recognition technology identified a suspect, a lineup could not be held unless there was a basis independent of the facial recognition result. It died in Criminal Justice on March 13, 2026.
Fully autonomous vehicles; commercial use, civil penalty.
Virginia's SB 670 (2026 Regular Session) would regulate commercial use of fully autonomous vehicles that carry property or passengers for a commercial enterprise. Operators would need an autonomous operation license first. It passed the Senate 35-4 on February 12, 2026, then was continued to 2027 in House Transportation on March 5, 2026.
CTA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Illinois's SB 4070 (104th General Assembly) would amend the Metropolitan Transit Authority Act to require the Chicago Transit Authority to set up a CTA Transit Police Department of sworn officers. It would also require a pilot of AI-based weapon-detection scanners at 5 to 10 stations and hubs and a limited facial recognition pilot. Referred to Assignments February 24, 2026.
ELEC CD-DECEPTIVE MATERIAL
Illinois's HB 3303 (104th General Assembly) would add Section 29-21 to the Election Code. A person could not distribute, or agree to distribute, materially deceptive media within 90 days before an election if the person knows it falsely represents a depicted individual, intends to harm a candidate and to change votes by deceiving electors, and both results are reasonably likely. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee March 27, 2026.
Transportation
Not law: died in committee. Florida's CS/SB 1274 was a broad transportation bill. Its AI-related part would have amended s. 339.85 to create the Next-generation Traffic Signal Modernization Grant Program for signals with "artificial intelligence- and machine learning-enabled" detection, controllers, communications and software, with $20 million a year from FY 2026-2027. It also would have allowed private license plate recognition systems on property the entity owns or controls. It died in Appropriations on March 13, 2026; companion SB 488 became Chapter 2026-39, but its enrolled text has neither provision.
Law enforcement; artificial intelligence inventory, civil action.
Virginia's HB 1295 (2026 Regular Session) would add Code 9.1-116.11, requiring every state and local law-enforcement agency and sheriff's department to inventory the covered AI systems it uses and publish the inventory by November 1 each year. Continued to 2027 in the House committee on February 2, 2026.
AI PRINCIPLES
Illinois's HB 3529 (104th General Assembly) would create the Illinois High-Impact AI Governance Principles and Disclosure Act. The Department of Innovation and Technology would adopt rules to make businesses using AI systems comply with 5 principles of AI governance and publish a report on their websites. It would apply to businesses with 10 or more employees. Re-referred to Rules March 21, 2025.
Relating To Algorithmic Discrimination.
Hawaii's HB 1607 (2024) would have added an Algorithmic Discrimination chapter. Covered entities (those holding data on more than 25,000 residents, over $15,000,000 in receipts, data brokers, or service providers) could not use algorithmic processes using machine learning, AI or similar techniques to decide eligibility for credit, insurance, education, employment, housing or public accommodations in a discriminatory way, and would owe notices, annual audits and reports. Penalties up to $10,000 per violation, plus private suits. It was referred to HET and JHA January 24, 2024. It died.
Protecting Children from Chatbots
South Carolina's H 5476, the Protecting Children from Chatbots Act (new Chapter 81 of Title 39), would require chatbot operators with 500,000 or more monthly active users to offer a limited-access mode, verify users' ages and obtain verifiable parental consent before minors use restricted features. The Attorney General could seek civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation. Introduced March 31, 2026 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
ALGORITHMIC PRICING DISCLOSURE
Illinois's HB 5323 (104th General Assembly) would require an entity that sets prices with personalized algorithmic pricing (dynamic pricing set by an algorithm using personal data) and advertises or offers it using the consumer's personal data to include the disclosure 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA'. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee March 27, 2026.
TRANSPARENCY IN DOWNCODING ACT
Illinois's HB 4735 (104th General Assembly) would create the Transparency in Downcoding Act for certain health insurance policies. A health insurance issuer could not use an automated process, system or tool to downcode a claim, or downcode based solely on reported diagnosis codes, and downcoding decisions would have to be made by a licensed physician. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee March 27, 2026.
HUMAN RIGHTS-AI-VIOLATIONS
Illinois's SB 3364 (104th General Assembly) would amend the Illinois Human Rights Act to make it a civil rights violation for an owner, broker or agent to use AI in a real estate transaction without telling the other party, to fail to tell a loan or credit card applicant that AI processed the application, or to fail to disclose AI used to decide access to a place of public accommodation. Re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026.
Data brokers; regulation, civil penalties.
Virginia's HB 638 (2026 Regular Session) would regulate data brokers. It would bar acquiring personally identifiable information by fraud, or to stalk, harass, commit fraud or unlawfully discriminate; require data brokers to keep an information security program; and require annual registration with the Secretary of the Commonwealth beginning December 1, 2027. Continued to 2027 in committee on February 9, 2026.
Autonomous Vehicle Testing
Illinois's HB 2974 (104th General Assembly) would create the Illinois Autonomous Vehicle Testing Program Act. The Department of Transportation would lead a program for testing connected and automated vehicles (CAVs), with a State registration system for entities that want to run pilots or tests, and could suspend an entity's participation if there is clear evidence its technology is unsafe for public-road testing or violates program requirements. Referred to the House Rules Committee on February 6, 2025; it has not advanced since.
Digital Content Authenticity and Transparency Act; established, civil penalty.
Virginia's HB 2121 (2025 Regular Session) would have created the Digital Content Authenticity and Transparency Act, requiring generative AI developers to apply provenance data to synthetic content and offer a public provenance tool and reader, with Attorney General enforcement and civil penalties. Left in committee on February 4, 2025; it failed.
Registered Nurse Use of AI
Illinois's HB 4804 (104th General Assembly) would amend the Nurse Practice Act to set rules for registered nurses' use of AI, including a bar on substituting AI for nursing services, patient notice and confidentiality protections, and discipline for violations. Health care entities deploying AI in direct patient care would have to keep validation and bias monitoring records. Re-referred to Rules Committee on March 27, 2026.
Professional AI Oversight Act
Illinois's SB 3601 (104th General Assembly) would create the Professional AI Oversight Act, requiring a licensee to disclose when a paying person is interacting with AI, with civil penalties up to $2,500 per violation. It would also amend the Consumer Fraud Act to make undisclosed AI interactions in trade unlawful if the person asks. Re-referred to Senate Assignments May 22, 2026.
Biometric Surveillance Act
Illinois's HB 5521 (104th General Assembly) would create the Illinois Biometric Surveillance Act. Law enforcement agencies could not obtain, retain, possess, access, request or use a biometric identification system, including through a third party or another government agency. It would give a private right of action and Attorney General enforcement. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee on March 27, 2026.
CONSUMER FRAUD-DIGITAL PRICING
Illinois's SB 3657 (104th General Assembly) would amend the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act in two ways. Grocery stores offering digital coupons would have to provide a paper copy of equal value on request. A person also could not use surveillance-based price setting, or surveillance data in an automated decision system, to set individualized prices. Re-referred to Assignments March 27, 2026.
POLICE-FACIAL RECOGNITION ACT
Illinois's SB 3564 (104th General Assembly) would create the Facial Recognition Technology in Law Enforcement Act. Law enforcement agencies using facial recognition would have to conduct compliance audits, and the technology could not be used to analyze images of people engaged in constitutionally protected activity (absent reasonable suspicion of a crime), for real or live-time identification, or solely based on beliefs, lawful activities or protected characteristics. Referred to Assignments February 5, 2026.
FRAUD-ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Illinois's SB 1792 (104th General Assembly) would add Section 2HHHH to the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The owner, licensee, or operator of a generative AI system would have to conspicuously display a warning on the system's user interface, reasonably calculated to consistently apprise users that outputs may be inaccurate or inappropriate. A violation would be an unlawful practice. Last action: re-referred to Assignments April 11, 2025.
Synthetic media; expands applicability of provisions related to defamation, etc., penalty.
Virginia's SB 571 (2024 Regular Session) would have extended defamation, slander and libel provisions to synthetic media and made it a Class 1 misdemeanor to generate, create or use deceptive audio or visual media to commit a fraud offense, with a rebuttable presumption, a civil action for the person depicted and an Attorney General work group. Continued to 2025 in committee on February 12, 2024; it failed.
AGING-SCAM/ROBOCALLS INFO
Illinois's SB 3719 (104th General Assembly) would add Section 8.14 to the Illinois Act on the Aging, requiring the Department on Aging, in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, to provide updated resources on scam calls and robocalls on its public website, including information on predatory scam calls that use AI to mislead the recipient and access to a scam call hotline. Last action: re-referred to Assignments April 24, 2026.
AI DATA PRIVACY ACT
Illinois's SB 3180 (104th General Assembly) would create the Artificial Intelligence Data Privacy Act. Beginning January 1, 2027, a deployer would have to either (1) not let its AI train on a user's covered information and retain the training data indefinitely without first informing the user in writing and getting express written consent, or (2) set its AI by default not to train on that information unless the user is notified and affirmatively consents. The bill has private right of action provisions, and a violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. Last action: re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026.
AI SAFETY MEASURES ACT
Illinois's HB 4799 (104th General Assembly) would create the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act. Large frontier AI developers would have to adopt and publish a frontier AI framework covering catastrophic risk management, transparency and cybersecurity, and report critical safety incidents to the Attorney General, with civil penalties for noncompliance. It would also create a consortium to develop ILCompute, a public cloud computing resource. Referred to Rules February 6, 2026.
CONSUMER DATA PRIVACY ACT
Illinois's SB 3548 (104th General Assembly) would create the Consumer Data Privacy Act, giving consumers rights to confirm whether personal data is processed, correct and delete it, obtain a copy, and opt out of targeted advertising, data sales or profiling. It would apply to persons controlling or processing data of at least 100,000 consumers, with Attorney General enforcement. Last action: re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026.
License artificial intelligence risk mitigation organizations
Ohio's HB 628 would enact chapter 3755 letting the Attorney General license independent verification organizations that assess whether AI models and applications meet standards for preventing personal injury and property damage. An applicant would file a plan with its risk-mitigation metrics, requirements for developers and deployers, and independence safeguards, and could be licensed only if independent of the AI industry. An AI safety advisory council would be set up in the Attorney General's office. Referred to committee February 4, 2026.
An Act enhancing disclosure requirements for synthetic media in political advertising
Massachusetts' H 5094, as reported by House Ways and Means, would require paid audio or video political communications that contain AI-generated synthetic media to say "contains content generated by AI" at the beginning and end and to carry an AI-generated label throughout each synthetic portion. A violation would be punished by a fine of up to $1,000. The House adopted Amendment 4 (not reviewed here) and passed the bill to be engrossed 157-0 on February 11, 2026. The Senate referred it to Senate Ways and Means on February 12, 2026; it is not law.
Impose penalties for AI models suggesting harming self or another
Ohio's HB 524 would bar any person from developing or deploying in Ohio an AI model or application that encourages any user to engage in any form of self-harm, including suicide, or to harm another person. The Attorney General could investigate suspected violations with subpoena powers, offer an opportunity to cease and desist and accept written assurances of voluntary compliance. Per its title, it would impose penalties. It was introduced October 15, 2025 and referred to the House Technology and Innovation Committee on October 22, 2025.
AGE-APPROPRIATE DESIGN CODE
Illinois' SB 50 is mainly a children's online privacy and design-code bill. As introduced, it would require covered entities (for-profit businesses over set revenue or data thresholds) to complete data protection impact assessments for services reasonably likely to be accessed by children, including whether algorithms and targeted advertising systems could harm children, and would bar profiling a child by default. Introduced January 13, 2025; re-referred to Assignments April 11, 2025 and still pending.
AGE-APPROPRIATE DESIGN CODE
Illinois' SB 3241 is mainly a children's online privacy and design-code bill. As introduced, it would require covered entities (for-profit businesses over set revenue or data thresholds) to complete data protection impact assessments for services reasonably likely to be accessed by children, including whether algorithms and targeted advertising systems could harm children, and would bar profiling a child by default. Introduced February 2, 2026; re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026.
PRIVACY RIGHTS ACT
Illinois' SB 52 is a general consumer privacy bill. As introduced, the Privacy Rights Act would give consumers rights over their personal information and create a Privacy Protection Agency. Its AI-related parts are narrow: it defines profiling as automated processing of personal information, and directs the Attorney General to adopt rules on access and opt-out rights for automated decision-making technology and on risk assessments. Introduced January 13, 2025; re-referred to Assignments April 11, 2025 and still pending.
AGE-APPROPRIATE DESIGN CODE
Illinois' SB 51 is mainly a children's online privacy and design-code bill. As introduced, it would require a business whose online service, product, or feature is likely to be accessed by people under 18 to complete a data protection impact assessment, which must address whether the service's algorithms and targeted advertising systems could harm children, and would bar profiling a child by default. Attorney General enforcement only. Introduced January 13, 2025; re-referred to Assignments April 11, 2025 and still pending.
Health care services: artificial intelligence.
Vetoed. AB 2575 would have barred California employers from retaliating against workers providing direct patient care based solely on their override of, or reliance on, a clinical decision support system (AI that aids decisions on timing of care, diagnosis or treatment), with enforcement by the Labor Commissioner. In lawsuits over harm from such a system, its developer or deployer could not have argued that a clinician's failure to override it cut off liability. Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 30, 2026, saying its anti-retaliation test set a higher bar than other protections and would make the Labor Commissioner judge the medical standard of care.
Relating to disclosures and penalties associated with use of synthetic media and artificial intelligence
West Virginia's SB 484 (2025 regular session, committee substitute) would have added W. Va. Code 3-8-12a barring anyone from distributing, or agreeing to distribute, AI-manipulated synthetic media of a person within 90 days before an election, knowing it is false, without consent and intending to injure a candidate or influence the result, unless it carries a clear disclaimer. It would be a misdemeanor with a fine up to $1,000 per violation, plus civil actions. It passed no chamber: it was laid over on first reading and referred to Rules on March 4, 2025.
Relating To Algorithmic Discrimination.
Hawaii's SB 2524 (2024) would have added an Algorithmic Discrimination chapter. Covered entities (those holding data on more than 25,000 residents, over $15,000,000 in receipts, data brokers, or service providers) could not use algorithmic processes using machine learning, AI or similar techniques to decide eligibility for credit, insurance, education, employment, housing or public accommodations in a discriminatory way, and would owe notices, annual audits and reports. Penalties up to $10,000 per violation, plus private suits. It was referred to committees January 24, 2024. It died.
Urging The Leadership Of The Department Of Law Enforcement To Periodically Undergo Training On Crimes Relating To Artificial Intelligence Technology.
Hawaii's House Resolution 48 (2024) would have urged the Director, Deputy Directors and Administrators of the Department of Law Enforcement to complete training on crimes involving artificial intelligence, including deepfakes and related technologies, at least every two years. It was offered March 7 and referred to the House JHA and FIN committees on March 8, 2024, and was never adopted. A resolution does not change the law.
Relating To Permitting.
Hawaii's Senate Bill 2908 (2026), as amended in HD 1, would have required the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism to develop, with a selected county, an AI-assisted pre-compliance permitting intake pilot limited to single-family-home projects. The platform would have used AI for intake, routing and review, with human help preserved. It passed the Senate and House second reading, but was not enacted. It stated a July 1, 2050 effective date.
ALGORITHMIC PRICE TRANSPARENCY
Illinois's HB 4248, as the Senate amended it (Senate Floor Amendment 1), would create the Protection from Surveillance Pricing Act, banning surveillance pricing: customized prices for a consumer or group based on personal data. The House passed an earlier version 78-19 on May 22, 2026; the Senate passed it as amended 41-16 on May 31, 2026. The House has not concurred and re-referred it to the Rules Committee July 1, 2026, so it has not gone to the Governor.
Prohibits the use of a wage-fixing algorithm in combination with personal or behavioral data to set or recommend wages or compensation
A 9638 would ban 'surveillance wages' in New York: employers could not use a wage-fixing algorithm, or its output, together with a worker's personal or behavioral data (such as financial, purchasing, browsing, biometric or location data, or profiles drawn from them) to set or recommend pay, whether the employer or a third party collects the data. Tools that use only job requirements, performance (not customer reviews), qualifications, labor market conditions or local cost of living are exempt. The Attorney General, the Labor Department and harmed workers could sue for the greater of actual damages or $3,000 per violation, tripled if willful. Pending in the Assembly Labor Committee.
Requires synthetic content creations system providers to include provenance data on certain content made available by the provider
Passed both houses; awaiting delivery to the Governor. S 6954-B, the Stop Deepfakes Act, would require providers of publicly available generative AI systems to attach provenance data (content credentials such as the C2PA standard) to AI-generated or AI-modified images, audio and video, identifying it as synthetic, the provider and when it was made. Hosting platforms could not knowingly offer systems that don't. Large online platforms would have to keep provenance data and show it to users, and state agencies would label their own media. The Attorney General could seek injunctions and fines up to $25,000 per violation. Effective 180 days after signing.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's SB 3001 (Artificial Intelligence Disclosure and Safety Act) regulates AI companions, AI built to simulate a sustained human-like relationship. Operators must disclose it is AI if a reasonable person would think it human, adopt a suicide/self-harm crisis-referral protocol and not program it to claim to give professional mental or behavioral health care. For known or reasonably certain minors they must flag AI use, avoid unpredictable engagement rewards, guard against sexual content and offer screen-time tools. Annual Department of Health reports begin January 1, 2028. Violations are unfair or deceptive acts (HRS § 480-2); no private right of action. Act 248; effective July 14, 2026.
Artificial Intelligence Amendments
Utah's SB 149 created the Artificial Intelligence Policy Act: an Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy in the Department of Commerce and an AI Learning Laboratory in which the office may grant temporary regulatory mitigation agreements. It also made generative AI no defense to consumer-protection violations and required generative AI disclosures, which SB 226 replaced on May 7, 2025. The Act was set to be repealed May 1, 2025; SB 332 and SB 226 moved that to July 1, 2027, and HB 320 revised the lab from May 6, 2026. Signed March 13, 2024; effective May 1, 2024.
DOIT-AI TASK FORCE
Illinois' Public Act 103-0451 (HB 3563) adds Section 1-80 to the Department of Innovation and Technology Act, directing the Department to establish the Generative AI and Natural Language Processing Task Force to investigate and report on generative AI and natural language processing software. Members include legislative appointees, education and technology officials, teachers, principals, cybersecurity and AI experts, business and labor representatives, and the Attorney General. It must hold at least 5 public meetings around the state and report to the Governor and General Assembly by December 31, 2024. Approved and effective August 4, 2023.
Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Amendments
Utah's SB 226 replaces the 2024 generative AI disclosure rules with Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 75. A supplier using generative AI with an individual in a consumer transaction must disclose it is AI, not a human, if the individual clearly asks. Regulated professionals must prominently disclose generative AI at the start of high-risk interactions (collecting health, financial or biometric data, or personalized financial, legal, medical or mental health advice). AI that discloses itself at the outset and throughout gets a safe harbor. Fines up to $2,500 per violation. Signed March 27, 2025; effective May 7, 2025.
Unauthorized Artificial Intelligence Impersonation Amendments
Utah's SB 271 extends the state's abuse-of-personal-identity law (Utah Code Title 45, Chapter 3) to AI. Personal identity now covers name, picture, video likeness, voice and audiovisual appearance, including recreations made with generative AI or digital manipulation. Using it without consent in content for advertising, fundraising or sales in a way that implies endorsement, is likely to confuse or falsely suggests participation is abuse, as is knowingly selling or licensing a tool whose primary purpose is unauthorized commercial use of personal identity. Victims may sue for injunctions, damages, exemplary damages and fees. Signed March 27, 2025; effective May 7, 2025.
Concerning Artificial Intelligence, Algorithms, And Other Automated Technologies; And To Regulate Certain Practices Of Healthcare Insurers.
Arkansas HB 1297 (2025), as engrossed, would have added a subchapter (Ark. Code §§ 23-63-2101 to 2113) regulating healthcare insurers' use of AI and automated decision-making in utilization review. Insurers would have had to disclose algorithm details from January 1, 2026, give explanations for AI-supported denials, and have a clinician licensed in Arkansas review adverse prior authorization determinations. The Insurance Commissioner could fine up to $25,000 per determination. The author withdrew it on April 1, 2025.
Requires the owner, licensee or operator of a generative artificial intelligence system to conspicuously display a notice on the system's user interface that is reasonably calculated to consistently apprise the user that the outputs of the generative artificial intelligence system may be inaccurate.
New York's A 3411-B would add General Business Law § 399-zzzzzz requiring the owner, licensee or operator of a generative artificial intelligence system to clearly and conspicuously display a notice on the system's user interface that its outputs may be inaccurate. Failure carries a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation, with each user not given the notice a separate violation. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after it becomes law. Passed the Assembly January 28, 2026 and the Senate March 9, 2026 (58-2, substituted for S934A); no delivery to or action by the Governor appears in the record.
Establishes disclosure requirements for AI-generated or materially AI-altered media depicting historically recognized human disasters when such media is publicly distributed; requires platform operators to allow the use of labelling; provides for enforcement by the attorney general.
New York's A 10047 would add General Business Law Article 47-A (§§ 1710-1716) requiring a person who distributes AI-generated content depicting a “historically recognized human disaster” that the person knows is materially deceptive media to label it “THIS (IMAGE, VIDEO, OR AUDIO) HAS BEEN MANIPULATED.” Platforms would have to allow labeling tools. The Attorney General could seek civil penalties up to $15,000 per day per violation. Referred to Consumer Affairs and Protection January 30, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
STATE GOVT-GENERAL MANDATES
Illinois' Public Act 103-0101 (HB 3902), the Drones as First Responders Act, amends the Freedom from Drone Surveillance Act to let police use drones for search and rescue, infrastructure inspections, demonstrations, dispatched emergency calls and some government-hosted events. Police may not use onboard facial recognition in flight and may run drone data through facial recognition only to counter a terrorist risk found by the Homeland Security Secretary or on reasonable suspicion that swift action is needed to prevent imminent harm, escape or evidence destruction. Drones may not be armed. It revises data retention and adds Attorney General enforcement. Approved and effective June 16, 2023.
Extend Prohibition on School Facial Recognition
Colorado's SB 25-143 keeps the SB 22-113 ban on schools signing facial recognition contracts by deleting its July 1, 2025 repeal date. Contracts in effect April 18, 2025 stay allowed. New exceptions cover vendor tools used with board-approved curricula, which need opt-in consent, and safety uses: an articulable and significant threat, a missing student, or a person ordered to stay off school property. Safety systems may identify only the people involved and only while such a situation is occurring. Biometric identifiers may be kept no longer than 18 months, and aggrieved parties may seek an injunction. Signed and effective April 18, 2025 (Chapter 86).
Restricts the use by an employer or an employment agency of electronic monitoring or an automated employment decision tool to screen a candidate or employee for an employment decision unless such tool has been the subject of an impact assessment within the last year; requires notice to employment…
New York's A 3779-A (the "boundaries on technology act") would add Labor Law Article 35-A: employers with 100 or more employees could not use an automated employment decision tool without an impact assessment by an impartial party within the prior year and yearly after; all employers using such tools would owe notice, meaningful human oversight and data access rights. The Labor Commissioner could assess penalties under Labor Law § 218 and the Attorney General could sue. Would take effect on the 180th day after becoming law. On the Assembly floor calendar since May 29, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Relates to the use of automated decision tools by landlords for making housing decisions; sets conditions and rules for use of such tools.
New York's A 3125-A would add Real Property Law § 227-g making it unlawful for a landlord to use an automated housing decision making tool to screen applicants unless a disparate impact analysis by an independent auditor is done at least annually and a summary is posted on the landlord's website before use. Applicants would have to get notice at least 24 hours before use and may request an alternative process. The Attorney General could investigate and sue. Would take effect immediately. Ordered to third reading (calendar 103) in the Assembly January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Relating To Privacy.
Hawaii's SB 309 (Act 59 of 2021) adds sexual deep fakes to the felony of violation of privacy in the first degree (HRS § 711-1110.9). A person commits it by intentionally creating, disclosing or threatening to disclose an image or video of a composite fictitious person shown nude or engaged in sexual conduct that includes a known person's recognizable physical characteristics, so it appears to depict that person, with intent to substantially harm them or as revenge or retribution. The public-nudity and commercial-transaction exemptions do not apply to it. It is a class C felony. Became Act 59 June 23, 2021; effective on approval.
Establishes criteria for the use of automated employment decision tools; provides for enforcement for violations of such criteria.
New York's A 3914 would add Labor Law § 203-g making it unlawful for an employer to use an automated employment decision tool to screen candidates unless a disparate impact analysis is done at least annually, a summary and the tool's distribution date are posted on the employer's website before use, and the summary is provided annually to the Department. The Attorney General or Commissioner could investigate and sue. Would take effect immediately. Referred to the Labor Committee January 30, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Schools; creating the Oklahoma Responsible Technology in Schools Act; requiring development of guidance for use of artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. Effective date. Emergency.
Oklahoma's Responsible Technology in Schools Act sets rules for AI in public schools from July 1, 2026. Classroom AI must be educator-directed, with a person reviewing AI outputs before use; AI may not be the main basis for grading, discipline, placement or other high-stakes decisions; and tools must suit students' ages and follow student-privacy law such as FERPA. Districts must give parents a yearly written list of AI tools, vendors and student data shared, and let them opt students out of student-facing AI without penalty. Each district board must adopt an AI policy before the 2027-28 school year.
Prohibits algorithmic wage-setting; provides for exceptions; provides for penalties for violation; creates a private right of action.
New York's A 9641 would add Labor Law Article 20-D (§§ 750-755) providing that “no employer shall engage in algorithmic wage-setting,” meaning use of an automated decision system to inform individualized wages based on surveillance data about an employee. Civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation and a private right of action would apply. Referred to the Labor Committee January 21, 2026; it has not passed either chamber. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after it becomes law.
An Act To Amend Title 15 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Deep Fakes In Elections.
Delaware's HB 316 (enacted as House Substitute 1, 84 Del. Laws c. 487) makes it a crime to distribute, or contract to distribute, a deep fake of a candidate or party within 90 days before an election without the depicted person's consent, if the person knows or should know it is a deep fake. Media carrying "This (image/video/audio) has been altered or artificially generated." is exempt, as are qualifying news coverage, satire and parody. Violations are class B misdemeanors, or class A with intent to cause violence or within 5 years of a prior conviction; depicted candidates may sue in the Court of Chancery. Signed and effective October 9, 2024.
Artificial Intelligence and Children's Internet Safety Study Commission, created
Alabama's HJR 51, a joint resolution approved by the Governor as Act 2026-218, creates the Study Commission on Artificial Intelligence and Children's Internet Safety. Its 13 members include legislators from both chambers, the Attorney General, and appointees of the Mental Health Commissioner, Voices for Alabama's Children, the Alabama Cable and Broadband Association, TechNet, the Lieutenant Governor and the Alabama Broadcasters Association. It studies the effects of AI, social media and internet use on children, reviews other states' approaches and recommends legislation, reporting by November 1, 2026, after which it dissolves. Approved March 10, 2026.
Limits the use of automatic data systems in connection with employment; requires an employer shall provide a written notice that an automatic data system is being used; provides remedies.
New York's A 10251 would add Labor Law Article 38, “Automated Decision Systems” (§§ 1075-1081). Employers would have to give workers written notice at least 30 days before first deploying an automated decision system for employment-related decisions (other than hiring), could not rely solely on one for discipline, termination or deactivation, and would owe a post-use notice. A civil penalty of $500 per violation would apply. Referred to Labor February 12, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Enacts the NY privacy act to require companies to disclose their methods of de-identifying personal information, to place special safeguards around data sharing and to allow consumers to obtain the names of all entities with whom their information is shared.
New York's A 4947 (the "New York privacy act") would add General Business Law Article 42-A. For solely automated decisions that materially contribute to denials of lending, housing, insurance, health care or similar services, controllers would have to disclose the automation, offer an appeal with meaningful human review and run annual impact assessments by an external, independent auditor or researcher. Consumers would also get opt-in consent, access, correction and deletion rights. AG penalties up to $15,000 per violation; private suits. Most sections would take effect two years after enactment. Referred to committee February 10, 2025 and January 7, 2026; not passed by either chamber.
Enacts the "food delivery worker safety and fair algorithms act" to prohibit food delivery platforms from utilizing or deploying any algorithmic management system that requires or incentivizes delivery workers to complete deliveries within a fixed or rigid time window that cannot reasonably be met…
New York's A 10118, the “food delivery worker safety and fair algorithms act,” would add Labor Law Article 21-D (§§ 796 to 796-e) barring food delivery platforms from using an algorithmic management system that requires or incentivizes deliveries within a “fixed or rigid time window that cannot reasonably be met” or that penalizes missed delivery estimates without accounting for traffic, weather or restaurant delays. Platforms would have to give workers written notice of the factors used. Referred to Labor February 2, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 55, Chapter 30 and Title 55, Chapter 8, relative to autonomous vehicles.
Tennessee's HB 2302 was enacted as its Senate companion, SB 2253 (Public Chapter 726), which the House substituted for it on March 23, 2026. The law amends Tenn. Code § 55-8-202 so a state or local law enforcement agency may adopt a policy for enforcing traffic offenses committed by an automated driving system (ADS). Under such a policy, when a POST-certified or state-commissioned officer finds an ADS committed an offense, the notice or citation goes by first-class mail to the vehicle's registered owner within 20 business days, allows 30 days to pay, and no added costs may be charged without a second notice. Signed April 13, 2026 (Public Chapter 726); effective on signing.
A bill for an act establishing requirements and guidelines for conversational AI services, and providing civil penalties, and including applicability provisions. (Formerly SSB 3011.) Effective date: 07/01/2026. Applicability date: 07/01/2027.
Iowa's SF 2417 (Iowa Code ch. 554J) covers public conversational AI services built mainly to simulate human conversation. For known minors, operators must disclose AI use, take reasonable measures against sexual content and human-like claims, not give rewards at unpredictable intervals to boost engagement, and offer privacy tools. If a reasonable user would think it is human, it must say it is AI. Operators need self-harm crisis-referral protocols and may not knowingly and intentionally program it to claim licensed mental health care. AG enforces: the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation (penalty capped at $500,000). Signed May 2, 2026 (Acts Chapter 1068); applies July 1, 2027.
Makes various changes relating to health. (BDR 34-674)
Nevada's AB 406 bars public schools from using AI to perform school counselors', psychologists' and social workers' functions relating to pupils' mental health, and has the Department of Education develop a policy for AI use by staff providing those services. AI providers may not offer AI systems in Nevada specifically programmed to provide what would be professional mental or behavioral health care if done by a person, or claim an AI system can provide such care; civil penalty up to $15,000 per violation. Licensed providers may not use AI in giving care directly to patients, except for administrative support. Approved June 5, 2025 (Chapter 283); effective July 1, 2025.
STATE AGENCIES-AI SYSTEMS
Illinois's HB 4836 (103rd General Assembly) would have added Section 5-735 to the Civil Administrative Code so that State agency and State-funded AI systems must follow the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. Agencies and entities deploying State-funded AI would have to submit NIST-based algorithmic impact assessments to the General Assembly, the Auditor General and the Department of Innovation and Technology. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).
PUBLICITY ACT-USE OF AI
Illinois' Public Act 103-0836 (HB 4875) amends the Right of Publicity Act. A person may not knowingly distribute, transmit or make available to the general public a sound recording or audiovisual work with actual knowledge that it contains an unauthorized digital replica: an imitation of a real person's voice, image or likeness made with AI or other technology and used without consent. Facilitators with actual knowledge may also be liable, subject to a notice-and-takedown safe harbor for hosts and cloud providers. Artists' exclusive labels and exclusive distribution licensees may also enforce. News, commentary and parody uses are exempt. Approved August 9, 2024; effective January 1, 2025.
Prohibits using a child's image to train artificial intelligence to produce child sexual abuse materials. (8/1/26)
Louisiana's SB 110 (Act 211) makes it a violation of the child sexual abuse materials law (R.S. 14:81.1) to use an image of a child who was under 17 when the image was created with the intent to train an artificial intelligence model to produce child sexual abuse materials. It also provides that the child depicted in the materials need not be a natural person, and lets the trier of fact use the existing age factors to decide whether an image used to train an AI model depicts a person who appears to be under 17. Signed May 14, 2026; effective August 1, 2026.
Requires real estate brokers and online housing platforms using virtual agents and AI tools to conduct a disparate impact analysis to assess the actual impact of any such virtual agent; requires such individuals to submit a summary of the most recent disparate impact analysis to the attorney…
New York's A 9028 would amend Real Property Law § 440 and add § 442-m. At least once a year, brokers or online housing platforms using virtual agents for property searches, and platforms using AI tools, would have to have an independent auditor conduct a disparate impact analysis and submit a summary to the Attorney General's office, test for and correct discriminatory results, and (for AI tools) follow ad and captioning safeguards and report publicly. Would take effect immediately. Referred to Judiciary September 5, 2025 (and January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Requires certain political communications to include provenance data for all audios, images or videos used in such communications; provides for the repeal of certain provisions upon the expiration thereof.
New York's A 8523 (the "election content accountability act") would amend Election Law § 14-106. From the 2030 election cycle, campaigns for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General or Comptroller would have to apply provenance data (a C2PA content credential) to political communications that include images or videos. The Attorney General could seek penalties of up to $100,000 per intentional or grossly negligent violation and up to $50,000 per other violation. Would take effect on the 180th day after it becomes law; paragraphs (b) and (c) would expire December 31, 2030. Referred to the Election Law Committee May 20, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Enacts the preventing algorithmic pricing discrimination act; requires the disclosure of algorithmically set prices.
New York's A 6765-A (the "Preventing Algorithmic Pricing Discrimination Act") would add General Business Law § 349-a, requiring anyone who knowingly advertises personalized algorithmic pricing based on an individual's consumer data to state "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA", and § 396 would bar using protected class data in setting prices. Attorney General penalties up to $1,000 per violation. Would take effect on the 60th day after it becomes law. On the Assembly floor calendar (Cal. 173, January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
AUTOMATED DECISION TOOLS
Illinois's HB 5116 (103rd General Assembly) would have created the Automated Decision Tools Act. On or before January 1, 2026, and annually after, a deployer of an automated decision tool would have to perform an impact assessment, notify people subject to a consequential decision, and keep a governance program to manage algorithmic discrimination risk. The Attorney General could sue. Died at Session Sine Die on January 7, 2025.
Election communications; deepfakes; prohibition
Arizona's SB 1359 adds A.R.S. § 16-1023. Within 90 days before an election in which a candidate is on the ballot, a creator may not create and distribute synthetic media that the person knows is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of that candidate unless it includes a clear and conspicuous disclosure conveying to a reasonable person that the media includes content generated by artificial intelligence. A person who fails to disclose is liable for the civil penalty in § 16-937(B) for each day the deepfake is distributed. Satire, parody and interactive computer services are exempt. Signed May 29, 2024 (Chapter 199).
An Act to Regulate the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Providing Certain Mental Health Services
Maine's LD 2082 (Public Law chapter 687) bars any person from providing, advertising or offering therapy or psychotherapy services to the public, including through Internet-based AI, unless a licensed professional provides them; violations fall under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. Licensed therapists may use AI for administrative or supplementary support (such as therapy notes) only if they keep full responsibility; supplementary use requires a recorded or transcribed session, written notice and client consent, and AI may not make independent therapeutic decisions or interact with clients therapeutically. Signed April 13, 2026.
Resolve, Directing the Maine Arts Commission to Study Federal and National Efforts to Protect Artists from Copyright Infringement by Artificial Intelligence Companies and Users and to Monitor Educational Use
Maine's LD 109 is a resolve directing the Maine Arts Commission, consulting the Attorney General's office, to study federal and national efforts to protect artists from copyright infringement by businesses and others that promote, create, disseminate or use AI software, and efforts to monitor educational use of copyrighted work, and to report with any suggested legislation by December 3, 2025. It appropriates $25,000 for a consultant. Held by the Governor in July 2025, it became law without signature on January 11, 2026 (Resolves chapter 121), after that report date.
Prohibits the use of an algorithmic device by a landlord for the purpose of determining the amount of rent to charge a residential tenant; declares that such use is an unfair or deceptive trade practice.
New York's A 4991 would add Real Property Law § 222-a prohibiting a landlord, when setting rent for residential premises, from using or relying on an algorithmic device that uses, incorporates or was trained with nonpublic competitor data. A violation would be a deceptive act or practice under General Business Law § 349, with the remedies of GBL Article 22-A. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after becoming law and apply to rental agreements executed on or after then. Referred to Housing February 10, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits the use of any automated or algorithm-driven process by which the price charged for an essential good or service is adjusted on a real-time basis substantially in reference to any non-cost-based factor.
New York's A 9152 would add General Business Law § 396-rrr prohibiting sellers of essential goods and services, including platforms, from using dynamic pricing: an automated or algorithm-driven process adjusting price in real time "substantially in reference to any non-cost-based factor." Exemptions include auctions, bona fide contracts, financial and insurance products and emergencies. Only the Attorney General could sue, for civil penalties up to $25,000 per violation or three times gross receipts. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after it becomes law. Referred to Consumer Affairs and Protection October 17, 2025 (and January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Relation to the regulation of the use of artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology in criminal investigations
New York's A 7172-B would add subdivision 25 to Executive Law § 837, requiring the division of criminal justice services to promulgate a written protocol for law enforcement agencies using AI and facial recognition technology in criminal investigations. The protocol would cover transparency measures (records of AI outputs, subject to audit), regular independent audits of facial recognition systems with public results, and officer training. Would take effect on the 90th day after it becomes law. On the Assembly floor calendar (Cal. 396, June 3, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Provenance of Digital Content
Not law: died in committee. The committee substitute for Florida's SB 702 would have required online content purporting to feature an electoral candidate to carry provenance data if made with generative AI, and required generative AI providers to apply provenance data to content wholly generated by their tools and offer public detection tools and a free provenance reader. Social media platforms would have retained and shown provenance data, capture devices sold in Florida would have needed an option to record it, and violations would have been unfair or deceptive acts under s. 501.204 enforced by the Attorney General after a 30-day cure period. Died in Ethics and Elections June 16, 2025.
Cartwright Act: violations.
California's AB 325 amends the Cartwright Act, the state antitrust law. It is unlawful to use or distribute a common pricing algorithm (any methodology, including software, used by two or more persons that uses competitor data to recommend, align, stabilize, set or otherwise influence a price or commercial term) as part of a contract, combination or conspiracy to restrain trade, or while coercing another person to adopt a price or term it recommends. A Cartwright Act complaint need only plausibly allege an agreement, without excluding independent action. Signed October 6, 2025 (Chapter 338); effective January 1, 2026.
False advertising: synthetic performers.
California's SB 1050 (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17610) makes it unlawful to create and cause to be published an ad that prominently includes a synthetic performer without a clear and conspicuous disclosure, worded like "this performance features a synthetic performer" or "no human performer is depicted." A synthetic performer is a generative-AI figure or voice that realistically appears to be a human performer but is not any identifiable person. Ads for expressive works and translation or accessibility uses are exempt. Ad outlets served with a court order must pull a violating ad. Signed September 16, 2026 (Chapter 246); effective January 1, 2027.
Requires the collection of oaths of responsible use from users of certain generative or surveillance advanced artificial intelligence systems by the operators of such systems, and transmission of such oaths to the attorney general.
New York's A 1342 would add General Business Law § 394-cccc requiring operators of generative or surveillance advanced AI systems available to New York residents to make users create an account and affirm, under penalty of perjury, that they will not use the service to cause foreseeable injury, promote illegal activity, spread harmful content or knowingly spread false content meant to mislead the public. Operators would have to send each oath to the Attorney General within thirty days. Referred to Consumer Affairs and Protection January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
relative to the regulation of artificial intelligence technologies.
New Hampshire's HB 1725 (2026) would have created RSA chapter 359-V, "Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance": a 7-member AI council, AI interaction disclosures, bans on AI developed with intent to unlawfully discriminate or for social scoring, limits on government biometric identification, a regulatory sandbox, and attorney general enforcement with civil penalties. The House voted it Inexpedient to Legislate on February 19, 2026, and it died.
BIPA-SECURITY PURPOSES
Illinois's HB 5635 (103rd General Assembly) would have amended the Biometric Information Privacy Act to waive certain requirements for collecting biometric identifiers or information in circumstances relating to security purposes, exclude information captured by a biometric time clock or lock that converts it to a mathematical representation, and add a one-year filing period and a 30-day cure notice. Died at Session Sine Die on January 7, 2025.
Provides that a person may operate a fully autonomous vehicle on the public roads of this state without a human driver provided that the automated driving system is engaged and the vehicle meets certain conditions; defines terms; requires insurance and that such vehicle is registered as a fully…
New York's A 539-B (2023-2024) would have added Vehicle and Traffic Law Article 34-E allowing a person to operate a fully autonomous vehicle (SAE Level 4 or 5) on public roads without a human driver if the automated driving system is engaged, the vehicle can reach a minimal risk condition after a failure, a law enforcement interaction plan is filed and proof of insurance under VTL Article 6 is submitted. A city of five million or more could set local rules for for-hire services. The enacting clause was stricken July 22, 2024; the bill died with the 2023-2024 session.
Provides for notice requirements where an insurer authorized to write accident and health insurance in this state, a corporation organized pursuant to article forty-three of this chapter, or a health maintenance organization certified pursuant to article forty-four of the public health law uses…
New York's A 1456 would add Insurance Law § 338 requiring accident and health insurers, Article 43 corporations and Article 44 HMOs to tell insureds on their public websites about their use or lack of use of AI-based algorithms in utilization review, to submit those algorithms and training data to the Department for certification that bias risk is minimized, and to have clinical peer reviewers document review of individual records before an adverse determination. Fines would be up to $5,000 per violation or $10,000 per willful violation. Referred to Insurance January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Relating to the crime of corrupt political advertising; regulating the use; of generative artificial intelligence; requiring disclosure that an image or speech has been manipulated ; making it a crime to create false representations of candidates in campaign media or of state officials; providing…
Not law. Kansas HB 2559, as amended by the House Elections Committee, would have barred using synthetic media (realistic but false media intentionally manipulated with generative AI) to alter a candidate's appearance, action or speech in election campaign communications and a state official's in any communication. Violations would have been class C misdemeanors, with an affirmative defense if the communication states 'This (image/video/audio) has been manipulated.' Liability for disclosures would have rested solely with the advertiser, not broadcasters or media platforms. The committee recommended it as amended February 12, 2024; it was stricken from the House calendar February 23, 2024.
Requires search engines inform users when showing information which was generated using artificial intelligence.
New York's A 9091 would add General Business Law § 399-ss. When a search engine displays information generated by artificial intelligence, it would have to tell the user, in clear, plain language in the same font size as the information, that it was AI-generated, both directly above the information and as a watermark across it. A violation would be punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after it becomes law. Introduced September 12, 2025, referred to the Consumer Affairs and Protection Committee and held for consideration there May 5, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Regulates the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of therapy or psychotherapy services by prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence to assist in providing supplementary support where the session is recorded or transcribed unless the patient is informed of the specific purpose of…
New York's A 9106, the "oversight of technology in mental health care act," would add Education Law § 6517. Only a licensed professional could provide or offer therapy to the public in New York, including through internet-based AI. Professionals could use AI only for administrative or supplementary support (with written notice and consent where sessions are recorded or transcribed), not for independent therapeutic decisions, direct therapeutic communication, unreviewed treatment plans or emotion detection. Civil penalty up to $50,000 per violation. Would take effect immediately. Referred to Higher Education September 26, 2025 (and January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Relates to the development and use of certain artificial intelligence systems
New York's A 8884-A, the "New York AI act," would add Civil Rights Law §§ 105 to 115. Developers and deployers of high-risk AI used in consequential decisions (e.g. jobs, education, housing, health care, finance) would have to take reasonable care to prevent algorithmic discrimination, give notice and appeal with human review, get audits, report to the Department of Financial Services and keep risk programs; social scoring would be banned. AG civil penalties: up to $25,000 (developers) or $10,000 (deployers) per violation. Would take effect one year after becoming law (audits, two years). Amended June 1, 2026 and recommitted to Science and Technology; not passed by either chamber.
Relates to the use of artificial intelligence by insurers and clinical peer reviewers for utilization review; establishes additional notice requirements for adverse determinations.
New York's A 11048 would add Insurance Law § 338 on AI-based algorithms in utilization review. Insurers would have to notify insureds, enrollees and providers of AI use, submit their algorithms and training data to the Superintendent with a certification, and could not use AI as the sole basis to deny, delay or modify care. Fines of up to $5,000 per violation ($10,000 if willful) would apply. Introduced April 24, 2026 and referred to the Insurance Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
Requires the registration of data brokers; imposes regulations upon data brokers; establishes a data deletion mechanism for consumers; imposes penalties upon data brokers for violations of the law.
New York's A 9642-A would add General Business Law Article 42-A (§§ 1150-1158). Data brokers would have to register with the Attorney General within 60 days after meeting the definition and disclose, among other things, whether they have "shared or sold consumers' data to a developer of an artificial intelligence system or model in the past five years." The Attorney General would set up a free data deletion mechanism, and brokers would have to process and delete requests within 45 days of receipt, with penalties of $500 per day for failing to register or delete. Introduced January 21, 2026; amended and recommitted to Consumer Affairs and Protection June 1, 2026; not passed.
Enacts the "New York artificial intelligence consumer protection act", in relation to preventing the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to discriminate against protected classes.
New York's S 1962, the New York artificial intelligence consumer protection act, would add General Business Law Article 45-A (sections 1550 to 1556). From January 1, 2027, developers and deployers of high-risk AI decision systems that make or substantially factor in consequential decisions (education, employment, lending, government services, health care, housing, insurance, legal services) would have to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with impact assessments, notices and appeals. The Attorney General would have exclusive enforcement. Referred to Internet and Technology January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
AI Fraud Deterrence Act
The federal H.R. 6306 (AI Fraud Deterrence Act) would add higher criminal penalties when mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud or money laundering is committed with the assistance of artificial intelligence, and would add a penalty of a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment of not more than 3 years, or both, for impersonating a federal officer or employee with AI assistance. A rule of construction would protect satire, parody and other expressive conduct that clearly discloses it is not authentic. Introduced November 25, 2025 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee; no further action.
Enacts the "New York artificial intelligence transparency for journalism act"; requires developers of generative artificial intelligence systems or services to post certain information on the developer's website regarding video, audio, text and data from a covered publication used to train the…
New York's S 8331-A, the New York artificial intelligence transparency for journalism act, would add General Business Law Article 21-A (§§ 338 to 338-D). On or before January 1, 2027, and before each later release or substantial modification, AI developers would have to post the URLs, provenance, any removal of source identifiers or copyright notices, and collection timeframe for training data taken from a covered publication, and disclose their crawlers. A journalism provider could sue for injunctive relief and statutory damages up to $10,000 per violation. Referred to committee January 7, 2026.
Requires advertisements to disclose the use of a synthetic performer; imposes a $1,000 civil penalty for a first violation and a $5,000 penalty for any subsequent violation.
New York's S 1228-C would amend General Business Law section 396-b. A person in the business of dealing in property or services who, for a commercial purpose and with actual knowledge, places an advertisement in any medium featuring a synthetic performer would have to conspicuously disclose it in the ad, with a civil penalty of $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for each subsequent one. Ads for expressive works such as films, TV and video games are exempt if the use matches the work. Referred to Consumer Protection January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Requires that every newspaper, magazine or other publication printed or electronically published in this state, which contains the use of generative artificial intelligence or other information communication technology, shall identify that certain parts of such newspaper, magazine, or publication…
New York's S 6748 would add General Business Law § 338 requiring every newspaper, magazine or other publication printed or electronically published in the state that contains an article, periodical, photograph, video or other visual image wholly or partially composed or authored through generative AI or other information communication technology to conspicuously imprint a statement to that effect at the top of the page or webpage. No penalty or enforcer is stated. Referred to Consumer Protection January 7, 2026.
Requires publishers of books created wholly or partially with the use of generative artificial intelligence to disclose such use of generative artificial intelligence before the completion of such sale; applies to all printed and digital books consisting of text, pictures, audio, puzzles, games or…
New York's S 1815 would add General Business Law § 338 requiring books wholly or partially created with generative AI and published in New York to conspicuously disclose that use on the cover. It covers all printed and digital books, including text, pictures, audio, puzzles and games, regardless of the target age group. No penalty or enforcer is stated. The Internet and Technology Committee reported it to Consumer Protection April 1, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Requires covered employers to provide notice to certain affected employees prior to any technological displacement; requires reporting; requires a workforce transition period; makes related provisions.
New York's S 8589-C, the Automation Displacement Protection Act, would add Labor Law Article 25-D. Employers with 50 or more full-time employees in the state would have to give at least 90 days' written notice before a technological displacement affecting 25 employees or 25% of the workforce, whichever is less, and give affected employees a 90-day transition period. Penalties include up to $10,000 per day for willful violations. Amended May 14, 2026 (print number 8589c) and in the Labor Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
Restricts the use by an employer or an employment agency of electronic monitoring or an automated employment decision tool to screen a candidate or employee for an employment decision unless such tool has been the subject of an impact assessment within the last year; requires notice to employment…
New York's S 185-A would add Labor Law Article 37 (sections 1050 to 1057) limiting employer electronic monitoring and automated employment decision tools (AEDTs). Employers could not use an AEDT for an employment decision without an independent impact assessment within the prior year, repeated annually, or without 10 business days' notice; they may not rely primarily on tool output and must stop use if disparate impact is found. Monitoring must be strictly necessary and noticed in advance. It adds an employee private action with liquidated damages. Amended April 17, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Relates to the use of automated decision tools by landlords for making housing decisions; sets conditions and rules for use of such tools.
New York's S 6471-A would add Real Property Law § 227-g making it unlawful for a landlord to use an automated housing decision making tool to screen applicants unless an independent disparate impact analysis is done at least annually. A summary of the latest analysis must be posted on the landlord's website and on listings, and applicants must get notice at least 24 hours before use. The Attorney General could sue to compel compliance. Referred to Investigations and Government Operations January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits algorithmic wage-setting; provides for exceptions; provides for penalties for violation; creates a private right of action.
New York's S 8872 would add Labor Law Article 20-D (§§ 750-755) stating that no employer shall engage in algorithmic wage-setting, meaning using an automated decision system to inform individualized wages based on surveillance data about an employee. An employer is not deemed in violation if wages rest solely on task-related employee data or differences in labor cost and the employer discloses what data is used before hiring. Civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation; a private right of action. Referred to Labor January 13, 2026.
Enacts the "food delivery worker safety and fair algorithms act" to prohibit food delivery platforms from utilizing or deploying any algorithmic management system that requires or incentivizes delivery workers to complete deliveries within a fixed or rigid time window that cannot reasonably be met…
New York's S 9089, the food delivery worker safety and fair algorithms act, would add Labor Law Article 21-D (sections 796 to 796-E). Food delivery platforms could not use an algorithmic management system that requires or incentivizes deliveries within a fixed or rigid time window that cannot reasonably be met, could not penalize workers for missing estimates that ignore traffic, weather or restaurant delays, and could not incentivize speeding or unsafe operation. Platforms must give workers written notice of the factors the algorithm considers. Referred to Labor January 30, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits the use of a wage-fixing algorithm in combination with personal or behavioral data to set or recommend wages or compensation; defines terms; establishes penalties for violations of such prohibition.
New York's S 9132 would add Labor Law § 194-c barring an employer from using a wage-fixing algorithm, or its output, combined with personal or behavioral data to set or recommend wages or compensation, whether the data is collected by the employer or a third party. The Attorney General or a harmed worker could sue for the greater of actual damages or $3,000 per violation, with treble damages for willful or egregious violations. Referred to the Labor Committee February 5, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Establishes the "protect our privacy (POP) act" to impose limitations on the use of drones for law enforcement purposes; prohibits the use of drones by law enforcement at concerts, protests, demonstrations, or other actions protected by the first amendment.
New York's S 1096, the protect our privacy (POP) act, would add Civil Rights Law section 52-e. It would prohibit drone use by law enforcement agencies or for law enforcement purposes, with exceptions for search and rescue and examining dangerous areas after natural disasters, bar drones at concerts, protests and other First Amendment activity, and bar armed drones. Data from drones using facial recognition could not be used in investigations or prosecutions and would have to be deleted. Remedies would include suppression and a private action for the greater of $1,000 per violation or actual damages. Referred to Codes January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits the use of electronic shelving labels, digital shelf display technology, and personalized algorithmic pricing in food retail establishments and drug retail establishments; provides injunctive relief, civil penalties, and a private right of action.
New York's S 8616-B, the Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Discriminatory Pricing Act, would add General Business Law § 349-a-1. Food and drug retail establishments could not use electronic shelving labels or digital shelf displays, could not engage in surveillance pricing (pricing set completely or in part by an algorithm that uses personal data), and could not use protected class data in pricing. The Attorney General could seek penalties up to $10,000 per violation. Passed the Senate May 13, 2026 and, as amended, June 4, 2026 (50-10); on June 5 the Assembly substituted it for A9396-B on its third-reading calendar. No Assembly vote is shown.
Requires certain political communications to include provenance data for all audios, images or videos used in such communications; provides for the repeal of certain provisions upon the expiration thereof.
New York's S 7963 would add subdivision 8 to Election Law § 14-106 (the "election content accountability act"). Starting with the 2030 election cycle, campaigns for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General or Comptroller would have to apply provenance data to political communications that are or include images or videos, showing the generating device or service, synthetic portions, any AI use and the date. The Attorney General could assess up to $100,000 per violation. Advanced to third reading March 5, 2026 and committed to Rules June 5, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits the use of an algorithmic device by a landlord for the purpose of determining the amount of rent to charge a residential tenant; declares that such use is an unfair or deceptive trade practice.
New York's S 9700 would add Real Property Law § 222-a barring a landlord from employing, using or relying on an algorithmic device that was trained with or incorporates nonpublic competitor data when setting residential rent, including changes on renewal. A violation would be a deceptive act under General Business Law § 349. Referred to Judiciary April 2, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Requires the registration of data brokers; imposes regulations upon data brokers; establishes a data deletion mechanism for consumers; imposes penalties upon data brokers for violations of the law.
New York's S 9088-A would add General Business Law Article 42-A (§§ 1150-1158) requiring data brokers to register with the Attorney General within 60 days with a $100 fee (or an amount the Attorney General sets) and disclose, among other things, data shared with AI developers. The Attorney General must build a one-request deletion mechanism within a year of the effective date, after which brokers must stop processing within five days and delete within 45 days. Penalties reach $500 per day or per request. Passed the Senate June 3, 2026 (51-10); referred to the Assembly Consumer Affairs and Protection Committee June 4, 2026.
Prohibits the use of biometric surveillance system or biometric surveillance information in places of public accommodation; prohibits entering into any agreement that authorizes any third party to use any biometric surveillance system or biometric surveillance information; provides penalties for…
New York's S 8004 would add Civil Rights Law § 40-h making it unlawful for an owner, franchisor, franchisee or other operator of a place or provider of public accommodation to use any biometric surveillance system or its information, or let a third party do so on its behalf. Collecting biometric information would require written notice, a stated purpose and term, and a written release. Violators and those who aid or incite them would owe the aggrieved person at least the greater of $1,000 or actual damages per violation, plus attorneys' fees. Referred to Investigations and Government Operations January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Consumer Data Privacy Act
Pennsylvania's HB 78 (Consumer Data Privacy Act) would give consumers rights to access, correct, delete and port personal data and to opt out of targeted advertising, data sales and profiling for solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. Controllers would need consent for sensitive data and data protection assessments; the Attorney General alone would enforce, with no private right of action. Passed the House 127-76 October 1, 2025; this describes the Senate-amended version (PN 3688), which has not passed the Senate.
Law-enforcement agencies & sheriff's dept.; policy on use of covered artificial intelligence syst.
Virginia's HB 1170 (2026 Regular Session) would have required the Department of Criminal Justice Services to set a model policy for law-enforcement use of covered AI systems by October 1, 2026, and local agencies, sheriffs and State Police to adopt policies meeting it by January 1, 2027. It failed: tabled in House committee February 2, 2026.
Prohibits transcripts being made from video conference meetings by artificial intelligence without conspicuous disclosure during such meeting that such meeting may be transcribed by artificial intelligence.
New York's S 8459 would add Civil Rights Law section 50-h ("Right to Privacy; Transcription"). No person could permit a video conference meeting to be transcribed by artificial intelligence unless the meeting includes a conspicuous disclosure during the meeting that every attendee may have their words transcribed by AI. The text defines no terms and sets no penalty, enforcer or private right of action. Referred to Rules July 16, 2025 and to Internet and Technology January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Regulates the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of therapy or psychotherapy services by prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence to assist in providing supplementary support where the session is recorded or transcribed unless the patient is informed of the specific purpose of…
New York's S 8484 would add Education Law § 6517 on AI in therapy and psychotherapy. A licensed professional could use AI only for supplementary support in recorded or transcribed sessions after written notice and the patient's consent, and could not let AI make independent therapeutic decisions or interact directly in therapeutic communication. Civil penalties up to $50,000 per violation. Committed to Rules June 5, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Requires an office within the department of financial services to establish minimum standards for large frontier developers' frontier AI frameworks to prevent unreasonable levels of catastrophic risk.
New York's S 10456 would add General Business Law section 1430. The Office (which the sponsor memo identifies as the Office of Digital Innovation, Governance, Integrity & Trust, DIGIT, in the Department of Financial Services) would have to adopt regulations by July 1, 2028 requiring large frontier developers' frontier AI frameworks to meet minimum standards to prevent unreasonable levels of catastrophic risk. It must consult academia, the Empire AI Research Institute, the Attorney General, civil society and frontier developers, and review the rules annually. Referred to Internet and Technology May 15, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Relative to the use of artificial intelligence and other software tools in healthcare decision-making
Massachusetts S2632 would bar AI from denying, delaying or modifying health care on medical-necessity grounds, requiring a licensed professional to decide, and would limit AI in therapy: licensed therapists may use it only for administrative or supplementary support, with civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. Committee recommended ought to pass and referred to Senate Ways and Means April 2, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Artificial intelligence, consumer protection
South Carolina's S 963 would enact the Consumer Protections in Interactions with Artificial Intelligence Systems Act (Chapter 31 of Title 37). Developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used in consequential decisions would owe a duty of reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with impact assessments, consumer notices and appeal rights. The Attorney General would have exclusive enforcement. Introduced February 26, 2026 and referred to the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
Labor: fair employment practices; use of electronic monitoring or automated decisions tools by an employer; prohibit except for certain purposes. Creates new act.
Michigan's HB 5579, the 'responsible artificial intelligence security for employees act', would bar employers from using an automated decisions tool to make an employment-related decision, except to screen large volumes of applications or assess job skills. It would also limit electronic monitoring, require independent impact assessments, and allow civil fines of up to $500. Introduced February 24, 2026 and referred to the House Committee on Economic Competitiveness; it has not passed either chamber.
"New Jersey Disclosure and Accountability Transparency Act (NJ DaTA)"; establishes certain requirements for disclosure and processing of personally identifiable information; establishes Office of Data Protection and Responsible Use in Division of Consumer Affairs.
New Jersey's A1360 would create the New Jersey Disclosure and Accountability Transparency Act (NJ DaTA). Controllers could process personally identifiable information only on a listed basis, such as the consumer's affirmative opt-in consent, and consumers would get disclosure, correction, erasure, objection and automated-decision rights. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act, and an Office of Data Protection and Responsible Use would be created in the Division of Consumer Affairs. Pre-filed for introduction in the 2026 session.
Prohibits and imposes criminal penalty on disclosure of certain intentionally deceptive audio or visual media within 90 days of election.
New Jersey's A3585 would make it a fourth-degree crime to knowingly or recklessly disclose, or to solicit, intentionally deceptive audio or visual media (deepfakes) within 90 days of an election with intent to deceive a voter with false information; a repeat offense would be third-degree. Voters and depicted candidates could sue, and media carrying a prescribed disclaimer would be excepted.
A bill for an act relating to automated decision systems used by employers.
Iowa's SF 2414 would create Code chapter 91F requiring employers to give employees advance written notice of automated decision systems used for employment decisions, bar sole reliance on them for discipline, termination or deactivation, and give employees access to their data. The Department of Inspections, Appeals, and Licensing could enforce with a $500 civil penalty. Referred to Senate Workforce February 19, 2026; subcommittee named February 23, 2026.
Mississippi Medical Judgement Protection Act; create.
Mississippi's HB 1717 (2026), the Mississippi Medical Judgment Protection Act, would require a provider or facility whose clinical AI materially contributes to a diagnosis, treatment plan, order or clinical note to disclose that in the medical record and have a licensed clinician accept or reject it. It would bar payers from issuing automated denials or delays of coverage or payment, and require adverse determinations to be reviewed and signed by a physician. It died in committee on February 3, 2026.
Establishes Deepfake Technology Unit in DLPS; appropriates $2 million.
New Jersey's A3058 would have the Attorney General, consulting the State Chief Technology Officer, establish a Deepfake Technology Unit in the Division of Criminal Justice to analyze and authenticate evidence, give expert testimony and train law enforcement, prosecutors and courts. It would appropriate $2 million from the General Fund to the Department of Law and Public Safety.
To implement the recommendations of the special commission on facial recognition technology
Massachusetts H4640, a new draft of H1946, would replace G.L. c. 6, s. 220 to bar law enforcement from using facial recognition and other biometric surveillance except for State Police searches under set conditions (registrar identity checks, judge-authorized felony warrant, emergency, deceased identification, another agency's request). Reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and referred to House Ways and Means October 23, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Political campaign advertisements; synthetic media, penalty.
Virginia's HB 868 (2026 Regular Session) would bar electioneering communications containing synthetic media from being published or broadcast without a conspicuous statement that the message contains synthetic media that may present conduct or speech that did not occur. A violation would carry a civil penalty up to $25,000 and a willful violation a Class 1 misdemeanor. Continued to 2027 in committee on February 6, 2026.
To ensure accountability and transparency in artificial intelligence systems
Massachusetts H94 would add G.L. Chapter 93M requiring developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used in consequential decisions (education, employment, lending, housing, health care, insurance, legal and government services) to guard against algorithmic discrimination, with Attorney General enforcement. On December 24, 2025 it accompanied H97, which was reported favorably and referred to House Ways and Means.
To implement the recommendations of the special commission on facial recognition technology
Massachusetts S1053 would replace G.L. c. 6, s. 220 to bar law enforcement from using facial recognition and other biometric surveillance except for State Police searches under set conditions (judge-authorized felony warrant, emergency, deceased identification, another agency's request). Reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and referred to Senate Ways and Means September 29, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Concerning regulation of artificial intelligence companion chatbots.
Washington's AI companion chatbot law (Chapter 168, Laws of 2026, effective January 1, 2027). Operators must clearly disclose that the companion is AI and not human at the start of an interaction and at least every three hours, and stop it from claiming to be human. For known minors or minor-directed bots the notice is hourly, sexually explicit content is blocked and manipulative engagement (romantic bonding, guilt when leaving, isolation, secrecy, pay-to-stay) is prohibited. Every operator needs a published suicide and self-harm protocol with crisis referrals and yearly referral counts. Violations are unfair or deceptive acts under the Consumer Protection Act.
Establishes age verification measures for companion chatbots
Not law. The committee version of HB 2032, the GUARD Act, would have made it unlawful in Missouri to design or offer a companion chatbot knowing or recklessly disregarding that it risks soliciting minors into sexually explicit conduct, or that it encourages suicide, self-injury or violence (fines up to $100,000 per offense). Operators would have had to require accounts, verify every user's age, freeze existing accounts until verified and bar minors from companion chatbots, with AI disclosures and Attorney General enforcement. A House committee voted 9-3 for it (reported April 2, 2026), but it never got a floor vote before the May 15, 2026 deadline for passing bills.
Advanced Technology
Laid on the table; parts became law through its companion. Florida's CS/CS/CS/HB 1459 (2024) would have created the Government Technology Modernization Council, required safety and transparency disclosures for commercial AI-generated chatbot, image, audio and video output (s. 501.174), and made generated child pornography a third-degree felony. Companion CS/CS/SB 1680 (Chapter 2024-118, approved April 26, 2024, effective July 1, 2024) enacted the council and the generated child pornography crimes, but not the AI transparency and disclosure rules.
Providing consumer protections for artificial intelligence systems.
Washington's SB 6284 (1st substitute, 2026 session) would have required developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used to make, or be a substantial factor in, consequential decisions on employment, housing, insurance, health care, education, lending, legal services and similar matters to guard against algorithmic discrimination. Deployer duties would start July 1, 2027, consumer notice July 1, 2026, and only the Attorney General could enforce. It cleared Senate Environment, Energy & Technology on February 3, 2026, was heard in Ways & Means on February 6, and died at adjournment on March 12.
Regulating high-risk artificial intelligence system development, deployment, and use.
Washington's SB 6120 (2026 session), the Senate companion to HB 2157, would have required developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems, those intended to make or be a substantial factor in consequential decisions such as employment, lending, housing, insurance, health care and education, to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination. It included developer documentation, deployer risk programs and impact assessments, consumer notices, and private lawsuits for injunctions. It had a first reading on January 14, 2026 and died at adjournment.
Deepfake Liability Act
The Deepfake Liability Act (H.R. 6334) would amend Section 230 of the Communications Act and the TAKE IT DOWN Act. Section 230(c)(1) protection would apply only to platforms that run a reasonable process against cyberstalking and intimate privacy violations, including sexually explicit digital forgeries, and platforms would have to remove such content within 48 hours of a valid request. Referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on December 1, 2025; it has not passed either house.
Operation of autonomous vehicles on highways and providing a penalty.
Wisconsin's SB 831 (2025-26) would have created an Autonomous Driving Safety Board in the Department of Transportation to permit operation of Level 4 and 5 autonomous vehicles on approved highways other than interstates, with permit conditions, permit suspension and (per the LRB analysis) annual reports. The Senate transportation committee recommended passage 3-2 on March 2, 2026; it failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 23, 2026.
Regulating artificial intelligence training data.
Washington's HB 2503 (substitute, 2026 session) would have required developers of generative AI systems to post a high-level summary of their training datasets on their website on or before January 1, 2027 and before each later release or substantial modification made available to Washingtonians. It covered systems released on or after January 1, 2022, and treated violations as Consumer Protection Act violations. It was reported from House Technology, Economic Development, & Veterans on January 28, 2026, referred to Appropriations January 30 and died at adjournment.
AI Whistleblower Protection Act
H.R. 3460, the AI Whistleblower Protection Act, would bar employers from retaliating against employees and independent contractors, including former ones, who report AI security vulnerabilities or AI violations to regulators, Congress or supervisors. Remedies would include reinstatement and double back pay. Introduced May 15, 2025 and referred to the House Education and Workforce Committee; it has not passed either house.
AN ACT relating to data privacy, portability, and interoperability.
Kentucky's HB 559, the Kentucky Digital Choice Act (2026 session), would have given users of social media services and AI model operators data portability, deletion and interoperability rights. Companies and operators would have had to answer copy or deletion requests within five business days and offer open-protocol interoperability interfaces. Only the Attorney General could enforce it, with damages of up to $7,500 per continued violation after a 30-day cure period. It was referred to committee February 11, 2026 and died when the session ended.
AN ACT relating to privacy protection.
Kentucky's HB 21 (2025 session) would have created a civil cause of action and a felony for disseminating a 'deep fake': realistic media appearing to show a person saying or doing something they did not, lacking adequate labeling and produced substantially by technical means. A natural person who willfully and knowingly disseminated one without the depicted person's express written consent would have been liable for damages, and certain disclosures with intent to harm would have been a Class D felony. Referred to committee February 4, 2025; died when the session ended.
Requires disclosure of social media posts that are paid for by a campaign; authorizes the state board of elections to promulgate certain regulations.
New York's A 3929-B would amend Election Law § 14-106 so campaign-paid social media posts would have to carry the "Paid for by" disclosure and are not exempt as small digital media, and would require anyone who distributes political communications containing materially deceptive media (content created or altered with software, machine learning, AI or other technological means), with actual knowledge, to disclose the manipulation. A candidate depicted without consent could seek an injunction, costs and fees. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after becoming law. Reported to Rules June 5, 2025, referred to Codes January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Mississippi Consumer Privacy Protection Act; create.
Mississippi's HB 1051 (2026) would have created the Mississippi Consumer Privacy Protection Act for businesses with over $25 million in revenue that handle personal information of 175,000+ consumers (or 25,000+ with over half of revenue from selling data). Consumers could opt out of profiling used for decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. It was referred to House Judiciary A on January 16, 2026 and died in committee on February 3, 2026.
Enacts the "Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for all act"; requires a setting which allows a social media user to turn off algorithmic recommendations and other notifications; prohibits the use of dark patterns to subvert choice or inhibit users from accessing certain mechanisms.
New York's A 6974 (the "stop addictive feeds exploitation (safe) for all act") would add General Business Law Art. 45-A. Operators of addictive social media platforms would have to let New York users turn off algorithmic recommendations, turn off feed notifications (at minimum all of them, or those between 12 AM and 6 AM Eastern), turn off autoplay, and limit daily access, and could not use dark patterns. The Attorney General could seek civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation. Would take effect 180 days after the Attorney General issues implementing rules. Referred to the Consumer Affairs and Protection Committee March 18, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Elections: deceptive media in advertisements.
California's AB 2839 (Elections Code 20012) bars knowingly distributing, with malice, an ad or election communication with materially deceptive content about candidates, elected or elections officials, or election equipment, from 120 days before an election (through 60 days after for elections officials and equipment). Signed September 17, 2024 (Chapter 262) as an urgency statute. In Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal.), the court preliminarily enjoined enforcement on October 2, 2024 (except the audio-only disclosure part) and on August 29, 2025 held it unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the Attorney General and Secretary of State from enforcing it against the named plaintiffs.
Requiring a disclosure of deceptive artificial intelligence usage in political advertising.
New Hampshire's HB 1596 adds RSA 664:14-c. Within 90 days of an election, no person or entity may distribute a message created with AI or generative AI that it knows or should have known is a deepfake of a candidate, election official or party on the ballot, unless the media carries the required AI disclosure. Candidates and election officials may seek an injunction or damages. Signed August 2, 2024 (Chapter 345); effective August 1, 2024.
To provide accountability in the use of biometric recognition technology and comprehensive enforcement
Massachusetts S36 would add G.L. Chapter 110I regulating biometric recognition technology: covered entities owe duties of loyalty, care and confidentiality, may not sell biometric data, and may not install biometric recognition equipment in places open to the public. Referred to committee February 27, 2025; on May 12, 2025 it accompanied S43 (An Act to protect personal biometric data), which was referred to Senate Ways and Means.
Ai in education
South Carolina's H 5253 would add Section 59-28-195 limiting AI in public schools. Schools would need written opt-in parental consent before requiring or permitting student AI use, AI could not replace a licensed teacher in core instruction or final grading, and student data could not be sold or used for profiling. Introduced February 24, 2026 and referred to the House Education and Public Works Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
To protect against election misinformation
Massachusetts S44 would bar distributing, with actual malice, a materially deceptive election-related communication within 90 days of an election, with injunctions and damages as remedies; it defines synthetic media as audio or video substantially produced by generative AI. On October 16, 2025 it accompanied new draft S2631, which was referred to Senate Ways and Means that day.
Generative artificial intelligence: training data: copyrighted materials.
California's AB 412 (2025-26 Regular Session) would add Civil Code Title 15.3 requiring a developer of a generative AI model to provide a website mechanism for rights owners to request information on use of their covered materials. Within 30 days of a request, subject to exceptions, the developer would assess whether the materials were used and give the owner a list. Passed the Assembly 45-16; held under submission in Senate Appropriations August 13, 2026; not passed.
Enhancing disclosure requirements for synthetic media in political advertising
Massachusetts H846 would require paid audio or video political communications that contain synthetic media (content substantially produced by generative AI) to carry AI disclosure labels at the beginning and end and throughout the synthetic portions, with fines up to $1,000. On February 11, 2026 new draft H5094 was substituted; H5094 passed the House 157-0 that day and was referred to Senate Ways and Means February 12, 2026.
Prohibits the use of surveillance pricing
New York's A 9349-B would amend General Business Law section 349-a to prohibit surveillance pricing, meaning prices set in whole or part by an algorithm using personal data to offer different prices to different customers for the same goods or services. It would replace the current disclosure requirement with a ban, and bar using personal data to enable it. The Assembly passed it June 4, 2026; the Senate substituted it for S 8623-B and passed it June 4, 2026; as of October 8, 2026 the records show no delivery to or action by the Governor.
Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025
The federal S 232 (Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025) would make it unlawful to use or distribute a pricing algorithm that uses or was trained with nonpublic competitor data, with federal civil penalties. It would also require audit reports on request and disclosures of algorithmic pricing by companies with $5 million or more in revenue. Read twice and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee January 23, 2025; it has not passed either house.
Relative to AI-generated child sexual abuse material
Massachusetts S2633 would add G.L. c. 272, s. 29E making it a crime to create 'child sexual abuse visual material', including computer-generated images altered to falsely appear to be an authentic depiction of a minor, with knowledge or reason to know the subject is a minor and lascivious intent; up to 10 years in state prison or a $10,000 to $50,000 fine. Referred to Senate Ways and Means October 16, 2025.
A bill for an act relating to artificial intelligence, including the use of artificial intelligence to create materials related to elections and protections in interactions with artificial intelligence systems, and making penalties applicable.
Iowa's HSB 294 would require a disclosure on AI-generated election material that advocates for or against a candidate or ballot issue, and would create Code chapter 554I requiring developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with attorney general enforcement. The House committee voted 18-3 for passage on March 6, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Promoting economic development with emerging artificial intelligence models and safety
Massachusetts S2630 would create an AI Innovation Trust Fund and the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (G.L. Chapter 93M). Large frontier developers (over $500,000,000 revenue, models trained with over 10^26 operations) would have to publish safety frameworks, and critical safety incidents would be reported to the Attorney General within 15 days. Reported favorably and referred to Senate Ways and Means October 16, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
An Act Concerning Artificial Intelligence.
Connecticut's SB 2, as passed by the Senate (File 603 as amended by Senate Amendments A and B, as described in the OLR bill analysis), would require anyone doing business in the state to tell consumers when they interact with an AI system, and deployers of high-risk AI systems used in consequential decisions to give notices, explain adverse decisions and allow correction and appeal, beginning October 1, 2026, with attorney general enforcement. It would also create AI studies, an AI Academy and a synthetic intimate image crime. Passed the Senate May 14, 2025; tabled on the House calendar May 16, 2025; it did not pass the House.
A bill for an act relating to chatbots, including deployer requirements and interactions with minors. (Formerly HSB 647.)
Iowa's HF 2715 (formerly HSB 647) would require deployers of AI companions, public-facing chatbots and therapeutic chatbots to keep harm-response and self-harm protocols, disclose at the start and every three hours that the user is talking to AI, and take extra steps for minors. The attorney general could seek civil penalties up to $2,500 per violation. On the House calendar since February 24, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Chatbot Regulation
South Carolina's S 896 was introduced as the Chatbot Protection Act (Chapter 80 of Title 39). The Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee reported it favorably with an amendment on May 6, 2026, and the amended text is the Protecting Children from Chatbots Act: operators with 50,000 or more monthly active users would need age verification and parental consent for minors, with civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation. It has not passed the Senate.
AN ACT relating to violations of privacy.
Kentucky's SB 180 would make it unlawful, without a court-approved warrant, for state and local agencies to obtain or use facial recognition technology or information derived from it, and would set consent, retention and disclosure rules for private entities holding biometric identifiers. Violations could be enforced by private suits or the Attorney General, and facial-recognition evidence would be inadmissible in Kentucky proceedings. Introduced February 6, 2024; sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee February 8, 2024. It died when the 2024 session ended.
Concerning vehicle and operator requirements for autonomous vehicles.
Washington's HB 1984 (2025-26 biennium) would have required registered autonomous vehicles to meet federal motor vehicle standards and barred operating one on a highway to carry passengers or goods unless a human safety operator is physically present to monitor and intervene. It also amended the self-certification testing pilot (RCW 46.92.010) so testing entities must give proof of insurance and report collisions and moving-violation citations, and could not test on public roads unless the new requirements are met. It had a House Transportation hearing on February 24, 2025, was reintroduced January 12, 2026 and died at adjournment.
Algorithmic pricing of essential consumer goods, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty.
Wisconsin's AB 1190 would restrict grocery retailers' use of personalized algorithmic pricing on essential consumer goods: required disclosure on each such price, no electronic display of those prices in grocery stores of 15,000+ square feet, no pricing that varies by protected traits, and no buying consumer data from data brokers for pricing. Introduced March 19, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Committee on Consumer Protection; failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 23, 2026, so it did not pass.
Virginia Fair Housing Law, et al.; personalized algorithmic pricing disclosures, prohibitions.
Virginia's SB 585 as introduced would require disclosure of personalized algorithmic pricing by residential property owners, landlords and multiple listing services, ban using protected class data to set housing prices, and bar landlords from using coordinating algorithmic software to set rents or facilitate agreements not to compete. Prefiled January 14, 2026; the Senate General Laws and Technology Committee passed it by indefinitely (15-0) February 4, 2026, so it did not pass.
Enacts the "artificial intelligence workforce impact transparency act"; requires that each notice include a statement as to whether the employment losses described are the result, in whole or in part, of the introduction, expansion, or adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, automation…
New York's S 8928, the "artificial intelligence workforce impact transparency act," would amend Labor Law section 860-b (the state WARN act) so each mass layoff, relocation or employment-loss notice must say whether the job losses result, in whole or in part, from AI, automation or machine-based processes, with the estimated percentage of positions affected and a brief description of the technology, to the extent known. Introduced January 16, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee; it has not passed either house.
Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act of 2025
The federal H.R. 4640, the Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act of 2025, would bar a person from surveillance-based price setting (using an automated decision system to set a customized price from surveillance data) and from surveillance-based wage setting, with limited exceptions, and would require data-accuracy, correction and disclosure procedures to be published 180 days before relying on a price exception or using a wage-setting system. The FTC, state attorneys general and, for wages, the EEOC could enforce it; private suits would seek the greater of actual damages or $3,000 per violation. Introduced July 23, 2025; it remains in committee and has not passed either chamber.
A bill for an act relating to the publication of electioneering communications containing synthetic media, and providing penalties.
Iowa's SF 2166 would prohibit knowingly or recklessly publishing an electioneering communication containing AI-manipulated synthetic media within 90 days of an election unless it carries a required AI disclaimer. Civil penalties are up to $1,000 for a first offense and $5,000 for later ones; knowing violation with intent to defraud is a serious misdemeanor. Referred to Senate State Government January 29, 2026; subcommittee named February 3, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Consumer data protection and providing a penalty. (FE)
Wisconsin's SB 166 (as introduced March 27, 2025) would create a consumer data protection law (s. 100.80) for controllers handling the personal data of 100,000+ consumers, or 25,000+ consumers while deriving over 50 percent of revenue from selling data. Consumers could access, correct, delete and obtain their data and opt out of targeted advertising, sale and certain forms of automated processing. Controllers would owe privacy notices and data protection assessments, including for profiling. Violators would face forfeitures up to $10,000 per violation. It failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 23, 2026 and did not become law.
SAFE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE ACT
Illinois's HB 2747 (100th General Assembly, 2017-2018) would have created the Safe Autonomous Vehicle (SAVE) Act. A motor vehicle manufacturer could start a SAVE project after notifying the Department of Motor Vehicles and self-certifying that its automated driving system (ADS) fleet meets listed conditions. The manufacturer would insure the fleet and assume liability where the ADS is at fault. Operating an ADS vehicle without meeting the requirements would draw a $10,000 fine, and a second violation would be a Class A misdemeanor. The bill did not pass before the 100th General Assembly ended in January 2019.
Artifical intelligence; prohibit use of in professional mental and behavioral health care.
Mississippi's HB 1048 (2026, as introduced) would have barred AI providers from offering AI systems programmed to provide professional mental or behavioral health care, or claiming such systems can provide it, and barred licensed mental health professionals from using AI in practice except for administrative and supplementary support, and for recording sessions with written informed consent 24 hours in advance. Violators would have faced civil penalties up to $15,000 per violation in Attorney General actions, and licensees board discipline. Referred January 16, 2026; it died in committee February 3, 2026.
A bill for an act relating to provider requirements concerning the mental health of users of an artificial intelligence chatbot, and providing civil penalties.
Iowa's SF 2415 would bar AI chatbot providers from offering or simulating professional mental health advice or claiming to be a licensed professional, require crisis-referral protocols and repeated AI disclosures, and make violations unfair practices enforced by the attorney general. Referred to Senate Technology February 19, 2026; subcommittee named February 24, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Makes use of algorithmic systems to influence price and supply of residential rental units unlawful.
New Jersey's FAIR Act (Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent) makes it unlawful, and a violation of the New Jersey Antitrust Act, to use rent-pricing software to coordinate residential rents. It bars owners from paying for or subscribing to a coordinator's services, bars coordinators from facilitating restraints on competition, and bars parallel pricing coordination. Enacted through the identical A3497, approved July 20, 2026 (P.L.2026, c.43); takes effect July 1, 2027.
Eavesdropping, Peeping, and Voyeurism
South Carolina's H 3042 would amend Section 16-17-470 on eavesdropping, peeping and voyeurism. It would add voyeurism by creating, with generative adversarial network techniques or other digital technology, a realistic but false image, audio or video of another person for sexual gratification, and cover selling or distributing such material. It also raises penalties. Introduced January 14, 2025 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
Distribution of Intimate Images
South Carolina's S 72 would add Sections 16-15-330, 16-15-332 and 16-15-333 making it a felony to intentionally disseminate an intimate image or a digitally forged intimate image, including one generated or substantially modified with machine-learning techniques, without the depicted person's effective consent. A first offense carries a fine up to $5,000 or up to five years' imprisonment. Introduced January 14, 2025 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
Establishes consumers' foundational data privacy rights; creates oversight mechanisms; establishes enforcement mechanisms; establishes the privacy and security victims relief fund.
New York's A5827 (2025-26) would add a new Article 46, the "American Data Privacy and Protection Act", to the General Business Law, covering data minimization, a duty of loyalty, consumer rights to access, correct, delete and port covered data, and consent and opt-out rules for transfers and targeted advertising; its title also establishes a privacy and security victims relief fund. A large data holder using a covered algorithm in a way that poses a consequential risk of harm would have to conduct an impact assessment of it. Referred to the Assembly Science and Technology Committee February 20, 2025 and again January 7, 2026; not enacted.
AI Fraud Accountability Act of 2026
The federal S. 3982 (AI Fraud Accountability Act of 2026) would make it a federal crime, punishable by up to 3 years in prison and a fine, to pose falsely as a real or imaginary person in an AI-made or other computer-generated audio or visual impersonation, intended to be taken as genuine, to defraud someone. It would also make the conduct an FTC-enforced unfair or deceptive practice. Referred to the Senate Commerce Committee March 4, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Provides for municipal and state police authorities to acquire and to utilize automated license plate readers and identify what data may be collected and in what ways the data can be used.
Rhode Island H 8077 (2026), as introduced on February 27, 2026, would let municipal and state police use automated license plate readers under a new chapter 12-5.3. Readers could scan plates only for listed purposes, could not photograph vehicle occupants or record audio, and captured plate data would be deleted after 21 days except for stated exceptions. The attorney general and aggrieved persons could sue. The text takes effect January 1, 2027.
Prohibits the use of algorithmic pricing by landlords to determine the amount of rent to charge a residential tenant.
Rhode Island S 2266 (2026), as introduced on January 23, 2026, would add section 34-18-63. Effective January 1, 2027, landlords and their agents could not use an algorithmic device that uses or was trained on nonpublic competitor data to determine or suggest rent, or use an algorithmic device to set rent changes for renewals or existing tenants. Violations would be deceptive trade practices. The text says it takes effect upon passage.
Relative to providing multimodal transportation technologies
Massachusetts' H 3634 would add a framework in General Laws chapter 90 to let fully autonomous vehicles run on public roads without a human driver. Each vehicle would need an autonomous operation license from MassDOT and, before driverless operation, proof of $1 million in liability coverage and a law-enforcement interaction plan. On-demand autonomous vehicle networks would be allowed and local rules on them preempted. Referred to Transportation February 27, 2025; on April 6, 2026 it accompanied a study order (H 5326) and did not advance as its own bill.
Amends the residential landlord and tenant act to prohibit the use of algorithmic renting-setting software that relies on nonpublic competitor data to determine rental prices or occupancy levels for residential dwelling units in Rhode Island.
Rhode Island's H 7129 would have added R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-18-63 making it unlawful for any person to use a revenue management device (rent-optimization software that uses nonpublic competitor data) or nonpublic competitor data to set, recommend or determine rents or occupancy levels for residential units. A violation would have been an unfair or deceptive trade practice enforceable by the attorney general. Introduced January 15, 2026 and referred to House Judiciary; withdrawn at the sponsor's request, recorded 03/14/2026 (the status report also shows 03/18/2026 in parentheses).
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE ACT
Illinois's SB 1432 (100th General Assembly), as introduced, would have created the Safe Autonomous Vehicle (SAVE) Act, letting a motor vehicle manufacturer start a safe autonomous vehicle project with automated driving system vehicles after notifying the Department of Motor Vehicles and self-certifying. Senate Committee Amendment No. 1, adopted in committee, replaced it with an Autonomous Vehicle Act. The bill was not passed before the 100th General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 9, 2019).
Regulates how certain large social media platforms utilize algorithms.
Rhode Island H 7954 (2026), the Digital Platform Transparency and Democratic Integrity Act as introduced on February 27, 2026, would require covered platforms (more than one million monthly active users nationally that let users create profiles and share content) to disclose the main factors behind content ranking and to label AI-made synthetic media that appears to depict real people, statements or events. Knowing violations carry civil penalties up to $10,000 each. The text says it takes effect upon passage.
Creates the surveillance pricing and online retailing act that would prohibit algorithmic price increases for online purchases.
Rhode Island H 7849 (2026), as introduced on February 27, 2026, would add chapter 6-13.4 barring online retailers from knowingly applying an 'algorithmic price increase': a price above the seller's baseline price set using an algorithm, AI or other data processing system and materially influenced by an individual consumer's personal data. Violations are deceptive trade practices with civil penalties up to $100 per violation. The text says it takes effect upon passage.
Creates provisions relating to artificial intelligence in mental health
Missouri's SB 1444 (Senate Committee Substitute, 2026) would have added Section 407.3007, RSMo, barring anyone who develops or deploys AI in the state from advertising or representing that the AI is, or can act as, a mental health professional or provide therapy, psychotherapy or a mental health diagnosis. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Merchandising Practices Act, enforced by the Attorney General. The Senate General Laws Committee voted do pass on a committee substitute April 7, 2026; the bill died when the session ended May 15, 2026.
Synthetic digital representations and providing a penalty.
Wisconsin's SB 815 would have created s. 942.085, making it a Class A misdemeanor to create and post, publish, distribute or exhibit a deepfake (a synthetic digital representation of an individual's recognizable face, voice or likeness that looks authentic and was made without consent) with intent to coerce, harass or intimidate, and a Class I felony if done with intent to defraud, coerce or intimidate for monetary gain. Introduced January 14, 2026 and referred to committee; it failed to pass March 23, 2026.
Artificial Intelligence Chatbots and Minors Act; established, prohibited practices, penalties.
Virginia's HB 758 (2026) would have created the Artificial Intelligence Chatbots and Minors Act (Code §§ 59.1-614 to 59.1-616). Deployers that operate or distribute a chatbot in Virginia would have had to keep "human-like features" away from minors, use reasonable age verification, and keep social AI companion chatbots unavailable to minors. A violation would have been a prohibited practice under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. The bill died: a House subcommittee recommended laying it on the table (7-3) on February 4, 2026, and it was left in committee February 18, 2026.
Georgia Likeness, Expression, Generative AI, and Commercial Yield (LEGACY) Act; enact
Georgia's HB 1399 (2026), the Georgia Likeness, Expression, Generative AI, and Commercial Yield (LEGACY) Act, would have given every individual a property right in their likeness and required the individual's written consent to create, distribute or exploit a digital replica of them for commercial purposes. Aggrieved individuals could have sued for damages, punitive damages and injunctions. It was read the second time in the House February 24, 2026 and died when the session adjourned April 2, 2026.
AN ACT RELATING TO COMMERCIAL LAW -- GENERAL REGULATORY PROVISIONS -- INTERNET ACCESS AND ADVERTISING BY FACSIMILE
Rhode Island H 7543 (2026), as introduced on February 6, 2026, would add section 6-47-2.1 requiring any video, image or photograph generated by artificial intelligence that is posted on a public platform, and is created in or viewable in Rhode Island, to carry a marking disclosing that it was AI-generated. A violation for profit or for trade would be a deceptive trade practice with a civil penalty under 6-13.1-8. The text says it takes effect upon passage.
Establishes "Authentic Relationships Act"; prohibits artificial intelligence relationship simulation.
New Jersey's A2710 would create the Authentic Relationships Act. Providers could not design, develop, market or make available AI relationship simulations in New Jersey; AI could include features resembling intimate interaction only if used exclusively for a legitimate medical usage and not simulating a romantic or sexual relationship. The Attorney General could assess civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation, and harmed individuals could sue. Pre-filed for introduction in the 2026 session.
Informing users when content is developed or modified by artificial intelligence.
Washington's AI content provenance law (Chapter 167, Laws of 2026, effective February 1, 2027). Providers of generative AI systems with more than 1,000,000 monthly users that are publicly available in Washington must, where commercially and technically reasonable, embed provenance data in images, video and audio their systems create or materially alter, made hard to remove; a common standard such as C2PA complies. Business-to-business uses, video game experiences and upscaling or compression tools are excluded. Only the Attorney General enforces it, under the Consumer Protection Act. Separately, government agencies must tell consumers when they are interacting with an AI system.
Regulates use of automated employment decision tools in employment decisions to minimize discrimination in employment.
New Jersey's A2726 would regulate automated employment decision tools. A tool could not be sold, developed, deployed, used or offered in New Jersey unless it had a bias audit in the past year; employers would have to notify candidates at least 10 days before use and post audit summaries. Civil penalties would be up to $1,500 for a developer's first violation and up to $500 per violation for employers. Pre-filed for introduction in the 2026 session.
"New Jersey Disclosure and Accountability Transparency Act (NJ DaTA)"; establishes certain requirements for disclosure and processing of personally identifiable information; establishes Office of Data Protection and Responsible Use in Division of Consumer Affairs.
New Jersey's S2602 would create the New Jersey Disclosure and Accountability Transparency Act (NJ DaTA). Controllers could process personally identifiable information only on a listed basis, such as the consumer's affirmative opt-in consent, and consumers would get disclosure, correction, erasure, objection and automated-decision rights. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act, and an Office of Data Protection and Responsible Use would be created in the Division of Consumer Affairs. Pre-filed for introduction in the 2026 session.
PROTECT IMAGE-VOICE-LOOKS
Illinois's HB 5594 (103rd General Assembly) would have created the NO FAKES Act, giving each individual (and after death their heirs) a descendible, licensable property right to authorize use of their image, voice or visual likeness in a digital replica, enforceable by civil action with the greater of $5,000 per violation or actual damages. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).
Requires AG to study law enforcement use of facial recognition technology and issue report with recommendations for Statewide policy.
New Jersey's A759 would require the Attorney General to study law enforcement use of facial recognition technology and report to the Governor and Legislature within six months of the bill's effective date, with recommendations for a statewide policy covering State and local law enforcement agencies.
Prohibits the collecting of information of historical or contemporaneous prices, supply levels, or lease or rental contract termination and renewal dates of residential dwelling units from two or more rental property owners for purposes of analyzing or processing of such information using an…
New York's S 1573 would add Real Property Law § 222-a barring owners of four or more residential units from paying for a coordinator's services (software or analytics that collects data from two or more owners and recommends rents, renewal terms or occupancy levels). Coordinators could not facilitate agreements among owners not to compete. The Attorney General could sue for an injunction and monetary penalties; arbitration clauses would be unenforceable. Referred to Judiciary January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits collection of biometric identifier information by public or private entity under certain circumstances.
New Jersey's A3926 would bar public and private entities from collecting, retaining, converting, storing or sharing biometric identifier information unless they post clear, plain-language notice at every common entryway about their use of a biometric surveillance system. Penalties would be $5,000 for a first violation and $10,000 for later ones, with criminal grading for a pattern of violations.
Protecting Children from Chatbots
South Carolina's S 1037, the Protecting Children from Chatbots Act (new Chapter 81 of Title 39), would require chatbot operators with five hundred thousand or more monthly active users worldwide to offer a limited-access mode, verify age and obtain verifiable parental consent before minors use restricted features. The Attorney General could seek civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation. Referred to the Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee March 19, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits deepfake pornography and imposes criminal and civil penalties for non-consensual disclosure.
New Jersey's S1159 would add 'deceptive audio or visual media' (deepfakes) to the State's invasion-of-privacy law, making it a third-degree crime, with a fine of up to $30,000, to disclose such intimate media of a person without consent, knowing one is not licensed or privileged to do so. It would add such media to the child sexual exploitation offenses and let the person depicted sue.
Requires artificial intelligence companion operators to provide notifications that users are not communicating with human.
New Jersey's A4732 would require operators of AI companions, meaning generative AI systems designed to simulate a sustained human or human-like relationship, to tell users they are not talking to a human. The notice must come at the start of each interaction and repeat at least every three hours. The penalty would be $15,000 per violation. This describes the bill as introduced March 10, 2026; later committee amendments, if any, are not reflected.
Requires the registration of certain companies whose primary business purpose is related to artificial intelligence as evidenced by their NAIC code.
New York's S 8214-A (2023-2024) would have added General Business Law Article 2-A (§§ 20 and 20-a) requiring the Secretary of State to require biennial registration of businesses with NAIC code 541512, 334220 or 513210 (541512, 334220, 513210) located in or selling in New York, for a fee of $200 per registration. Violations would be punishable by a fine of up to $10,000, and the Attorney General could seek to bar knowing non-registrants for up to ten years. It died in committee when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Prohibits the use of facial recognition and biometric information as the sole factor in determining the existence of probable cause to place in custody or arrest an individual.
New York's A 1447 would amend the Executive Law (new § 837-z) so that biometric identifying technology, including facial recognition, cannot be the sole factor in determining probable cause to place a person in custody or arrest them. By January 1, 2027, every municipal police department, sheriff's office and the State Police would have to adopt a written policy barring stops, detentions or searches solely motivated by the technology, or the Division of Criminal Justice Services would order a penalty of withheld state funds. Would take effect immediately. Referred to Governmental Operations January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits use and sale of algorithmic devices for setting rent price or occupancy of residential dwelling units.
New Jersey's A2299 would make it unlawful to sell, license or provide landlords with an 'algorithmic device' that sets or recommends rents or occupancy rates for residential units, and unlawful for landlords to use one. The Attorney General could sue for damages, injunctions and civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation.
Artificial intelligence safety and disclosure requirements established, and civil remedies provided.
Minnesota's HF 4532, the Responsible Artificial Intelligence Safety and Education (RAISE) Act, would require developers (anyone who has trained at least one AI model) to adopt, publish and send to the attorney general a safety and security protocol before deploying a model, report safety incidents within 72 hours, and not deploy a model that creates an unreasonable risk of critical harm. Introduced and referred to Commerce Finance and Policy March 23, 2026; it died when the 2026 session adjourned.
Restricts use and sale of algorithmic devices for establishing rent price or occupancy of residential property.
New Jersey's A3989 would make it unlawful to sell, license or provide landlords with an 'algorithmic device' that sets or recommends rents or occupancy rates for residential units, and unlawful for landlords to use one. A violation would be a per se violation of the New Jersey Antitrust Act.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, relative to artificial intelligence.
Tennessee SB 1711 (Public Chapter 550) defines artificial intelligence and requires the University of Tennessee board, the board of regents and each state university board to adopt policies on AI use by students, faculty and staff for instruction and assignments, to be implemented by July 1, 2025 and posted online; boards that miss the deadline must appear before the joint government operations committee. Local boards of education and public charter school governing bodies must adopt AI-use policies for students, teachers and staff for the 2024-25 school year and report compliance to the department of education. Effective on signing, March 11, 2024.
Makes use of algorithmic systems to influence price and supply of residential rental units unlawful.
New Jersey's A3326 would make it unlawful, and a violation of the New Jersey Antitrust Act, for a rental property owner to subscribe to or pay a 'coordinator' that collects pricing, supply or lease-date data from two or more owners and recommends rents, renewal terms or occupancy levels. It would also bar coordinators from facilitating agreements that restrict competition for residential units.
Prohibits creation or disclosure of deceptive audio or visual media, known as "deepfakes," under certain circumstances.
New Jersey's S3305 would make it a fourth-degree crime to create deceptive audio or visual media (deepfakes) without license or privilege for an unlawful purpose, and a third-degree crime to disclose such media without clearly identifying it as deceptive, with a fine up to $30,000. The depicted person could sue for at least $1,000 liquidated damages per violation. Introduced February 2, 2026.
Prohibits deepfake pornography and imposes criminal and civil penalties for non-consensual disclosure.
New Jersey's A1359 would add 'deceptive audio or visual media' (deepfakes) to the State's invasion-of-privacy law, making it a third-degree crime, with a fine of up to $30,000, to disclose such intimate media of a person without consent, knowing one is not licensed or privileged to do so. It would add such media to the child sexual exploitation offenses and let the person depicted sue.
Updates certain crimes to include nonconsensual pornographic deepfake threats and disclosure.
New Jersey's S3303 would amend the invasion of privacy and criminal coercion laws to cover deepfakes. Knowingly reproducing, without license or privilege, an actual or deepfake image of another person's exposed intimate parts or sexual activity without consent would be a third-degree crime; disclosing such a deepfake image knowingly or with reckless disregard of license would be fourth degree with a fine of up to $30,000; threatening to disclose one would count as criminal coercion. Introduced February 2, 2026.
Prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination and surge pricing for retail goods.
Washington's HB 2481, the fair pricing and transparency act (2026 session), would have barred non-small businesses selling grocery products from surveillance-based price discrimination (prices set from monitoring or automated analysis of a consumer's personal data) and from surge pricing based on real-time or predicted demand; 'algorithm' is defined to include AI. It would also have barred electronic shelf labels in stores of 15,000 square feet or more until January 1, 2030; violations would be Consumer Protection Act violations. It was heard in House Appropriations on February 5, 2026 and died at adjournment.
Requires certain companies which utilize artificial intelligence to file responsible capability scaling policies with the chief information officer.
New York's A 6656 would add General Business Law § 390-f requiring every person or entity "doing business or offering products to consumers in New York State" to develop a responsible capability scaling policy for its use and development of AI and to file an annual certification of compliance with the chief information officer. The Attorney General could audit filed policies. Would take effect on the 90th day after it becomes law. Introduced March 6, 2025 and referred to the Consumer Affairs and Protection Committee (again January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Requires AG to study use of artificial intelligence for certain law enforcement purposes and issue report.
New Jersey's A3076 would require the Attorney General to study how law enforcement agencies use AI to generate police reports and report to the Governor and Legislature within six months of the act's effective date, with recommendations for a Statewide policy. The text reviewed is the pre-filed version.
Relating To Journalism.
Hawaii's SB 1618 (2025) would have created a journalistic code of ethics for news media outlets, administered by a Journalistic Ethics Commission within DCCA. Journalists, editors and outlets would have to prominently label AI-generated or AI-manipulated content and not use an AI tool to impersonate an individual or misrepresent facts. It was carried over to 2026, re-referred January 21, 2026 and died. Independent journalists and bloggers with fewer than 10,000 monthly readers would have been exempt.
Restricts use of certain artificial intelligence generated communications in election campaigns.
New Jersey's A4741 would restrict AI-generated election campaign communications. Covered communications created or altered with AI could not be published within 90 days before an election, must carry the label 'Artificial intelligence was used in creating this message', and could not contain AI deceptive media portraying an opposing candidate as demonstrably false, fraudulent or defamatory. A violation would be a fourth-degree crime. Introduced March 19, 2026.
Regulates use of artificial intelligence-enabled video interview in hiring process.
New Jersey's S3263 would require an employer that asks applicants to take a video interview analyzed by AI to give notice, explain how the AI works and obtain written consent beforehand. Applicant videos could be shared only with necessary service providers and deleted within 30 days on request. Violations would carry civil penalties of $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for each later one. Introduced February 2, 2026.
Requires notification of use of artificial intelligence system in certain communications with consumers.
New Jersey's S3668 would require a person or entity that deploys an AI system to communicate with a consumer through an online platform to tell the consumer, clearly and conspicuously, that an AI system is communicating and how to reach a human. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. Introduced February 24, 2026.
Artificial intelligence; prohibit use in provision of professional mental and behaioral health care.
Mississippi's HB 1720 (2026) would bar licensed mental and behavioral health professionals (counselors, psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, art and music therapists) from using AI in their practice, except for administrative and supplementary support such as scheduling and billing. It would bar anyone from offering therapy to the public, including through Internet-based AI, unless a licensed professional conducts it. Civil penalty up to $10,000 per violation. It died in committee on February 3, 2026.
"AI Likeness Protection Act"; concerns distributing realistic representation of individual's image, likeness, or voice created using generative artificial intelligence.
New Jersey's A5088, the AI Likeness Protection Act, would require a person to get consent from an individual (or a minor's parent or guardian) before publishing or distributing a highly realistic generative-AI representation of that person's voice or likeness. The individual could sue for an injunction and the greater of actual damages plus profits or a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. Introduced May 14, 2026.
Providing for artificial intelligence in facilities, for artificial intelligence use by insurers and for artificial intelligence use by MA or CHIP managed care plans; imposing duties on the Department of Health, the Insurance Department and the Department of Human Services; and imposing penalties.
Pennsylvania's SB 1113 (2025-26) would add rules for AI in health care facilities, AI use by insurers and AI use by MA or CHIP managed care plans, with duties for the departments of Health, Insurance and Human Services and penalties. The captured text covers the facilities chapter: patient disclosure, responsible-use rules and annual AI compliance statements filed with the Department of Health. It was referred to the Senate Institutional Sustainability & Innovation Committee on January 9, 2026.
Providing for the use of artificial intelligence in mental health therapy and for enforcement.
Pennsylvania's HB 1993 (2025-26), the Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health Therapy Act, would bar mental health professionals from using AI to support recorded or transcribed therapy sessions without written notice and patient consent, bar AI providers from representing that an AI system can provide therapy or is a therapist, and bar AI from making independent therapeutic decisions. It was referred to the House Professional Licensure Committee on October 24, 2025.
Providing for disclosures and safeguards relating to the use of artificial intelligence; and imposing duties on the Attorney General.
Pennsylvania's SB 1090 (2025-26), the Safeguarding Adolescents from Exploitative Chatbots and Harmful AI Technology Act (Printer's No. 1423), would require operators of AI companion platforms to disclose nonhuman status, maintain suicide and self-harm protocols, and apply safeguards for minors. The Attorney General could seek civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. It passed the Senate 49-1 on March 17, 2026 and was referred to the House Communications & Technology Committee on March 18.
Providing for safety regarding artificial intelligence in companionship applications; and imposing a penalty.
Pennsylvania's HB 2006 (2025-26), the AI Companion Safety Act (Printer's No. 3747), would bar an operator from providing an AI companion unless it implements and maintains protocols that refer users to crisis services and block content that assists or encourages suicide or violence, and would require nonhuman-status disclosures. The bill also imposes a penalty (the penalty text was not captured). It passed the House 133-70 on September 28, 2026.
Providing for a public education campaign focused on educating the public about artificial intelligence and improving AI consumer literacy.
Pennsylvania's HB 2314 (2025-26), the Artificial Intelligence Public Education Campaign Act, would require the Office of Attorney General, subject to funding being available and within one year of the act's effective date, to run a public education campaign on AI and AI consumer literacy, including AI scams, chatbots and deepfake detection. It passed the House 198-3 on June 3, 2026 and was referred to the Senate Communications & Technology Committee on June 5, 2026.
ALGORITHMICS PROHIBITED-RENT
Illinois's HB 1427 (104th General Assembly) would create the Prohibition of Algorithmics in Rent Act. In setting residential rent, including renewal changes, a landlord could not use, or cause another to use, an algorithmic device that uses, incorporates or was trained with nonpublic competitor data. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. Re-referred to Rules March 27, 2026.
SURVEILLANCE-BASED PRICING
Illinois's HB 4985 would create the Surveillance-Based Price Discrimination Act, barring a person from using surveillance data as part of an automated decision system to inform the individualized price charged to a consumer. The Attorney General and aggrieved consumers could sue. Filed February 4, 2026; assigned to the Consumer Protection Committee March 18 and re-referred to the Rules Committee March 27, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Regulates the development and use of certain artificial intelligence systems to prevent algorithmic discrimination; requires independent audits of high risk AI systems; provides for enforcement by the attorney general as well as a private right of action.
New York's S 1169-B would regulate high-risk AI systems used in consequential decisions on employment, education, housing, health, finance and legal services. Developers and deployers would have to take reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, commission independent audits, file reports and keep a risk management program; social scoring AI would be banned. The Senate passed it June 3, 2026 and delivered it to the Assembly; it has not passed the Assembly.
Criminal Law - Mail and Package Theft (Porch Piracy Act of 2025)
Maryland's HB 210 (2025, the Porch Piracy Act of 2025, third reader) is a mail and package theft bill. It would have made taking mail or a package addressed to someone else a felony (up to 5 years), created penalties for mail theft and arrow-key offenses, and added mail theft under Criminal Law section 3-905.1 to the list of crimes in Criminal Procedure section 2-503(a)(1)(i) that police may investigate using facial recognition technology. It passed the House 137-0 and was referred to Senate Judicial Proceedings March 17, 2025; it died when the session ended.
Regulate the use of pricing algorithms
Ohio's SB 79 would bar using or distributing a pricing algorithm that uses or was trained with nonpublic competitor data, presume an unlawful agreement in certain cases, and require businesses with $5 million or more in gross receipts to disclose algorithmic pricing, with disclosure violations treated as unfair or deceptive acts. Introduced February 4, 2025; referred to the Senate Financial Institutions, Insurance and Technology Committee February 12, 2025; it has not passed.
Enacts the New York Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act establishing protections for individual rights with respect to computational algorithms; establishes protections against the use of algorithms involved in consequential decisions, such as those that impact people's rights, civil…
New York's A 9654 (the New York Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act) would bar developers and deployers from using covered algorithms in consequential actions (such as employment, housing, credit, health care, insurance, education, criminal justice and government services) in ways that discriminate or have a disparate impact on protected characteristics. It would require independent audits where harm is plausible. Referred to the Assembly Science and Technology Committee January 21, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Prohibits collection of biometric identifier information by public or private entity under certain circumstances.
New Jersey's S 1463 would bar public and private entities in the State from collecting, retaining, converting, storing or sharing biometric identifier information gathered through biometric surveillance systems (including facial, iris, retina, voice, fingerprint or palm recognition), but would let them collect it if they post clear notice at every common entryway. Violations would carry civil penalties of $5,000 and $10,000, and a pattern of violations would be a crime. Referred to the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee January 13, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Video Surveillance
South Carolina's H 4675 would create the Community Data Protection and Responsible Surveillance Act. State and local law enforcement could not use surveillance systems (automated license plate readers) that store data on third-party servers or use AI to identify or track vehicles by appearance. Data would be kept at most 21 days and searched only with a warrant. Referred to the House Judiciary Committee January 13, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Election Law - Influence on a Voter's Voting Decision By Use of Fraud - Prohibition
Maryland's SB 361 (2025, third reader text) would have added to the election law ban on influencing a voter's decision by force, threat or bribery a ban on doing so through fraud, with fraud including the use of synthetic media: an image, audio or video recording intentionally created or manipulated with generative AI or other digital technology to create a realistic but false image or recording. Violators would face the existing misdemeanor penalty (up to $5,000, 5 years, or both). It passed the Senate, was amended by the House, and went to conference; the Senate adopted the conference report April 7, 2025 (39-8), but the history shows no House action on it, so it died.
FRAUD-ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Illinois's HB 4988 (104th General Assembly) would add Section 2MMMM to the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The owner, licensee or operator of a generative AI system would have to conspicuously display on its user interface a warning about the limitations of generative AI; each day the warning is not displayed would be a separate violation and an unlawful practice. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee March 27, 2026.
CONSUMER DATA PRIVACY
Illinois's SB 3890 would create the Illinois Data Privacy Protection Act, giving consumers rights to access, correct, delete and port their data, to opt out of targeted advertising, sales and profiling used for decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, and to question the result of such profiling. It would also create a data broker registry and deletion mechanism. Filed February 6, 2026; re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Safe Autonomous Vehicle Act
Illinois's HB 1839 (104th General Assembly) would create the Safe Autonomous Vehicle Act. A motor vehicle manufacturer could start a safe autonomous vehicle project with an Automated Driving System after notifying the Secretary of State and self-certifying under certain conditions. The manufacturer would insure the fleet and assume liability when the system is at fault. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee on March 27, 2026.
Right to Override Act
The federal S. 2997 (Right to Override Act) would require covered entities that employ or engage health care professionals and use AI clinical decision support (AI/CDSS) to adopt an override policy, train staff and run an AI/CDSS committee, and would bar adverse employment action or retaliation for overriding an AI output. HHS would enforce Title I with civil monetary penalties; Labor would enforce Title II with penalties up to $76,987 per violation ($769,870 for repeats), alongside a private right of action. Introduced October 9, 2025 and referred to the Senate HELP Committee; no further action.
Worker data: prohibitions: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 2027 (2025-26 Regular Session) would add Labor Code provisions barring an employer from using a worker's personal information to train an artificial intelligence system to replicate, automate, or replace the worker's job, or from selling or providing that information to a third party for that purpose. Vendors serving employers would face parallel limits and contract terms. Held under submission in Assembly Appropriations on May 14, 2026; not passed before the session ended.
Workplace artificial intelligence tools.
California's AB 1898 (2025-26 Regular Session) would add Labor Code Part 5.9, Artificial Intelligence Transparency at Work. An employer would have to give a worker written notice that a workplace AI tool was used to assist in employment-related decisions or to surveil workers, and keep an updated list of such tools and their impact on jobs, provided to workers annually. Penalties could reach $500 per employee per violation. Held in Assembly Appropriations May 14, 2026; not passed.
AI Chatbots-Licensing, Safety, and Privacy.
SB 963 would require a state license from the North Carolina Department of Justice to operate or distribute any chatbot dealing substantially with health information, with evidence of effectiveness, insurance, encryption, fast breach reporting and annual audits. A Chatbot Safety and Privacy Act would give larger chatbot providers a duty of loyalty: respond to users at risk of harm, prevent emotional dependence, disclose at each new interaction that the chatbot is not human and get consent, deidentify data, and keep sensitive data out of training. Users could sue for $1,000 per violation. Pending in the Senate.
An Act Concerning Online Safety
Public Act 26-15 is Connecticut's main AI statute. AI companion operators must disclose that users are talking to AI, run suicide and self-harm protocols and protect minors (from Jan. 1, 2027). Developers and deployers of automated employment-related decision technology must give notices to workers and applicants, enforced by the Attorney General, and AI use is no defense to discrimination claims (Oct. 1, 2026). It also adds frontier-developer whistleblower protections, provenance duties for large generative AI providers, AI subscription disclosures, a statutory AI definition, the CT AI Academy, an AI working group and state-agency AI inventory and assessment rules.
Artificial Intelligence Companion Chatbots and Minors Act; established, enforcement, civil penalty.
Virginia's SB 796 (2026 Regular Session) would create the Artificial Intelligence Chatbots and Minors Act. Covered entities would have to implement reasonable systems and processes, try to notify emergency services of imminent risk and report covered incidents to the Attorney General. Passed the Senate 39-1; continued to 2027 in the House on March 2, 2026.
Prohibits artificial intelligence companions from using features which are considered unsafe for minors
Passed both houses; awaiting the Governor. S 9051-B would bar operators of AI companions and other generative AI chatbots that give ongoing, adaptive responses from offering 'unsafe AI companion features' to New York users unless approved age-assurance methods show the user is not a minor. Unsafe features include claiming to be human or to feel emotions, claiming a personal or authority relationship, flattery, unprompted emotional questions, recalling personal or health details after 12 hours, encouraging secrecy or isolation, promoting self-harm, and sexual content. Customer-service and internal business bots are exempt. Fines up to $25,000 per violation. If signed, effective Jan. 1, 2027.
Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Act; established, prohibited practices, penalties.
Virginia's HB 635 (2026 Regular Session) would create the Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Act. As introduced, an operator could not offer a companion chatbot in Virginia unless it is incapable of certain specified actions, and would have to show non-human disclosures and have a suicide and self-harm protocol. Continued to 2027 on February 9, 2026.
Chatbot Regulation
South Carolina's H 5138 would enact the Chatbot Protection Act (new Chapter 80 of Title 39). Chatbot providers would need affirmative consent to process personal data, could not use chat logs for advertising, would have to disclose that the user is talking to a chatbot, and would face civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation. Introduced February 10, 2026 and referred to the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
ALGORITHMIC PRICING DISCLOSURE
Illinois's HB 4717 (104th General Assembly) would require an entity that sets prices with personalized algorithmic pricing (dynamic pricing set by an algorithm using personal data) and advertises or offers it using the consumer's personal data to include the disclosure 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA'. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. Referred to the House Rules Committee February 6, 2026.
Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act of 2025
The federal S. 3308 (Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act of 2025) would bar developers and deployers from offering or using a covered algorithm in a way that causes or contributes to disparate impact or otherwise discriminates based on a protected characteristic in consequential actions such as employment, education, housing, health care, credit, insurance and government benefits. It would require independent-auditor evaluations and annual assessments, public disclosures, human alternatives and appeals, with enforcement by the FTC, State attorneys general and private suits. Introduced December 2, 2025 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; no further action.
Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025
The federal H.R. 5511 (Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025) would direct the FTC to issue regulations within 2 years requiring covered entities to assess the impact of covered algorithms before and after deployment and file summary reports. Covered entities include those with over $50,000,000 in average annual gross receipts or $250,000,000 in equity value, or data on over 1,000,000 consumers, households or devices. Violations would be treated as FTC rule violations, and state attorneys general could sue. Introduced September 19, 2025 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee; no further action.
Unleashing AI Innovation in Financial Services Act
The federal S. 2528 (Unleashing AI Innovation in Financial Services Act) would require each federal financial regulatory agency to establish, or identify an office to serve as, an AI Innovation Lab where regulated entities may apply to run AI test projects under an alternative compliance strategy waiving or modifying a regulation. Agencies would have 120 days to decide (extendable by 120 days, after which the application is deemed approved) and must issue rules within 180 days after enactment. Introduced July 29, 2025 and referred to the Senate Banking Committee; no further action.
AI Impersonation Prevention Act of 2025
The federal H.R. 4628 (AI Impersonation Prevention Act of 2025) would amend 18 U.S.C. 912 to make it a crime to knowingly use AI to impersonate an officer or employee of the United States, including by mimicking a federal officer's voice or likeness without an explicit disclaimer, and thereby produce materially false or misleading content. The penalty is a fine or up to three years in prison, or both. Satire, parody and protected expression with a clear disclosure of inauthenticity are not limited. Introduced July 23, 2025 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee; no further action.
Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act
The federal S. 1213 (Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act) would add Section 325 to the Federal Election Campaign Act to bar any person, committee or entity from knowingly distributing materially deceptive AI-generated audio or visual media of a federal candidate, or in carrying out federal election activity, to influence an election or solicit funds. Candidates could sue for injunctions and damages. Introduced March 31, 2025 and referred to the Senate Rules Committee; no further action.
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care
Colorado's HB 26-1139 regulates AI in utilization review. Insurers, PBMs, utilization review organizations, behavioral health administrative services organizations and managed care entities that use it must ensure the AI relies on the individual's clinical information, not solely group data, does not unlawfully discriminate, keeps audit logs and is periodically reviewed, and must disclose their AI use and human oversight to regulators. A medical-necessity denial may not rest solely on AI output without a competent clinician's review and approval. Health plans, Medicaid and CHP+ may not pay for psychotherapy conducted by AI. Signed June 2, 2026 (Chapter 325); effective January 1, 2027.
Unleashing AI Innovation in Financial Services Act
The federal H.R. 9309 (Unleashing AI Innovation in Financial Services Act) would have required each financial regulatory agency to set up a regulatory sandbox where regulated entities could test AI projects with waivers of rules. Agencies would have had 90 days to decide applications, and an undecided application after a 90-day extension would be deemed approved. Introduced August 6, 2024 and referred to the House Financial Services Committee; it died when the 118th Congress ended on January 3, 2025.
Prohibits the use of a facial recognition system by a landlord on any residential premises.
New York's A 322 (2023-2024) would have added Real Property Law § 235-j making it unlawful for any landlord to obtain, retain, access or use, on any residential premises, a facial recognition system or information obtained from one. The Attorney General could seek an injunction, restitution and a civil penalty of up to $10,000; affected people could sue for actual damages or $1,000, whichever is greater, plus attorneys' fees. Referred to the Housing Committee January 4, 2023 and again January 3, 2024; it never passed either chamber and died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.
Requires advertisements to disclose the use of a synthetic performer; imposes a $1,000 civil penalty for a first violation and a $5,000 penalty for any subsequent violation.
New York's A 606-B would have amended General Business Law § 396-b to require a person in the business of dealing in property or services who places a commercial advertisement to conspicuously disclose a synthetic performer in it, where the person has actual knowledge. The civil penalty would have been $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for any subsequent one; advertisements for expressive works such as films and video games were exempt if the use matched the work. Reported and placed on the Assembly third reading calendar in 2025, the enacting clause was stricken January 12, 2026. A Senate version, S1228-C, exists.
Provides that a person may operate a fully autonomous vehicle on the public roads of this state without a human driver provided that the automated driving system is engaged and the vehicle meets certain conditions; defines terms; requires insurance and that such vehicle is registered as a fully…
New York's A 3650 would have added Vehicle and Traffic Law Article 34-E allowing a fully autonomous vehicle (SAE level 4 or 5) to operate on public roads without a human driver when its automated driving system is engaged, if it can reach a minimal risk condition, is registered and titled as fully autonomous, and the operator files a law enforcement interaction plan and proof of insurance. The Department of Motor Vehicles would be the exclusive state regulator. Introduced January 29, 2025; enacting clause stricken February 5, 2025.
Prohibits the use of a facial recognition system by a landlord on any residential premises.
New York's A 6363 would add Real Property Law § 235-k making it unlawful for any landlord to obtain, retain, access or use, on residential premises, any facial recognition system or information obtained from one. The Attorney General could seek an injunction and a civil penalty of not more than $10,000; individuals could sue for actual damages or $1,000, whichever is greater, plus attorneys' fees. Would take effect on the 120th day after it becomes law. Introduced March 4, 2025 and referred to the Housing Committee (again January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
AN ACT relating to autonomous vehicles.
Kentucky's HB 7 (2024 Ky. Acts Ch. 176), enacted over the Governor's veto, sets rules for fully autonomous vehicles in KRS Chapter 186. Vehicles with automated driving systems may operate on public highways if they meet the act's requirements, including a law enforcement interaction plan filed with the Transportation Cabinet and State Police, single-limit liability coverage or self-insurance of at least $1,000,000, and titling and registration. Until July 31, 2026, fully autonomous vehicles over 62,000 pounds must carry a credentialed human driver to monitor and intervene. The Transportation Cabinet is the sole regulator and local governments may not add rules.
AN ACT relating to privacy protection.
Kentucky's HB 45 (2024 session) was a privacy bill covering automated license plate readers (data kept no more than 30 days with exceptions, no sale), drone surveillance, deep fakes, identification devices and tracking devices. The deep fake sections would have given a civil action against anyone who willfully and knowingly disseminated a deep fake without written consent and made certain harmful disclosures a Class D felony. The House passed it 96-0 with a committee substitute on February 28, 2024; in the Senate it was reassigned to Transportation March 7, 2024 and died.
Enacts the "New York artificial intelligence transparency for journalism act"; requires developers of generative artificial intelligence systems or services to post certain information on the developer's website regarding video, audio, text and data from a covered publication used to train the…
New York's A 8595-B, the "New York artificial intelligence transparency for journalism act," would add General Business Law §§ 338 to 338-D. By January 1, 2027, generative AI developers serving New Yorkers would have to post the URLs crawled, a description of covered-publication content used, whether copyright notices were removed and the collection timeframe, and disclose crawler details. A journalism provider could sue for compliance and statutory damages of up to $10,000 per violation. Would take effect immediately. Amended June 9, 2025 and referred to Codes (again January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits political communication containing any photo, video or audio depiction of a candidate created in whole or in part through the use of generative artificial intelligence.
New York's A 9054 (2023-2024 session), the "respect electoral audiovisual legitimacy (REAL) act," would have added subdivision 2-a to Election Law § 14-106 providing that no political communication covered by that section "shall contain any realistic photo, video or audio depiction of a candidate, or person interacting with a candidate, containing original material created in whole or in part through the use of generative artificial intelligence." It defined generative AI and stated no penalty. Introduced February 5, 2024 and referred to the Election Law Committee; it never advanced and died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.
AN ACT relating to the protection of children using the internet.
Kentucky's SB 345 (2024 session) would have required businesses that knowingly process children's personal information to protect children (under 18) online. Before offering new online services likely to be accessed by children, they would have had to complete data protection impact assessments, set default privacy settings to a high level, and not profile children by default where an assessment found unmitigated high risk. Profiling meant automated processing of personal information to evaluate a person. Violations would have been unfair or deceptive practices with Attorney General penalties of up to $2,500 or $7,500 per affected child. Referred to committee March 1, 2024; died.
Requires any political communication, whether made by phone call, email or other message-based communication, that utilizes an artificial intelligence system to engage in human-like conversation with another shall, by reasonable means, apprise the person of the fact that they are communicating with…
New York's A 9103 (2023-2024 session) would have added subdivision 5 to Election Law § 14-106 requiring a political communication made by phone call, email or other message-based communication that uses an artificial intelligence system to engage in human-like conversation with another person to apprise that person, by reasonable means, that they are communicating with an AI system. It defined no terms and stated no penalty. Introduced February 7, 2024 and referred to the Election Law Committee; it never advanced and died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.
Provides for notice requirements where an insurer authorized to write accident and health insurance in this state, a corporation organized pursuant to article forty-three of this chapter, or a health maintenance organization certified pursuant to article forty-four of the public health law uses…
New York's A 9149 (2023-2024 session) would have added Insurance Law § 338. Accident and health insurers, article 43 corporations and certified HMOs would have had to post on their websites whether they use AI-based algorithms in utilization review, submit the algorithms and training data to the Department for bias certification, and ensure a clinical peer reviewer documents review of individual clinical records before an adverse determination. Penalties included fines up to $5,000 per violation ($10,000 if willful) and license action. Introduced February 8, 2024 and referred to the Insurance Committee; it never advanced and died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.
AN ACT relating to autonomous vehicles.
Vetoed. Kentucky's HB 135 (2023) would have let fully autonomous vehicles (SAE level 4 or 5) run on Kentucky highways without a human driver if the system could reach a minimal risk condition after a failure and follow traffic laws. Operators would have filed a law enforcement interaction plan with the Transportation Cabinet and State Police and shown $5 million in liability coverage; the owner would have been the operator under traffic laws, public agencies could not ban the vehicles, and only the lead truck in a platoon would have needed a driver. The Governor vetoed it April 10, 2023.
Requires policing agencies to conduct an inventory of, and develop a publicly-available policy for, any artificial intelligence used to aid criminal investigations.
New York's A 9253-A would add Executive Law § 837-ww requiring policing agencies to publish a public disclosure of each “covered AI” used to aid criminal investigations, at least ninety days before using a new product and within 180 days of the effective date for products already in use. Any use in an investigation would have to be noted in the police report, and the Attorney General would issue a model policy. Introduced November 21, 2025; amended and recommitted to the Codes Committee March 17, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits state agencies and state-owned entities from utilizing large language models or any artificial intelligence systems to make decisions that affect individuals' rights, benefits, or services; requires such decisions to be made by human personnel of the respective state agency or state-owned…
New York's A 10583 would have added State Technology Law § 106-c barring state agencies and state-owned entities from implementing or using large language models or any AI systems to make decisions affecting individuals' rights, benefits or services; such decisions would have had to be made by human personnel. Purely advisory use and AI use for data analysis, research or other non-decision-making purposes was allowed. Referred to Science and Technology June 20, 2024; it died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.
Criminal Procedure – Facial Recognition Technology – Requirements, Procedures, and Prohibitions
Maryland's HB 338 limits police use of facial recognition technology in criminal investigations to listed serious crimes (crimes of violence, human trafficking, child abuse, hate crimes, weapon crimes, stalking and others), bans live or real-time identification, and allows searches only of license, ID and mugshot photos unless an agreement governs another database. A trained person must verify each result before use; results cannot alone establish probable cause or identity and serve as evidence only for warrants and preliminary hearings. Agencies must audit, post policies and report yearly. Signed May 16, 2024 (Chapter 809; identical to SB 182, Chapter 808); effective October 1, 2024.
Criminal Procedure - Facial Recognition Technology - Requirements, Procedures, and Prohibitions
Maryland's SB 182 limits police use of facial recognition technology in criminal investigations to listed serious crimes (crimes of violence, human trafficking, child abuse, hate crimes, weapon crimes, stalking and others), bans live or real-time identification, and allows searches only of license, ID and mugshot photos unless an agreement governs another database. A trained person must verify each result before use; results cannot alone establish probable cause or identity and serve as evidence only for warrants and preliminary hearings. Agencies must audit, post policies and report yearly. Signed May 16, 2024 (Chapter 808; identical to HB 338, Chapter 809); effective October 1, 2024.
Consumer Protection – Online Products and Services – Data of Children (Maryland Kids Code)
Maryland's SB 571 (Kids Code) covers for-profit firms doing business in Maryland that have over $25M revenue, buy, receive, sell or share data of 50,000+ consumers, households or devices yearly, or get at least half their revenue from data sales. For online products reasonably likely to be accessed by under-18s they must do impact assessments (existing ones by April 1, 2026) and set high-privacy defaults. AI-related: no default profiling of children without safeguards and need or a compelling reason; assessments weigh algorithm harms. Fines up to $7,500 per child per violation. Signed May 9, 2024 (Chapter 460; same as HB 603); effective October 1, 2024. Not enjoined; NetChoice suit pending.
Labor and Employment - Use of Facial Recognition Services - Prohibition
Maryland's HB 1202 bars employers from using a facial recognition service to create a facial template (the machine-interpretable pattern of facial features extracted from images) during a job applicant's interview unless the applicant consents by signing a waiver. The waiver must state in plain language the applicant's name, the interview date, that the applicant consents to facial recognition during the interview, and whether the applicant read the waiver. The act itself sets no penalty. Became law without the Governor's signature (Chapter 446, May 8, 2020); effective October 1, 2020.
Vehicle Laws - Autonomous Vehicle Converters - Sale of Autonomous Vehicles
Maryland's 2023 autonomous vehicle converter law creates Transportation Article Subtitle 9. An autonomous vehicle converter alters a new or used vehicle in compliance with federal safety requirements and installs an automated driving system, the hardware and software capable of performing part or all of the dynamic driving task, producing a converted autonomous vehicle. For vehicles intended for commercial or industrial use, a converter may sell, lease or resell converted vehicles notwithstanding dealer and manufacturer licensing laws, and may not be licensed as a manufacturer or dealer. Effective July 1, 2023.
Transportation: other; definition of automated driving systems and automated vehicle roadway; modify and expand.
Michigan's Public Act 179 of 2022 amends the Vehicle Code (MCL 257.2b, 257.642, 257.665 and new 257.665c-665e and 257.666a). It redefines automated driving systems, lets the Department of Transportation designate automated vehicle roadways and lanes, charge user fees and contract with roadway system providers, and makes unauthorized use of those lanes a civil infraction enforceable with system data. It also revises testing rules for automated vehicles, treats an engaged automated driving system as the driver, and allows truck platoons. Effective July 25, 2022.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, relative to the artificial intelligence advisory council.
Tennessee HB 2325 (Public Chapter 988) creates the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council, a 24-member body chaired jointly by the state's chief information officer and the commissioner of finance and administration, with agency heads, the attorney general, legislators and appointed members. It must give the governor an action plan on capturing AI's economic benefits and using AI responsibly in state and local government, with a status report by May 1, 2025, annual reports covering labor-market effects and regulation recommendations, and a final report by December 31, 2028, when the act is repealed. Effective on signing, May 21, 2024.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 12; Title 39; Title 45; Title 47; Title 48; Title 50; Title 55; Title 61; Title 62; Title 65; Title 66; Title 67 and Title 68, relative to artificial intelligence.
Tennessee's HB 1246 (114th General Assembly) would have required the Attorney General and Reporter's office, by July 1, 2026 and using existing resources, to report to legislative committee chairs how many Consumer Protection Act investigations involved AI used to carry out an unfair or deceptive practice, for conduct from January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2025. Companion to SB 1363. It passed second consideration as a caption bill and was held on the House desk pending amendment (February 12, 2025); it died when the session adjourned in April 2026.
Criminal offenses; enhance penalties for certain if artificial intelligence was used in the commission of.
Mississippi's HB 840 (2026) would have allowed enhanced penalties when a trier of fact finds beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant knowingly and intentionally used an artificial intelligence system in committing a designated offense. It would also have amended Section 97-5-33 to cover visual depictions of a child that would appear realistic to a reasonable observer engaging in sexually explicit conduct. It was referred to Judiciary B on January 16, 2026, and died in committee on February 3, 2026.
Prohibits use of algorithm or artificial intelligence to set residential rental amounts and prohibits landlord price fixing of residential rents. Violations constitute a deceptive trade practice and violators are subject to civil suit.
Rhode Island H 8058 (2024), as introduced on March 13, 2024, would add section 34-18-15.1 barring any landlord or person from using an algorithm, commercial computer program or digital technology, including AI, to set or determine residential rent. It would also bar sharing rental information with intent to stabilize rents across owners. Violations would be deceptive trade practices, with civil actions for injunctions, damages and treble damages. The text says it takes effect upon passage.
VEH CD-SAFETY ZONES
Illinois' Public Act 104-0381 (SB 1507) adds subsection (v) to the Vehicle Code's automated speed enforcement section (625 ILCS 5/11-208.8). The University of Illinois Chicago Urban Transportation Center must study North and South DuSable Lake Shore Drive, reviewing Chicago's multi-year crash data, research on how effective AI-powered cameras could be at improving compliance and reducing crashes and deaths, risky driving patterns, psychological deterrence of habitual speeding, and how AI cameras or alternatives could reduce fatalities. The act sets no deadline and does not authorize AI cameras. Approved August 15, 2025; effective January 1, 2026.
Autonomous vehicles; allowing fully automated vehicles to operate on public roads. Effective date.
Oklahoma's SB 1541 (2022) lets fully autonomous vehicles drive on public roads without a human driver when the automated driving system is engaged and the vehicle can reach a minimal risk condition if the system fails, can obey traffic laws and meets federal safety certification. Before driverless operation, the operator must file a law enforcement interaction plan with the Department of Public Safety and prove at least $1 million of insurance or self-insurance. The vehicle must stay at the scene of a crash and the owner must report it. The automated driving system counts as the licensed driver. Effective November 1, 2022.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's SB 640 (2025) would have added a part to HRS chapter 481B making it unlawful in a commercial transaction to use an AI chatbot that may mislead a reasonable person into thinking they are talking to a natural person unless a clear and conspicuous disclosure is given. Violations would be unfair or deceptive acts, with private suits (greater of $1,000 or treble damages), attorney general action and civil penalties up to $5,000,000. The Senate committees CPN and LBT deferred it February 7, 2025; it was carried over to 2026 with no further action and died.
Election Law – Campaign Materials – Disclosure of Use of Synthetic Media
Maryland's HB 872 (2024) would have required candidates, campaign finance entities, certain registrants and their agents to include a disclosure when they distribute campaign material made with or containing synthetic media (an image, audio or video intentionally manipulated with generative AI or other digital technology to create a realistic but false version) to anyone in Maryland. Violations would have been a misdemeanor (up to $1,000, 1 year, or both). A hearing was set for February 27, 2024; it went no further and died when the session ended.
Algorithmic Transparency and Choice Act
The federal H.R. 6253 (Algorithmic Transparency and Choice Act) would require, beginning 1 year after enactment, providers of online platforms that use personalized recommendation systems to give minors under 18 a clear notice of the system, detailed terms-and-conditions disclosures, options to switch to an input-transparent algorithm or limit recommendation categories, and an input-transparent algorithm by default. The FTC would enforce it as a rule violation, and it would preempt State requirements covering the same ground. Introduced November 21, 2025; the Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee forwarded it to the full Energy and Commerce Committee on December 11, 2025.
Regulates use of artificial intelligence enabled video interview in hiring process.
New Jersey's A3911 would require an employer that asks applicants for video interviews and uses AI to analyze them to notify the applicant, explain how the AI works and what characteristics it evaluates, and obtain written consent first. Employers would have to delete interviews within 30 days of a request and report applicants' race and ethnicity data annually to the Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Violations would carry a $500 civil penalty for a first offense and $1,000 for each later one. Introduced February 27, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Artificial Intelligence Risk Evaluation Act of 2025
U.S. Congress's S. 2938, the Artificial Intelligence Risk Evaluation Act of 2025 (119th Congress), would require the Secretary of Energy to establish an Advanced Artificial Intelligence Evaluation Program. Developers of advanced AI systems (trained with more than 10^26 operations) would have to participate and give the Secretary requested materials, and could not deploy such a system in interstate or foreign commerce otherwise, with fines of at least $1,000,000 per day. It was referred to Senate Commerce on September 29, 2025; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held hearings September 30, 2026. It is pending in committee.
Prohibits the use of a facial recognition system by a landlord on any residential premises.
New York's S 2478 (2023-2024) would have added Real Property Law § 235-j making it unlawful for a landlord to obtain, retain, access or use on any residential premises a facial recognition system or information obtained from one. The Attorney General could seek an injunction and a civil penalty of not more than $10,000; affected people could sue for actual damages or $1,000, whichever is greater, plus attorneys' fees. Committed to Rules June 7, 2024 after Judiciary reported it; it died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Artificial Intelligence Task Force; create and prescribe responsibilities of.
Mississippi's SB 2426 created the Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AIR) Task Force: two legislators as co-chairs plus the heads (or designees) of Information Technology Services, the Mississippi AI Network, Homeland Security, the National Guard and the Attorney General's office, with optional nonvoting experts. It drafts proposed revisions to the Mississippi Code on AI, reviews other states' and federal AI laws (privacy, testing, ethics, liability, bias, copyright), and recommends AI uses in state agencies. It reports by December 1 each year and dissolves December 31, 2027. Its meetings and findings are exempt from open meetings and public records laws. Effective March 18, 2025.
Transportation; allow and regulate autonomous vehicles.
Mississippi's SB 2569 (2023), the "Mississippi Fully Autonomous Vehicle Enabling (MS FAVE) Act of 2023," would, per its title, have authorized fully autonomous vehicles (SAE Level 4 or 5) to operate on public roads without a human driver while the automated driving system is engaged and certain conditions are met. This is the Senate-passed version; the House passed it as amended on February 23, 2023, but it died on the calendar on March 10, 2023.
Prohibits the use of biometric surveillance technology by law enforcement; establishes the biometric surveillance regulation task force; and provides for the expiration and repeal of certain provisions
Not law. S 1033 would have barred New York police officers, peace officers and police agencies, including the State Police, from using biometric surveillance systems such as facial recognition, with exceptions such as lawful DNA comparison, fingerprinting and internal security systems. A 12-member task force would have studied the technology's accuracy, effectiveness and harms, especially to vulnerable groups, and recommended whether and how police could use it. The bill was recommitted and its enacting clause stricken on February 21, 2025, which ends it. The Assembly version, A 1045, has its own page.
Online Internet Safety; certain disclosures related to conversational AI services; require
Georgia's AI companion chatbot law (Act 518, effective July 1, 2027). Operators must clearly disclose that users are talking to an AI, at the start and at least every three hours (hourly for minors or minor-directed bots). For known minors they must take reasonable measures to block sexual content, romantic role-play, encouraging secrecy or isolation, and manipulative engagement tactics. Every operator needs a self-harm crisis protocol with referrals such as 988, published in summary with yearly referral counts, plus parental tools and age assurance before any sexually explicit feature. The Attorney General enforces it, with penalties up to $10,000 per knowing violation.
Delivery of professional services preclusion through artificial intelligence directly to consumers
Not law. Minnesota's SF 4927 would have added Minn. Stat. 325F.701, barring the owner of an AI model, or any business or person using one, from letting the model provide a professional service (one the state licenses, certifies or registers) to a consumer unless a credentialed person operates it during the service. A credentialed professional could still use AI as a tool. The attorney general would enforce it under section 8.31. Introduced March 26, 2026 and never left committee.
Prohibits advertising artificial intelligence system as licensed mental health professional.
New Jersey's A799 would bar anyone who develops or deploys an artificial intelligence system in New Jersey from advertising or representing that the system is, or can act as, a licensed mental health professional. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act.
Interim study to examine changes to state law regarding the use of artificial intelligence in political campaigns
Not a law. Nebraska LR412 (2024), introduced by Senator John Cavanaugh, is an interim study resolution that designated the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee to study changes to state law on artificial intelligence in political campaigns, including First Amendment concerns, other states' laws, federal law, enforcement under the Political Accountability and Disclosure Act and civil remedies. The last official action was a hearing notice for September 19, 2024. A resolution does not change the law.
ELECTIONS/CAMPAIGNS: Requires disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence in telephone campaign communications
Louisiana's Act 559 requires a disclosure on campaign phone calls that use an AI-generated voice of a public figure. A telephone or automated call advocating for or against a candidate, elected official or ballot proposition that is created with AI using the voice of a public figure, including an elected official or limited public figure, must say clearly at the start that it was created using AI. Fines are up to $2,500, then $5,000 for later violations; the Board of Ethics enforces. Platforms, service providers and broadcasters aren't liable for others' content. Effective August 1, 2026.
Realigning Mobile Phone Biometrics for American Privacy Protection Act
The federal H.R. 7124 (Realigning Mobile Phone Biometrics for American Privacy Protection Act) would require the Secretary of Homeland Security, within 30 days after enactment, to develop standards and guidelines for DHS and its components that bar use of the Mobile Fortify and Mobile Identify mobile applications (and successors) except for identification at ports of entry, bar sharing them with other agencies, require their removal and remote disabling, and require destruction of images and fingerprints of U.S. citizens. Introduced January 15, 2026; referred to the House Homeland Security Committee and, January 16, to its Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement; no further action.
Requesting The Hawaii State Commission On The Status Of Women, In Collaboration With The Office Of The Legislative Reference Bureau And Department Of The Attorney General, To Establish A Working Group And Provide A Report To The Legislature On Ways To Strengthen Protections For Survivors Of Image-based Sexual Abuse.
Hawaii's Senate Resolution 71 (S.D. 1, 2026) asks the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women, with the Legislative Reference Bureau and the Department of the Attorney General, to form a working group of gender-based violence service providers and survivors to review laws and policies nationwide for ways to protect survivors of image-based sexual abuse that Hawaii could adopt. Its recitals cite AI-generated abuse and sexual deepfakes. A report with any proposed legislation is due 40 days before the 2028 session. Adopted by the Senate April 9, 2026; a resolution of one chamber does not change the law.
Relative to the use of artificial intelligence by state agencies.
New Hampshire's HB 1688 adds RSA chapter 5-D. State agencies may not use AI to classify people in ways that cause unlawful discrimination, use real-time remote biometric identification for public surveillance (except law enforcement with a warrant), or use deepfakes for deceptive or malicious purposes. Irreversible AI decisions need human review, generative AI material not reviewed by a human must be labeled, and users must be told when they interact with AI. Signed July 12, 2024 (Chapter 209); effective July 1, 2024.
Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025
The federal S. 2164 (Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025) would direct the FTC to issue regulations within 2 years requiring covered entities that deploy automated decision systems in critical decisions to assess their impact before and after deployment and file summary reports. Covered entities include those with over $50,000,000 in average annual gross receipts or $250,000,000 in equity value, or data on over 1,000,000 consumers, households or devices. Violations would be treated as FTC rule violations; state attorneys general could sue. Introduced June 25, 2025 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; no further action.
ILLINOIS PRIVACY RIGHTS ACT
Illinois's HB 5581 (103rd General Assembly) would have created the Illinois Privacy Rights Act, giving consumers rights to access, correct, delete and obtain a copy of their personal data and to opt out of targeted advertising, sale, or profiling in furtherance of solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. It would apply only to entities above specified consumer-data thresholds. Died at Session Sine Die on January 7, 2025.
California Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025.
California's SB 295 (2025-26 Regular Session), the California Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025, would have barred a person from distributing, or making recommendations based on, a pricing algorithm to 2 or more competitors, under specified circumstances, if they knew or should have known it processes competitor data, and from using such recommendations. Civil penalty up to $25,000 per violation. The Senate passed it 29-10, but the Assembly refused passage 13-24 on September 13, 2025.
An Act Prohibiting The Creation And Dissemination Of Intimate Images Generated Using Artificial Intelligence And Without Consent.
Connecticut's SB 1143 (2025) was a short proposed bill with no operative text, stating its intent to prohibit the creation and dissemination of AI-generated intimate images without the consent of the person depicted by amending C.G.S. 53a-189c, establish criminal penalties and civil remedies, and define "deepfake technology" and "intimate image". It was referred to the Judiciary Committee on January 23, 2025 and died when the 2025 session ended.
Requires AG to study use of artificial intelligence for certain law enforcement purposes and issue report.
New Jersey's A 5615 would have required the Attorney General to study law enforcement agencies' use of artificial intelligence to generate police reports and report to the Governor and Legislature within six months of the effective date. The report would assess available AI technology, summarize current use statewide and recommend a statewide policy requiring an officer to review any AI-generated report for accuracy and completeness before issuing it. Introduced May 5, 2025 and referred to the Assembly Public Safety and Preparedness Committee; it died in committee when the 2024-2025 session ended.
Requires AG to study law enforcement use of facial recognition technology and issue report with recommendations for Statewide policy.
New Jersey's A5616 would require the Attorney General to study law enforcement use of facial recognition technology and report to the Governor and Legislature within six months of the act's effective date. The report would include recommendations for a Statewide policy. Introduced May 5, 2025. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Prohibits use of facial recognition technology on consumer except for legitimate safety purpose.
New Jersey's S 968 (2024-2025 session, as introduced) would make it an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act for a person selling goods or services at retail, or operating a place of public accommodation, to use a biometric surveillance system (software that performs facial recognition or other remote biometric recognition) on a consumer, except for a legitimate safety purpose. The bill's statement says violations would carry penalties up to $10,000 for a first offense and $20,000 after. Introduced January 9, 2024 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; it died when the 2024-2025 session ended.
Prohibits deepfake pornography and imposes criminal and civil penalties for non-consensual disclosure.
New Jersey's S976 would make it a third-degree crime to disclose deceptive audio or visual media (deepfakes) depicting sexual activity or intimate parts without the person's consent, with a fine of up to $30,000. It would also treat such media depicting a child as child sexual exploitation material with the same penalties as other such items, and give the depicted person a civil action in Superior Court with at least $1,000 liquidated damages per violation. Pre-filed for the 2024 session. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence For The Protection Of Minors.
Hawaii's HB 1782 (H.D. 3, S.D. 2) would add a part to HRS chapter 481B for providers of conversational AI services and AI companion systems. When a provider knows or has reasonable certainty a user is a minor (under 18), it would have to disclose that the user is talking to AI at the start of each session and at least every three hours, and could not knowingly allow certain deceptive or engagement-driving outputs. Violations would carry civil penalties up to $15,000 per violation, per day. As drafted it would take effect January 1, 2077. Each house passed it, but the House disagreed with the Senate amendments and the bill was in conference when the 2026 session ended, so it died.
Prohibits creation or disclosure of deceptive audio or visual media, known as "deepfakes," under certain circumstances.
New Jersey's S2483 would make it a fourth-degree crime to create deceptive audio or visual media (deepfakes) without license or privilege and for an unlawful purpose, and a third-degree crime to disclose such media, knowing or reasonably should know it was unlawfully created, without clearly labeling it. A fine of up to $30,000 may be imposed for disclosure. The person depicted could sue for at least $1,000 in liquidated damages per violation. Introduced February 5, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Use of automated decision systems in employment settings regulation
Not law. Minnesota's SF 4689 (1st engrossment) would have added Minn. Stat. 181.9921 to 181.9927 regulating employers' use of automated decision systems in employment. Employers would have owed workers advance and after-decision written notice, access and correction of data, human review and an appeal, and could not rely solely on such a system or use one to terminate a worker. Penalties would run up to $1,000 or $2,500 per violation, with a private right of action. Effective January 1, 2027 if enacted.
Adopt the Agricultural Data Privacy Act and the Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act
Nebraska's LB 525 creates the Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act, operative July 1, 2027, and an Agricultural Data Privacy Act. Operators of public AI chat services must tell minors they are talking to AI, take reasonable measures to prevent sexual content and claims of being human, sentient or emotionally or romantically attached for minors, offer privacy and parental tools, disclose AI to anyone who could be misled, keep a suicide and self-harm referral protocol, and not claim to provide mental health care. The Attorney General enforces: at least $1,000 per violation, up to $500,000 per operator. Signed April 14, 2026.
Health care plans; to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in determinations of coverage
Alabama's SB 63 (Act 2026-589) limits how health benefit plan providers, including insurers, HMOs and utilization review contractors, use AI in prior authorization. AI-assisted medical necessity determinations must rest on the enrollee's medical history, clinical circumstances presented by the requesting provider and other information in the record, and any denial, delay or modification must be made by a licensed physician or other competent health care professional. Providers must certify their AI annually to the Department of Insurance, disclose its use and review its outcomes. Fines up to $5,000 for repeat violations. Signed April 16, 2026; effective October 1, 2026.
Advanced driver assistance systems.
California's SB 1315 (2025-26 Regular Session), titled 'Advanced driver assistance systems,' would have required the manufacturer of an advanced driver assistance system, or of an automobile equipped with one, to ensure a driver can disable or disengage that system or autonomous technology where manual operation was previously available. The Attorney General, district attorneys or city attorneys could seek civil penalties up to $25,000 per violation. The Senate passed it 38-0 on May 18, 2026; it was placed on the Assembly inactive file on August 30, 2026 and was not passed before the session ended.
AN ACT relating to privacy protection.
Kentucky's HB 58 (2026) makes it unlawful for anyone, including the state and local governments, to use automated license plate readers (ALPRs: high-speed cameras plus data processing that turn vehicle and plate images into computer-readable data) except for listed purposes such as parking, secured-area access, public safety and auto theft, law enforcement, commercial vehicle enforcement and tolls. Captured data generally may not be kept over 90 days or sold or shared, with exceptions for police, insurers and lenders. Violations carry fines of $20 to $2,000, up to one year in jail, or both. Signed April 10, 2026 (Acts Ch. 71).
Relating to public safety; and declaring an emergency.
Oregon's 2026 public safety act (Chapter 77, in effect since it was signed on March 31, 2026) sets statewide rules for police use of automated license plate recognition (ALPR): cameras combined with computer algorithms that read plates and vehicle traits. Police may use ALPR only for listed purposes, must delete data not tied to a case or investigation within 30 days, log every search, publish their policies and their vendors' monthly audits, and may share data with non-Oregon agencies only for a specific law enforcement purpose. Vendors may not use, share or sell the data. The act also changes pretrial release and two state grant programs.
Data Privacy - Consumer Data, Public Records, and Message Switching System (Data Privacy Act)
HB711 prohibits the sale of consumer data to governmental units engaged in civil immigration enforcement unless required by law.
Regulates use of artificial intelligence enabled video interview in hiring process.
New Jersey's S3015 would require an employer that asks applicants for video interviews and uses AI to analyze them to notify the applicant, explain how the AI works and what characteristics it evaluates, and obtain written consent first. Employers would have to delete interviews within 30 days of a request and report applicants' race and ethnicity data annually to the Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Violations would carry a $500 civil penalty for a first offense and $1,000 for each later one. Introduced April 8, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Use of artificial intelligence in psychotherapy services regulated, and civil penalties provided.
Not law. Minnesota's HF 3893 (2nd engrossment) would have added Minn. Stat. 214.165, barring anyone from offering therapy or psychotherapy to the public unless a licensed professional conducts it, and barring licensed professionals from using AI to make independent therapeutic decisions, interact with clients therapeutically, generate unreviewed treatment plans or provide assessments. AI could do only administrative support. Licensing boards could fine up to $50,000 per violation. It was re-referred to Commerce Finance and Policy on April 7, 2026 and went no further.
Prohibits advertising artificial intelligence system as licensed mental health professional.
New Jersey's S4463 would bar anyone who develops or deploys an AI system in New Jersey from advertising or representing to the public that it is, or can act as, a licensed mental health professional. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. Introduced May 19, 2025. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Deepfake Political Advertising Regulation Amendment Act of 2024
The District of Columbia's B25-0832, the Deepfake Political Advertising Regulation Amendment Act of 2024, would have required campaign material containing AI-generated "artificial media" to carry a disclosure statement, barred knowingly distributing artificial media within 90 days of an election, and allowed injunctive relief and Campaign Finance Board civil fines. Introduced June 5, 2024 and referred to committee, it was not enacted and died when Council Period 25 ended.
Limiting the use of automatic registration plate readers, requiring a search warrant for data from an automatic registration plate reader or security camera, and providing a penalty.
Wisconsin's AB 576 would have banned use of automatic registration plate readers (devices that turn plate images into computer-readable data) except by parking facilities, for access control to enclosed non-public areas, and at weigh stations. It would also have barred law enforcement from using data from private security cameras or plate readers without a warrant, except in an emergency involving danger of death or serious injury. Introduced October 24, 2025 and referred to committee; it failed to pass March 23, 2026.
Automated Employment Decision Tools (AEDT) Law
New York City's Local Law 144 of 2021 bars employers and employment agencies from using an automated employment decision tool (AEDT) to screen candidates or employees for hiring or promotion in the city unless an independent auditor did a bias audit of it no more than one year before use and a summary of the results and the tool's distribution date are on their website. City residents must get notice at least 10 business days before use. Fines: up to $500 for a first violation, $500 to $1,500 for each subsequent one. Became law without the Mayor's signature in December 2021; effective January 1, 2023; the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection began enforcing it July 5, 2023.
Prohibits use and sale of algorithmic devices that set sale price of goods or services.
New Jersey's A 4685 (as introduced) would make it unlawful for a business entity to use, sell, distribute, develop, transfer or otherwise make available an algorithmic device, meaning software that uses algorithms on a consumer's personal data to recommend or set the sale price of goods or services. The Attorney General could sue for damages, injunctive relief, restitution and civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation. Introduced March 16, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Consumer Affairs Committee; it has not passed either house.
A bill for an act relating to the licensure of artificial intelligence augmented and autonomous service providers, and including penalties.
Iowa's HSB 766, a House Appropriations study bill, would create a board of autonomous medical practice to license AI augmented and autonomous service providers (AAASPs) that run clinical AI services. A license would be required for fully autonomous AI and for certain advisory and supervised AI. Providers would face patient disclosures, a duty of loyalty, insurance and bond requirements, and civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation per day. A subcommittee recommended passage March 24, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
An Act Regarding Synthetic Media in Campaign Advertising
Maine requires campaign ads that contain 'synthetic media' of a candidate to carry the disclosure 'THIS COMMUNICATION CONTAINS AUDIO, VIDEO AND/OR IMAGES THAT HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED OR ALTERED.' Synthetic media is an image, audio or video of a candidate that deceptively shows them saying or doing something they did not, or is altered to give a materially different impression; clarity edits, captions, satire and parody are excluded. Violations can bring civil penalties of up to 500% of the expenditure, and the Attorney General can seek injunctions. Broadcasters and newspapers are liable only with actual knowledge. Effective July 29, 2026.
Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act
Colorado's SB 24-205 (the Colorado AI Act) covers high-risk AI that makes, or is a substantial factor in making, consequential decisions such as hiring, lending, housing, insurance and health care. Developers and deployers must use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination; deployers need risk programs, impact assessments and notices. Signed May 17, 2024 (Chapter 198). Duties run from June 30, 2026 (SB 25B-004) until SB 26-189 replaces Part 17 on January 1, 2027. Under a stipulated April 27, 2026 order in X. AI LLC v. Weiser (D. Colo.), the Attorney General may not start enforcement over violations through 14 days after a ruling on xAI's planned preliminary-injunction motion.
"Social Media Fairness and Transparency Act"; establishes requirements for social media companies concerning content moderation practices; establishes cause of action against social media companies for violation of content moderation practices.
New Jersey's A4768, the Social Media Fairness and Transparency Act, would require large social media companies to publish their content-moderation standards and the keywords used to censor or prioritize posts, let users opt out of algorithmic post prioritization, and notify users when their content is censored. Violations would be consumer fraud violations, with a private right of action (up to $100,000 in statutory damages per claim). Introduced and referred to the Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on March 19, 2026; it has not passed either house.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29; Title 45; Title 47 and Title 66, relative to algorithmic pricing.
Tennessee's HB1468 (114th General Assembly) would have barred an entity from setting the price of a specific good or service for a consumer in Tennessee using personalized algorithmic pricing, meaning dynamic pricing set by an algorithm that uses personal data. A violation would have been an unfair or deceptive act under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977. Insurers, certain financial institutions and some subscription prices were exempt. Companion: SB 1807. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Sponsor(s) withdrawn. (March 18, 2026).
MS Fully Autonomous Vehicle Enabling Act; extend repealer on law enforcement interaction plan submission to DPS.
Mississippi's SB 2269 keeps in force, until July 1, 2029, the rule that anyone operating a fully autonomous vehicle on public roads without a human driver must first submit a law enforcement interaction plan to the Department of Public Safety. The rule (Code § 63-35-7, from the 2023 MS FAVE Act) was set to be repealed July 1, 2026. The plan covers how to reach a fleet support specialist, how to safely remove and tow the vehicle, and how to tell whether it is in autonomous mode; without one, the Department may order the vehicle off public roads. Approved March 13, 2026 (Chapter 330); effective July 1, 2026.
Companion Artificial Intelligence Chatbots
Not law: died in committee. SB 1344 would have required operators of companion AI chatbots in Florida (bots built mainly to simulate friendship, companionship, emotional or therapeutic conversation) to require user accounts and verify every user's age, freezing existing accounts on July 1, 2026 until verified. Minors would have needed a verified parental account and parental consent and been blocked from bots that suggest sexually explicit communication, and every user would have seen a pop-up at the start and every 60 minutes saying they are not talking to a human. It died in the Senate Commerce and Tourism Committee on March 13, 2026.
Relates to requiring advertisements to disclose the use of synthetic media
Not law. A 216 (2023-2024) would have required anyone advertising goods or services in New York, in any medium, to disclose a synthetic performer in an ad when they knew of it: a digital asset made with generative AI or software to look like a human performer who is not any identifiable real person. Violations would have carried civil penalties of $1,000, then $5,000 for each later one. Its final version, A 216-C, was sent to the Assembly Rules Committee on June 6, 2024 and died when the session ended. A later version, S 8420-A, became law in December 2025.
Enacts the "New York fundamental artificial intelligence requirements in (FAIR) news act"; provides transparency requirements for news media content composed, authored, or otherwise created through generative AI.
New York's FAIR News Act (S 8451-B / A 8962-B) passed both houses in June 2026 but has not been delivered to the Governor, so it is not law. If enacted, news media content (news, weather, traffic, sports or entertainment) published, broadcast or accessible in New York that was substantially composed, authored or otherwise created through generative AI would have to say so conspicuously at the top of the page, image or video, or aloud at the start of audio. Content eligible for copyright registration would be exempt. The Attorney General could seek injunctions; courts could impose $1,000 for a first offense and $5,000 for each later offense. It would take effect 60 days after becoming law.
Concerning the use of facial recognition services.
Washington's Chapter 257, Laws of 2020 (ESSB 6280) governs state and local government use of facial recognition services (chapter 43.386 RCW). Before use, an agency must give notice to its legislative authority and publish an accountability report after public comment and community meetings. Decisions with legal or similarly significant effects require meaningful human review; services must be tested in operational conditions and vendors must allow independent accuracy and bias testing. Ongoing surveillance, real-time identification and persistent tracking need a warrant, exigent circumstances or a court order. The governor vetoed section 10 (a task force). Effective July 1, 2021.
Public Records/Investigations by the Department of Legal Affairs
Florida's SB 4-D (2026 Special Session D) would have made information the Department of Legal Affairs holds about notifications or investigations of violations of the companion chatbot, bot consumer-protection and deidentified-data sections created by SB 2-D (the Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights) confidential and exempt from public records laws. It passed the Senate 33-4 on April 28, 2026 and died in the House Information Technology Budget & Policy Subcommittee on April 29, 2026; it did not become law.
Enacts the preventing algorithmic pricing discrimination act
New York's S 7033 would have enacted the Preventing Algorithmic Pricing Discrimination Act. Anyone who knowingly advertised or published personalized algorithmic pricing based on a person's consumer data would have had to disclose "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA" (new General Business Law § 349-a), and General Business Law § 396 would have barred using protected class data in pricing. The Attorney General could seek penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. The Senate struck the enacting clause on April 15, 2026.
Notice and a transitional employment period required for employees displaced by artificial intelligence, and penalties imposed
Not law. Minnesota's SF 4576 (1st engrossment) would have added Minn. Stat. 181.9937 requiring employers with the equivalent of 50 or more full-time Minnesota employees to give 90 days' written notice before technological displacement by AI or automation affecting 10 or more employees or 10 percent of a unit. Employees would get a 90-day transitional period with continued pay and retraining, with back pay and civil penalties up to $10,000 for willful violations.
Labor and Employment - Automated Employment Decision Tools - Prohibition
Maryland's HB 1255 (2024) would have barred employers from using automated employment decision tools to screen applicants or decide terms of employment unless the tool passed a yearly impact assessment finding no high-risk action, and required employers to notify affected applicants within 30 days of use. Civil penalties would start at up to $500 per violation. An Economic Matters hearing was set for March 6, 2024; it went no further and died when the session ended.
Relates to transparency and safety requirements for developers of artificial intelligence models
New York's S 8828 (Chapter 96 of 2026) is the chapter amendment to the RAISE Act (Chapter 699 of 2025). It repealed and replaced General Business Law Article 44-B and set the effective date at January 1, 2027. Developers of frontier models (over 10^26 training operations) must publish transparency reports when deploying and report critical safety incidents to a Department of Financial Services office within 72 hours. Those with over $500 million in revenue must also publish and follow a frontier AI framework, report internal-use risk assessments, file disclosure statements and pay assessments, and face Attorney General penalties up to $1 million, then $3 million. Signed March 27, 2026.
AI Whistleblower Protection Act
The federal S. 1792 (AI Whistleblower Protection Act) would bar employers from retaliating against employees and independent contractors, including former ones, who report an AI security vulnerability or an AI violation. Victims could file with the Secretary of Labor or sue in district court, and could recover reinstatement and 2 times back pay. Introduced May 15, 2025 and referred to the Senate HELP Committee; no further action.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 12; Title 39; Title 45; Title 47; Title 48; Title 50; Title 55; Title 61; Title 62; Title 65; Title 66; Title 67 and Title 68, relative to artificial intelligence.
Tennessee's SB 1363 (114th General Assembly) would have required the Attorney General and Reporter's office, by July 1, 2026 and using existing resources, to report to legislative committee chairs how many Consumer Protection Act investigations involved AI used to carry out an unfair or deceptive practice, for conduct from January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2025. Companion to HB 1246. Last action March 10, 2026; the bill died when the session adjourned in April 2026.
Defining synthetic media in campaigns for elective office, and providing relief for candidates and campaigns.
Chapter 360, Laws of 2023 addresses election deepfakes. Synthetic media is an image, audio or video of a person's appearance, speech or conduct intentionally manipulated with generative adversarial network techniques or other digital technology to create a realistic but false depiction with a fundamentally different impression than the original. A candidate depicted in synthetic media in an electioneering communication can seek an injunction and sue the sponsor for damages. A set-format disclosure that the media "has been manipulated" is an affirmative defense. The sponsor, not the medium, is liable unless the medium removes the disclosure or alters the content. Now chapter 29B.35 RCW.
Trade: business regulation; availability of companion chatbots to minors; prohibit. Creates new act.
Michigan's SB 760, the 'leading ethical AI development for kids act', would bar operators of advanced chatbots from offering companion-style and other harmful design features unless they know the user is not a minor (under 18), and limit their use of minors' data. The Attorney General could seek a civil fine of $25,000 per violation, and harmed minors could sue. The Senate passed it 20-17 on April 29, 2026 and it was referred to the House Committee on Communications and Technology.
Relating to the use of artificial intelligence in campaign communications; declaring an emergency.
Oregon's SB 1571 requires any campaign communication (one supporting or opposing a clearly identified candidate or measure, at any spending level) that includes synthetic media to carry a disclosure that the image, audio or video has been manipulated. Synthetic media is an individual's image, audio or video intentionally manipulated with AI or similar digital technology into a realistic but false depiction that changes a reasonable person's understanding. The Secretary of State, or the Attorney General for Secretary of State races, may seek injunctions, and courts impose civil penalties up to $10,000. Signed March 27, 2024 (Chapter 62, Oregon Laws 2024); effective on signing.
Customer service chatbots.
California's AB 1609 applies to businesses with over $500 million in national gross annual revenue. They may not represent that a customer service chatbot is human, and must clearly disclose that it is artificially generated if a reasonable person would likely be misled. During regular business hours every customer service platform must let customers request a human agent, and the business must make a good faith effort to connect within 15 minutes or book a call within one business day, with holds of at most 15 minutes (one hour total). Public prosecutors may seek up to $5,000, then $10,000 per violation. Signed September 28, 2026 (Chapter 733); effective January 1, 2027.
Relating to the regulation of autonomous vehicles; creating a criminal offense.
Texas HB 3837 (2025), as introduced, would have created an Autonomous Vehicle Commission and required a permit for autonomous vehicles to operate on Texas highways, with an operating plan for emergency responders, a recording device, insurance, and collision reporting within 48 hours. An owner operating a vehicle in violation would have committed a Class A misdemeanor. It also covered deceptive 'self-driving' advertising. It died in committee when the session adjourned June 2, 2025.
ALGORITHMIC PRICING
Illinois's HB 4544 would create the Preventing Algorithmic Pricing Discrimination Act. Anyone who knowingly advertises personalized algorithmic pricing based on a person's consumer data would have to state that the price was set by an algorithm using the person's personal data, and pricing could not use protected class data to deny or vary offers. Filed January 22, 2026; referred to the House Rules Committee January 30, 2026 (co-sponsor added February 18, 2026); it has not passed either house.
Delivery of professional services through artificial intelligence directly to consumers precluded, and enforcement and penalties provided.
Not law. Minnesota's HF 4979 would have added Minn. Stat. 325F.701, barring the owner of an AI model, or any business or person using one, from letting the model provide a professional service (one the state licenses, certifies or registers) to a consumer unless a credentialed person operates it during the service. A credentialed professional could still use AI as a tool. The attorney general would enforce it under section 8.31. Introduced April 16, 2026 and never left committee.
Relating To Traffic Safety.
Hawaii's HB 1231 (Act 212 of 2025) bars photo red light imaging detector systems and automated speed enforcement systems from using or being equipped with facial recognition software or biometric identification technology. Automated license plate readers and non-biometric technology used to verify vehicle identity or registration or to produce photographic evidence of a violation are exempt. It also requires each county to impose a $5 motor vehicle registration surcharge for the safe routes to school program by December 31, 2025, and revises the mailing rules for speed camera citations. Became Act 212 June 25, 2025; effective on approval.
VEH CD-LICENSE PLATE READERS
Illinois's SB 3320 (103rd General Assembly) would have amended Section 2-130 of the Illinois Vehicle Code on automated license plate readers (ALPR), which use computer algorithms to convert plate images into searchable data. It would have set retention and access limits on ALPR detections held by State law enforcement. Died at Session Sine Die on January 7, 2025.
An act relating to regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of mental health services
Act 156 bars a corporation or other entity from providing, advertising or offering mental health services to the public, including through AI, unless the services are provided by a licensed mental health professional or are part of an approved institutional review board or privacy board study. Professionals may still use HIPAA-compliant AI tools if they review and approve the services, and FDA-authorized digital therapeutics prescribed or recommended by a professional are allowed. Violations by entities are enforced under the Consumer Protection Act, including by private suits. Effective June 17, 2026.
Provides that a person may operate a fully autonomous vehicle on the public roads of this state without a human driver provided that the automated driving system is engaged and the vehicle meets certain conditions; defines terms; requires insurance and that such vehicle is registered as a fully…
New York's S 344-B would add Vehicle and Traffic Law Article 34-E allowing a fully autonomous vehicle (10,000 pounds or less gross weight, with two distinct sensing modalities) to operate without a human driver while its automated driving system is engaged. Operators must file a law enforcement interaction plan with the DMV and show proof of insurance or self-insurance, and the owner is liable for traffic violations while the system is engaged. Amended and recommitted to Transportation May 6, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Health insurance
Not law. S. 920 would have required South Carolina health insurers that use AI, algorithms or other software for prior authorization to base decisions on the patient's own medical history and clinical circumstances, have a licensed physician or other qualified professional make every denial, reduction or deferral, tell enrollees that AI is used, certify yearly that their tools are fair and non-discriminatory, and share denial rates on request, with Department of Insurance enforcement. The Senate Banking and Insurance Committee reported it favorably on April 30, 2026, but it was never taken up before the regular session ended.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SAFETY
Illinois's HB 4705, the Artificial Intelligence Public Safety and Child Protection Transparency Act (as introduced), would require large frontier developers (revenue of at least $500,000,000) and large chatbot providers (revenue of at least $25,000,000, covered chatbots with 1,000,000+ monthly users) to publish a public safety and child protection plan and report safety incidents to the Attorney General within 15 days. Civil penalties up to $1,000,000 or $50,000 per violation. Introduced January 29, 2026; re-referred to Rules March 27, 2026; not passed.
Use of Surveillance Technology by Law Enforcement
Colorado's SB26-071, the Surveillance Accountability and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act, would have set rules for law enforcement surveillance technology, including facial recognition systems, which could be used only after a warrant or in exigent circumstances with an imminent public-safety threat. The requirements would apply from July 1, 2027. The Senate Judiciary Committee postponed it indefinitely 6-1 on May 6, 2026; it is dead.
Prohibit distributing deepfakes under the Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act
Not law. Nebraska LB615, introduced by Senator John Cavanaugh, would have barred distributing a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate or party within 90 days before an election, if the distributor knew or should have known what it was. A disclaimer saying the media was manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence would have made the ban inapplicable, and a depicted candidate could have sought an injunction. Indefinitely postponed April 17, 2026.
Deterring American AI Model Theft Act of 2026
The federal H.R. 8283 (Deterring American AI Model Theft Act of 2026) would direct the Secretary of State to assess model extraction attacks on closed-source American AI models by entities of concern and to keep a public attackers list, and would direct Commerce to consider Entity List additions. It would authorize IEEPA sanctions. Referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee April 15, 2026; ordered reported as amended 43-0 April 22, 2026; no reported text yet; it has not passed the House.
Adopt the Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Act, create a fund, and change provisions relating to records which may be withheld from the public
Not law. Nebraska LB1083, introduced by Senator Storer, would have enacted the Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Act. Large frontier developers (frontier models trained with more than 10^26 operations; revenue of $500 million or more) and large chatbot providers (revenue of $25 million or more) would have had to publish safety and child protection plans; frontier developers would have reported critical safety incidents and large chatbot providers child safety incidents to the Attorney General, with penalties up to $1,000,000 or $50,000 per violation. Placed on General File March 24, 2026; indefinitely postponed April 17, 2026.
AN ACT CONCERNING AUTOMATED DECISION SYSTEMS PROTECTIONS FOR EMPLOYEES.
Connecticut's SB 435 (2026) would have set rules for employers that use automated employment-related decision processes. Deployers would have had to give applicants and employees notices, a statement of reasons for adverse decisions with a chance to correct data and appeal to human review, and an annual independent bias audit; violations of sections 3 to 8 would have been unfair trade practices enforced solely by the Attorney General; aggrieved workers could also have sued. It also covered state-agency AI use. After a Judiciary Committee favorable report, it was tabled for the Senate calendar April 20, 2026 and never voted on; it died when the session adjourned May 6, 2026.
Relates to a prohibition on chatbot toys
This bill would ban manufacturing, distributing or selling 'chatbot toys' in New York, meaning children's toys with an embedded or integrated AI companion. The attorney general could seek injunctions and civil penalties of up to $15,000 per day per violation. The Senate passed it on June 1, 2026 and the Assembly on June 2, 2026. If it becomes law, it would take effect 90 days later and expire after five years.
Adopt the Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act
Not law as a stand-alone bill. Nebraska LB1185 would have enacted the Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act, requiring chatbot operators to disclose they are AI, add protections for minor account holders, and keep a suicide and self-harm protocol, enforced by the Attorney General. LB1185 was indefinitely postponed April 17, 2026, but its provisions were amended into LB525 (AM2444), which the Governor approved April 14, 2026, with the chatbot act operative July 1, 2027.
Relating to the disclosure and use of artificial intelligence.
Texas HB 5496 (2025), as introduced, would have added Chapter 611 to the Business & Commerce Code. A person using AI in conducting business or providing a good or service to a Texas resident, including social media, political advertising or financial services, would have had to maintain AI industry best-practice standards, give individuals a tool to detect AI use, explain how and why an AI decision was reached, and ensure the AI does not show bias or discriminate on any legally protected classification. A violation would have been a deceptive trade practice. No enrolled version exists, so it died June 2, 2025.
AN ACT RELATING TO COMMERCIAL LAW--GENERAL REGULATORY PROVISIONS -- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE COMPANION MODELS
Rhode Island's AI companion law, effective January 1, 2027, applies to operators of AI companions: AI that simulates a sustained human-like relationship by remembering users, asking unprompted emotional questions and keeping up a personal dialogue. Operators must have a protocol for addressing possible suicidal ideation, self-harm or physical harm to others expressed by a user, with a referral to crisis services when detected, and must tell users at the start of an interaction and every three hours that they are not talking to a human. From July 1, 2027 operators file annual reports with the Attorney General, who enforces with penalties up to $15,000 a day. Signed June 22, 2026.
Restricts the use by an employer or an employment agency of electronic monitoring or an automated employment decision tool to screen a candidate or employee for an employment decision unless such tool has been the subject of an impact assessment within the last year; requires notice to employment…
New York's A 9315-B (the "Boundaries on Technology Act") would add Labor Law Article 36 (§§ 1010-1016). An employer with one hundred or more employees could not use an automated employment decision tool unless it had an impact assessment by an impartial auditor within the prior year, repeated annually, with results sent to the Department of Labor for a public registry within 60 days. Employers would have to notify employees and candidates of the tool. Civil penalties would run up to $1,000, $2,000 and $3,000. Amended and recommitted to Ways and Means May 31, 2024; it never passed either chamber and died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.
An act relating to the use of synthetic media in elections
Vermont's S.23 (Act 75) bars publishing, communicating or distributing, within 90 days before a Vermont election, synthetic media the person knows is deceptive and fraudulent unless it states: "This media has been manipulated or generated by digital technology and depicts speech or conduct that did not occur." Synthetic media is image, audio or video of a person created or intentionally manipulated with digital technology, including AI. Knowing and intentional violations: fines up to $1,000; $5,000 with intent to cause violence; $10,000 for a repeat within five years; $15,000 for both. Depicted candidates may seek injunctions. Signed and effective March 5, 2026.
An act relating to regulating developers and deployers of certain automated decision systems
Vermont's H.340 (2025-2026 biennium) would have regulated developers and deployers of automated decision systems used for consequential decisions in areas such as education, employment, housing, health care, financial services and government services. It would have made algorithmic discrimination unlawful, required independent audits and reports to the Attorney General, notices, explanations and human-review appeals for consumers, and a risk management program. It was referred to House Commerce on February 25, 2025 and died when the biennium ended.
Provides that a person may operate a fully autonomous vehicle on the public roads of this state without a human driver provided that the automated driving system is engaged and the vehicle meets certain conditions; defines terms; requires insurance and that such vehicle is registered as a fully…
New York's S 1012-B (2023-2024 session) would have added Vehicle and Traffic Law Article 34-E allowing a person to operate a fully autonomous (SAE level 4 or 5) vehicle on public roads without a human driver while its automated driving system is engaged, subject to conditions, a law enforcement interaction plan, proof of insurance and registration as a fully autonomous vehicle. The state would have governed these vehicles exclusively, with any city of five million or more people able to set local for-hire rules. It was referred to the Transportation Committee and last amended March 1, 2024; it did not pass, and the session ended without action.
Prohibits the use of biometric surveillance technology by law enforcement; establishes the biometric surveillance regulation task force; provides for the expiration and repeal of certain provisions.
New York's S 1609 (2023-2024) would have added Executive Law sections 837-x and 236 prohibiting police agencies, officers, peace officers and State Police members from acquiring, possessing, accessing or using a biometric surveillance system, or information derived from one. Exceptions covered mobile fingerprint scanning, the State DNA index and the statewide fingerprint system. It also created a Task Force on the Regulation of Biometric Surveillance. Reported and committed to Codes May 7, 2024, it died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Establishes criteria for the use of automated employment decision tools; provides for enforcement for violations of such criteria.
New York's S 5641-A (2023-24 session, Sen. Comrie) would have added Labor Law article 20-D on automated employment decision tools (AI that is the controlling factor in a decision to hire, promote or terminate). Deployers and developers would have had to perform annual impact assessments and keep an AI governance program, and deployers to notify affected individuals; the Attorney General could investigate and would give 45 days' notice to cure. Referred to Labor March 10, 2023 and amended and recommitted to Labor January 8, 2024; it died when the session ended.
Maryland Cybersecurity Council - Alterations
Maryland's HB 376 restructures the Maryland Cybersecurity Council and adds AI duties. Working with NIST, other federal agencies, businesses, nonprofits and experts, the Council must assess and address cybersecurity threats and associated risks from AI and quantum computing and address emerging AI threats, including adversarial AI, cyber attacks, deepfakes, unethical use and fraud. The Attorney General no longer chairs it; from October 1, 2025 members elect a chair and vice chair every 2 years. Appointed seats become designated ones, including nine higher education members (at least four with AI and quantum computing expertise). Approved May 20, 2025 (Chapter 627); effective October 1, 2025.
Requires disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence in political communications; directs the state board of elections to create criteria for determining whether a political communication contains an image or video footage created through generative artificial intelligence and to create a…
New York's S 7592-A (2023-2024) would have amended Election Law section 14-106 to require any political communication that uses an image or video generated wholly or partly with artificial intelligence to carry the statement "THIS COMMUNICATION WAS GENERATED USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE", with a fine equal to the amount spent on the communication for failure to disclose. The State Board of Elections would set criteria and a definition. Amended February 26, 2024, it died in Elections when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Requires the collection of oaths of responsible use from users of certain generative or surveillance advanced artificial intelligence systems by the operators of such systems, and transmission of such oaths to the attorney general.
New York's S 8206 (2023-2024) would have added General Business Law section 394-cccc requiring operators of generative or surveillance advanced AI systems accessible to New York residents to require an account and, before account creation, collect from each user an oath under penalty of perjury not to use the system for the four listed harmful purposes. Operators must send each oath to the Attorney General within 30 days. Referred to Internet and Technology January 12, 2024, it died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Consumer Protection - Workgroup on Artificial Intelligence Implementation
Maryland's HB 956 creates the Workgroup on Artificial Intelligence Implementation: legislators, the Attorney General, the Maryland Technology Development Corporation CEO and appointed industry, academic, labor, civil rights, privacy, consumer and cybersecurity representatives. It monitors and makes recommendations on AI, including regulating AI used in decisions that significantly impact people's livelihood and life opportunities, developer and deployer obligations, consumer rights and disclosures, Attorney General enforcement and AI in government benefit decisions, and reports yearly from July 1, 2026. Approved April 22, 2025 (Chapter 105); effective July 1, 2025; ends June 30, 2029.
Enacts the New York artificial intelligence bill of rights to provide residents of the state with rights and protections to ensure that any system making decisions without human intervention impacting their lives do so lawfully, properly, and with meaningful oversight.
New York's S 8209 (2023-2024) would have added State Technology Law Article IV (§§ 401-409), the New York artificial intelligence bill of rights. New York residents would have rights to safe and effective automated systems, protection from algorithmic discrimination, data privacy, notice and explanation, and a human alternative. Operators violating the rights would be liable for a penalty of not less than three times the damages caused, enforced by the Attorney General; there is no private right of action. Referred to Internet and Technology January 12, 2024; it died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
AN ACT RELATING TO COMMERCIAL LAW--GENERAL REGULATORY PROVISIONS -- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE COMPANION MODELS
Rhode Island's AI companion law, effective January 1, 2027, applies to operators of AI companions: AI that simulates a sustained human-like relationship by remembering users, asking unprompted emotional questions and keeping up a personal dialogue. Operators must have a protocol for addressing possible suicidal ideation, self-harm or physical harm to others expressed by a user, with a referral to crisis services when detected, and must tell users at the start of an interaction and every three hours that they are not talking to a human. From July 1, 2027 operators file annual reports with the Attorney General, who enforces with penalties up to $15,000 a day. Signed June 22, 2026.
Provides relative to the use of artificial intelligence in political campaigns
Louisiana's HB 459 (Act 806) bars making an electioneering communication portraying a candidate or an elected official subject to recall that AI was used to create, alter or digitally manipulate so it would falsely appear to a reasonable observer to be an authentic record of their actual speech or conduct and to replace an individual's likeness with theirs, without a clear, understandable disclosure that it was made using AI. A violation intended to injure their reputation or deceive a voter carries a fine up to $2,000, up to two years in prison, or both. Media entities that broadcast paid ads they had no input in or control over are exempt. Signed June 9, 2026; effective August 1, 2026.
Provides relative to unlawful conduct involving images of another person created by artificial intelligence (REF SEE FISC NOTE GF EX)
Louisiana's HB 119 (Act 782), the Ivy Daniels Act, makes it a crime to possess an AI-created video or image of a person under 17 who is nude or has intimate areas exposed, when the possessor knows or has reason to know they are not authorized to have it: up to five years, at least one without parole, probation or suspension. Unlawful dissemination or sale of AI-created images of another now carries up to one year, a fine up to $1,000, or both, or up to five years if the person depicted is under 17. Educators who victimize students may face an additional two years. Public schools must inform students in grade 6 and up and their parents yearly. Signed June 9, 2026; effective August 1, 2026.
Requires the owner, licensee or operator of a generative artificial intelligence system to conspicuously display a warning on the system's user interface that is reasonably calculated to consistently apprise the user that the outputs of the generative artificial intelligence system may be…
New York's S 9450-A (2023-2024) would have added General Business Law § 399-zzzzzz requiring the owner, licensee or operator of a generative AI system to conspicuously display a warning on its user interface that outputs may be inaccurate and/or inappropriate. The penalty would have been the lesser of $25 per user or $100,000, with each calendar year of a continuing violation a separate violation. The Senate passed S 9450-A 61-0 on June 6, 2024; in the Assembly it was substituted for A 10103-B and ordered to third reading on the Rules calendar (cal. 512), but the Assembly never voted on it and it died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
LABOR: Provides relative to the use of automated decision systems with respect to employment decisions (OR INCREASE GF EX See Note)
Louisiana's HB 421 would have regulated employers' use of automated decision systems in employment decisions: written notice to workers at least 30 days before first use, bans on facial, gait and emotion recognition, no sole reliance on an automated system for discipline, termination or deactivation, human review, and worker appeals. Louisiana Works could cite violators ($500 civil penalty) and workers could sue. It was referred to committee March 9, 2026 and died.
California AI Transparency Act.
California's SB 1000 amends the California AI Transparency Act, operative since August 2, 2026. Any producer of a generative AI system publicly accessible in California is now covered (no 1,000,000-user threshold). Providers must offer a free disclosure verification tool (formerly the AI detection tool) and, where technically feasible, embed latent disclosures, now including whether the system created or altered the content, in AI image, video and audio. The manifest-disclosure option is dropped. Assistive-technology systems are exempt until 2029; falsely claiming that status costs $50,000 per violation. Urgency statute signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 861); effective immediately.
Provides relative to the regulation of artificial intelligence (OR +$256,243 GF EX See Note)
Louisiana's HB791, the People's A.I. Act, would have regulated AI chatbot providers: consent before processing personal data or training on chat logs, no selling chat logs, a ban on using chat logs for ads, notices that the user is talking to a chatbot, monthly risk assessments, and treating chatbots as products for liability. The Attorney General or a district attorney could enforce and users could sue. It was referred to House Commerce March 9, 2026 and died.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Creates the Protecting Louisiana's Infrastructure from Artificial Intelligence Risk Act. (1/1/27)
Louisiana's SB 474, the Protecting Louisiana's Infrastructure from Artificial Intelligence Risk Act, would have required developers of frontier AI models (trained with more than 10^26 operations) to publish transparency reports and report critical safety incidents, and would have required large frontier developers (over $500 million annual revenue) to publish a safety framework, obtain audits and certify compliance. The Attorney General could seek up to $1,000,000 per first violation. It passed no chamber: it was returned to the Senate calendar subject to call on April 21, 2026 and died.
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL; AND TO ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL CREATION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL.
Arkansas Act 827 of 2025 makes it a crime to knowingly create or distribute, without consent, realistic deepfake images or video showing an identifiable person nude or engaged in sexual conduct: a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class D felony after that. The Attorney General may sue providers or developers of prompt-based image generation tools used to make such material if they lacked reasonable safeguards, and injured people may sue the tool provider or whoever caused the deepfake, recovering damages and attorney's fees. Approved April 17, 2025; effective August 5, 2025.
Prohibits deepfake pornography and imposes criminal and civil penalties for non-consensual disclosure.
Not law. A 1892 would have made it a crime in New Jersey to disclose sexually explicit deepfakes of a person without consent, with the same penalty as nonconsensual 'revenge porn' (a third-degree crime: 3 to 5 years and up to $15,000), and would have punished deepfakes depicting the sexual abuse of a child like child sexual abuse material. People depicted could also sue for invasion of privacy. The Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee approved it 7-0 on March 4, 2024, but it got no further action before the 2024-2025 session ended. Its Senate twin was S 976.
To implement the recommendations of the special commission on facial recognition technology
Massachusetts H1946 would replace G.L. c. 6, s. 220 to bar law enforcement from using facial recognition and other biometric surveillance except for State Police searches under set conditions (judge-authorized felony warrant, emergency, deceased identification). Referred to the Judiciary Committee February 27, 2025; on October 23, 2025 it accompanied new draft H4640, which was reported favorably and referred to House Ways and Means.
AUTONOMOUS VEH REQUIREMENTS
Illinois's HB 3044 (104th General Assembly) would amend the Illinois Vehicle Code to require manufacturers to file automation documentation and a fee with IDOT before selling or operating an autonomous vehicle. Level 2 vehicles could be sold and registered, Level 3, 4 and 5 vehicles could not be sold or operated, and violations would carry penalties. Re-referred to Rules March 21, 2025.
Artificial Intelligence Modifications
Utah's HB 276 enacts two AI laws. The Digital Voyeurism Prevention Act bars AI image generation services from distributing counterfeit intimate images of a real person without verified consent, requires covered platforms to remove reported images within 48 hours, and lets victims sue, subject to safe harbors. The Digital Content Provenance Standards Act requires large online platforms to show content provenance data and generative AI providers with over 1,000,000 monthly users and capture-device makers (devices made for sale from 2028) to embed latent disclosures; fines up to $2,500 per violation. Signed March 24, 2026; effective January 1, 2027.
Amends existing law to revise a provision regarding video voyeurism and to revise a penalty for disclosing explicit synthetic media.
Idaho's H 727 (2026 Session Laws Chapter 121) amends two sex-crime laws. Video voyeurism (§ 18-6605), a felony, covers disseminating, publishing or selling, or threatening or conspiring to do so, an identifiable person's intimate image to harass or degrade. Disclosing explicit synthetic media (§ 18-6606), meaning images or videos created or altered with AI or other technical means to realistically show a person in sexual conduct or nude, is a misdemeanor but a felony (up to 10 years, $25,000 or both) if the person shown is under 18 or for a repeat offense within five years. Signed March 25, 2026; effective July 1, 2026.
Relating to the regulation of automated motor vehicles; creating a criminal offense.
Revise election laws regarding disclosure requirements for the use of AI in elections
Montana bars people and groups working in an official election capacity from paying for or sponsoring an election or electioneering communication they know, or should know, is a deepfake of a candidate or party on the ballot, within 60 days before voting begins, unless it carries the disclosure 'This (image/audio/video/multimedia) has been significantly edited by artificial intelligence and depicts speech or conduct that falsely appears to be authentic or truthful.' Aggrieved candidates can sue; repeat violations become crimes. News coverage, satire, paid broadcasters and online platforms are exempt. Effective October 1, 2025.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE – Adds to existing law to establish the Conversational AI Safety Act.
Idaho's Conversational AI Safety Act (Idaho Code Title 48, ch. 21) regulates public-facing AI chatbots that simulate human conversation. Operators must disclose that the service is AI when a reasonable person could be misled, adopt a suicide-ideation protocol that refers users to crisis services, and not claim the service provides professional mental health care. For users they know or reasonably believe are minors, operators must show AI disclosures, avoid engagement rewards, block sexually explicit content, and prevent claims of sentience, emotional dependence and romantic role-play. The Attorney General enforces it. Effective July 1, 2027.
Political campaign advertisements; synthetic media, penalty.
Vetoed. Virginia's HB 2479 (2025) would have barred sponsoring an electioneering communication (a paid message naming a candidate, aimed at voters within 60 days of the election) containing synthetic media, meaning deceptively altered or AI-generated images or audio of an identifiable person, unless it conspicuously stated that it contains synthetic media that may present conduct or speech that did not occur. Violations would have carried civil penalties up to $25,000 and, if willful, a Class 1 misdemeanor; voters could have sued to stop the ads. Governor Youngkin vetoed it (March 24, 2025), and the House sustained the veto April 2, 2025.
Commerce and Trade; private entities that employ certain AI systems to guard against discrimination caused by such systems; provide
Georgia's SB 167 would add a new Chapter 16 to Title 10 regulating automated decision systems used for consequential decisions (education, employment, essential government services, financial or lending services, healthcare, housing, insurance and legal services). Developers could not make available a system that results in algorithmic discrimination and would have to provide information to the Attorney General. According to its title, deployers would also have duties, and the Attorney General would enforce. The bill was read and referred on February 13, 2025 and died when the session ended.
Unleashing AI Innovation in Financial Services Act
U.S. Congress's H.R. 4801, the Unleashing AI Innovation in Financial Services Act (119th Congress), would require each federal financial regulatory agency to set up an AI Innovation Lab where regulated financial entities could apply to run AI test projects under waived or modified regulations and an alternative compliance strategy. The Financial Services Committee ordered it reported, as amended, 33-19 on May 13, 2026. It was reported June 24, 2026 and awaits House action.
Consumer Data Privacy Act
Alaska's HB 367 (2026), as the House Judiciary committee substitute CSHB 367(JUD), would have created a consumer data privacy article in AS 45.48 and a data broker registry, amended the social security number laws, and made certain violations unfair or deceptive trade practices. It would have applied to businesses that collected or processed the data of at least 35,000 consumers (or 10,000 consumers with over 20 percent of gross revenue from selling data). It was referred to House Finance on May 12, 2026 and died when the session ended May 20, 2026.
Relating To Algorithmic Discrimination.
Hawaii's SB 59 (2025) would have added an Algorithmic Discrimination chapter. Covered entities (those holding data on more than 25,000 residents, over $15,000,000 in receipts, data brokers, or service providers) could not use algorithmic processes using machine learning, AI or similar techniques to decide eligibility for credit, insurance, education, employment, housing or public accommodations in a discriminatory way, and would owe notices, annual audits and reports. Penalties up to $10,000 per violation, plus private suits. Referred January 16, 2025 and carried over to 2026, it died.
Health insurance
South Carolina's Bill S0920 requires health insurers to consider factors like bias and transparency when using AI, mandates disclosures about AI usage to enrollees, and details disciplinary actions such as fines or license suspensions for violations.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's HB 2137 (Act 247 of 2026) adds a new HRS chapter making it unlawful to knowingly publish a realistic digital imitation (a highly realistic AI-generated depiction, audio or video of a real person's voice, face or likeness in a work they did not perform in) without the person's express written consent if it is used in an advertisement, causes harm, or is used for fraud, defamation, harassment or other crimes. Parody, satire, commentary, news and documentaries are exempt. The person or their estate (up to 10 years after death) may sue for an injunction, up to $25,000 per advertisement or actual damages, punitive damages if malice is proven, and fees. Act 247; effective July 14, 2026.
Consumer Protection Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights.
HR 1177 is a nonbinding North Carolina House resolution urging Congress to preserve the state's authority to regulate harmful uses of AI in consumer protection, to let state agencies keep full investigative and enforcement powers, and to oppose federal moratoria that would stop states from enforcing their laws against AI-enabled fraud and deceptive practices. It was filed April 30, 2026 and referred to the House Rules Committee on May 4, 2026.
Artificial Intelligence and Therapy or Psychotherapy
South Carolina's S 788 (committee-amended text of April 28, 2026) would add Chapter 86 to Title 40. A licensed professional could not use AI for supplementary support in therapy where the session is recorded or transcribed unless the patient is told in writing that AI will be used and why and gives written consent. No one could knowingly and intentionally offer therapy to the public, including through internet-based AI, unless a licensed professional conducts it, and professionals could not let AI make independent therapeutic decisions. Licensing boards would assess civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. It passed the Senate and is in a House committee; not enacted.
An Act to Regulate and Prevent Children's Access to Artificial Intelligence Chatbots with Human-like Features and Social Artificial Intelligence Companions
Not law. Maine's LD 2162 would have regulated AI chatbots and social AI companions offered to minors in Maine. As amended by committee amendment C-A, which both chambers adopted, deployers would have had to keep chatbots' human-like features and social AI companions away from minors starting February 15, 2027, and maintain systems to detect, respond to, report and mitigate situations where a minor indicates an intent to harm themselves or others. The Attorney General could seek civil penalties up to $2,500 per violation ($7,500 if intentional), and minors could sue. The bill died on adjournment April 29, 2026.
Artificial intelligence; definitions; requiring operators make certain disclosure; preventative measures for minor account holders; prohibitions; enforcement authority to Attorney General; civil penalty. Effective date.
Not law. SB 1521 would have required operators of public conversational AI services to tell minor users they are talking to AI, through a constantly visible disclaimer or at the start and every 30 minutes, prevent statements suggesting a human for minor accounts, offer minors no engagement rewards, never present the AI as providing professional mental health care, and refer users expressing suicidal ideation to crisis services. The Attorney General could seek $1,000 per violation, capped at $500,000 per company. The Senate (43-0) and House (90-0) passed different versions, but the Senate never voted on the House amendments, so it died with the session.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence For The Protection Of Minors.
Hawaii's SB 2788 (2026) would have added a part to HRS chapter 28 on conversational AI services and AI companion systems used by minors. Providers would have to disclose to minors that they are AI at the start of each session and at least every three hours; if they know or have reasonable certainty a user is a minor, they could not present as human, encourage dependency, simulate romance or use manipulative engagement tactics. The attorney general could seek up to $15,000 per violation per day; injured persons could sue. It was referred to committees January 30, 2026 and died.
AN ACT CONCERNING THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND OTHER MEANS TO GENERATE DECEPTIVE SYNTHETIC MEDIA AND AFFECT ELECTIONS.
Did not pass. HB 5342 would have barred distributing deceptive synthetic media (AI-altered or fake images, audio or video of a person) within 90 days before a Connecticut election or primary, without the person's consent and with intent to injure a candidate or sway the result, unless it carried a 'manipulated' disclaimer. Violations would have been crimes, from a class C misdemeanor to a class D felony for repeat offenses, and the Attorney General, depicted people and candidates could have sued. It cleared two committees but never got a House vote; the page previously showed it as passed by one chamber.
Campaign finance: advertising; using artificial intelligence in certain political advertisements; require disclosure. Amends sec. 47 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.247) & adds sec. 59. TIE BAR WITH: HB 5143'23
Michigan's HB 5141 (Public Act 263 of 2023) requires whoever creates, originally publishes or originally distributes a qualified political advertisement (a paid ad about a Michigan candidate, election or ballot question with image, audio or video generated in whole or substantially with AI) to state clearly and conspicuously that it was generated in whole or substantially by AI, with size, timing and language rules for print, audio and video. Fines: up to $250 for a first violation, up to $1,000 for each later one. AI-generated political robocalls need a disclaimer. Approved November 30, 2023; effective February 13, 2024.
Restricts the use by an employer or an employment agency of electronic monitoring or an automated employment decision tool to screen a candidate or employee for an employment decision unless such tool has been the subject of an impact assessment within the last year; requires notice to employment…
New York's S 7623-C (2023-2024) would have added Labor Law Article 36, the "Boundaries on Technology Act" (sections 1010 to 1016). Employers with one hundred or more employees could not use an automated employment decision tool unless an impartial party completed an impact assessment no more than one year before use, repeated annually, with results sent to the Department of Labor for a public registry; employers could not rely solely on tool output. Version C dropped the electronic monitoring rules of earlier versions. Amended May 31, 2024, it never passed either chamber and died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Enacts into law major components of legislation necessary to implement the state transportation, economic development and environmental conservation budget for the 2025-2026 state fiscal year; relates to the waterfront commission act; makes amendments to change "applicant" to "licensee or…
New York's 2025-26 budget bill (Chapter 58 of 2025) includes two AI laws. Part U requires operators of AI companions (AI that simulates a sustained human-like relationship) to make reasonable efforts to detect and address suicidal ideation or self-harm and refer users to crisis services such as 988, and to tell users at the start of an interaction and every three hours that they are not talking to a human; the Attorney General can seek up to $15,000 a day (in effect since November 5, 2025). Part X requires businesses using personalized algorithmic pricing to show 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA' (since July 8, 2025).
Senate Substitute for HB 2313 by Committee on Federal and State Affairs - Prohibiting the use of the artificial intelligence platform DeepSeek and other artificial intelligence platforms controlled by a country of concern on state-owned devices and on any state network and the use of genetic sequencers or operational software used for genetic analysis that is produced in a foreign adversary.
Kansas's Senate Substitute for HB 2313 (2025) bars using state-owned or state-issued devices to access DeepSeek or any AI model controlled, directly or indirectly, by a country of concern (China including Hong Kong, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela; Taiwan excluded). State agency networks must block these platforms and agencies must delete existing accounts; law enforcement and cybersecurity investigations are exempt. It also bars state-funded medical and research facilities from using genetic sequencers or analysis software from a foreign adversary. Approved April 8, 2025; it takes effect on its publication in the statute book.
"Prohibition of Exploitation by Deepfakes Act"; enact.
Mississippi's SB 2437 (2025), the "Prohibition of Exploitation by Deepfakes Act," would have made it unlawful to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish intimate visual depictions, including AI-made "morphed images," of identifiable individuals in certain circumstances. Per its title it would also have required covered platforms to run a notice-and-removal process. It was referred to Judiciary, Division B on January 20, 2025, and died in committee on February 4, 2025.
Prohibits advertising artificial intelligence system as licensed mental health professional.
New Jersey's S735 would bar anyone who develops or deploys an artificial intelligence system in New Jersey from advertising or representing that the system is, or can act as, a licensed mental health professional. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act.
Requires retailers to post warning signs of the tracking and collecting of customers biometric data through electronic devices; provides for civil penalties.
New York's S 2539-C would add General Business Law § 390-f. A retailer that tracks customers through a cell phone, store-installed camera or other electronic device would have to conspicuously post a plain-language warning sign at each entrance, and a retailer that collects biometric information would have to post a sign describing what is collected and how it is used. Selling, leasing, trading or sharing biometric information for value would be unlawful. Civil penalties are up to $100 for a first violation. Passed the Senate May 12, 2026 (55-5); on June 1, 2026 the Assembly substituted it for A1558-C and put it on its third-reading calendar. No Assembly vote is shown; not yet law.
Establishes criminal penalties for production or dissemination of deceptive audio or visual media, commonly known as "deepfakes."
New Jersey's A 3540 (P.L.2025, c.40) makes it a third-degree crime for a person, without license or privilege, to create a deepfake (deceptive audio or visual media) to attempt or further any crime or offense, or to solicit, disclose or use one for that purpose; knowingly or recklessly disclosing a deepfake made in violation is a fourth-degree crime. A fine of up to $30,000 may be added, sentences must run consecutively with the underlying offense, and victims may sue for at least $1,000 per knowing or reckless violation. Approved April 2, 2025; effective immediately.
Providing consumer protections for artificial intelligence systems.
Washington's HB 2667 (2026 session), the House companion to SB 6284, would have required deployers of high-risk AI systems used for consequential decisions on education, employment, lending, health care, housing, insurance, legal services and similar matters to guard against algorithmic discrimination. Deployer duties would start July 1, 2027 and consumer notice July 1, 2026; only the Attorney General could enforce. It had a first reading on January 26, 2026, never got a hearing and died at adjournment on March 12.
Enacts the "New York artificial intelligence consumer protection act", in relation to preventing the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to discriminate against protected classes.
New York's A 768, the "New York artificial intelligence consumer protection act," would add General Business Law Article 45-A. Beginning January 1, 2027, developers and deployers of high-risk AI decision systems used in consequential decisions (education, employment, lending, government services, health care, housing, insurance, legal services) would have to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with documentation, impact assessments, consumer notices and appeal rights. Only the Attorney General would enforce it. Referred to Consumer Affairs and Protection January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Consumer Protection - Artificial Intelligence Toys (Artificial Intelligence Toy Safety Act)
Maryland's HB 1261 (2026, the Artificial Intelligence Toy Safety Act, first reader text) would have set rules for toys that use AI and are marketed to or mainly used by children: no sexual, violent or emotionally manipulative content, verified parental consent, limits on child data, pre-sale and annual safety assessments, AI labels, and a civil penalty up to $50,000 per violation plus mandatory recall. It had a House Economic Matters hearing set for March 3, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's Senate Bill 2923 (2026), the Hawaii Artificial Intelligence Safety and Regulation Act, would have created an Office of Artificial Intelligence Safety and Regulation attached to the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs for administrative purposes and barred anyone from deploying AI products in the State without first submitting affirmative proof of safety. The office would have applied a precautionary principle, and violators would have faced civil fines (amount left blank) in actions by the Attorney General or the Office of Consumer Protection. It was referred to committees January 30, 2026 and not enacted.
Establishing limitations on the use of artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence technology to deliver mental health care, with exceptions for administrative support functions
West Virginia's HB 4770 (2026 regular session, committee substitute) would have limited AI in mental health care. AI could assist only with administrative or supplementary support, with patient care, reimbursement or claims decisions not based exclusively on AI; AI could not act as or be marketed as a licensed professional, and licensed professionals could not let AI make independent therapeutic decisions. Violations would have carried civil penalties up to $10,000 each. It passed House Health and Human Resources but died in House Finance when the session ended March 14, 2026.
Consumer Protection - Artificial Intelligence - Behavioral Health Care Prohibitions
Maryland's HB 883 (2026, third reader text) would have barred developers of AI offered to Maryland consumers from representing that the AI is a behavioral health care provider or can provide behavioral health care, and from offering AI specifically programmed or designed to provide a service that would be behavioral health care if a provider delivered it. A violation would be an unfair, abusive or deceptive trade practice under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. It passed the House 110-23 and was referred to Senate Finance, with a hearing set for April 1, 2026, but no further action is recorded and it died when the 2026 session ended.
TRAIN Act Transparency and Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Networks Act
The federal S. 2455 (TRAIN Act) would add 17 U.S.C. 514, letting a copyright owner ask a federal district court clerk to issue a subpoena to the developer of a generative AI model for copies of, or records identifying, the owner's works used to train it, on a sworn declaration of good-faith belief. The developer "shall expeditiously" disclose; failure creates a rebuttable presumption that it copied the work. Bad-faith requests can be sanctioned. Introduced July 24, 2025 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee; no further action.
GUARD Act Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue Act of 2026
The federal S. 3062 (GUARD Act) would require AI chatbot providers to verify that users of AI companions are adults and bar minors from them, require AI and non-professional disclosures, and make it a crime to knowingly or recklessly make publicly available a chatbot that engages minors in sexually explicit conduct or solicits them to suicide, self-injury, violence or homicide (fines up to $250,000 per offense). Reported by the Judiciary Committee with a substitute May 11, 2026 and placed on the Senate calendar (Calendar No. 406); it has not passed either chamber.
Health Insurance - Use of Artificial Intelligence - Human Evaluation
Maryland's HB 1385 (2026, first reader text) would have amended Insurance section 15-10B-05.1 so that audits and compliance reviews of AI, algorithms or software tools used by carriers for utilization review include a human evaluation of the patient's medical records by a licensed health care professional who can question, modify or override the tool's determination, and quarterly performance reviews include a human evaluation of real-world health outcomes. It had a House Health hearing set for March 12, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.
An act relating to regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of mental health services
Vermont's H.644 (2026) would have barred anyone from offering, providing or advertising mental health services in Vermont that use AI in whole or in part, and barred mental health professionals from using AI for therapeutic decisions or communications, treatment plans, or detecting emotions. AI could be used for administrative support and, with written notice and consent, transcription. Violations of the ban would have been Consumer Protection Act violations carrying a $10,000 civil penalty each. Referred to House Health Care January 13, 2026; died. Senate companion S.241 also died.
An act relating to regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of mental health services
Vermont's S.241 (2026) would have barred anyone from offering, providing or advertising mental health services in Vermont that use AI in whole or in part, and barred mental health professionals from using AI for therapeutic decisions or communications, treatment plans, or detecting emotions. AI could be used for administrative support and, with written notice and consent, transcription. Violations of the ban would have been Consumer Protection Act violations carrying a $10,000 civil penalty each. Referred to Senate Health and Welfare January 13, 2026; died. A House companion, H.644, also died.
Artificial intelligence safety and disclosure requirements establishment (RAISE Act)
Not law. Minnesota's SF 4509, the Responsible Artificial Intelligence Safety and Education (RAISE) Act, would have added Minn. Stat. 325M.40 to 325M.42. AI model developers would have had to adopt, publish in redacted form and send to the attorney general a safety and security protocol, not deploy a model creating an unreasonable risk of critical harm, and report safety incidents within 72 hours. Civil penalties would reach $10,000,000, then $30,000,000.
Fostering Access, Innovation, and Responsibility in Artificial Intelligence Act; established.
Virginia's SB 365 (2026 Regular Session) would create the FAIR AI Act. A developer of a base AI model would have to disclose in its terms of service the model's name, developer, incorporation location, release date and other listed items; the disclosure would not be a defense to liability. Continued to 2027 in committee on February 4, 2026.
Employment decisions; automated decision systems, civil penalty.
Virginia's HB 1514 (2026 Regular Session) would have regulated automated decision systems used in employment decisions. State agencies using one as a substantial factor would have had to ensure legal compliance, disclose its use, offer an opt-out, test it annually and train staff, and no employer could make a final employment decision without a human decision maker. It failed: left in House Appropriations Committee on February 18, 2026.
Disclosure of Intimate Images
South Carolina's H. 3058 (Act No. 37 of 2025) creates the crime of unauthorized disclosure of intimate images (S.C. Code §§ 16-15-330, 16-15-332), covering real images and "digitally forged intimate images" made or substantially modified with machine learning or other computer means, even if labeled as fake. Intentionally sharing one without the person's effective consent is a felony if meant to cause harm or for profit (first offense up to $5,000 and/or 5 years; later offenses up to $10,000 and/or 1 to 10 years) and otherwise a misdemeanor for a first offense. Signed May 12, 2025; effective on approval.
Law-enforcement agencies; use of certain technologies & interrogation practices; forensic lab.
Virginia's HB 1257 (2026 Regular Session) would direct the Department of Criminal Justice Services to set a framework for law-enforcement use of generative AI, machine learning systems and audiovisual surveillance technologies and for interrogations, with model policies and training. Continued to 2027 in committee on February 2, 2026.
Creates the Louisiana Artificial Intelligence Insurance Fairness Act (OR +$1,029,533 SG EX See Note)
Louisiana's HB880, the Louisiana Artificial Intelligence Insurance Fairness Act, would have regulated insurers that use algorithmic decision systems in homeowners, commercial property and casualty, auto, health or life insurance: annual independent disparate-impact audits, prohibited variables, human review of claims decisions, AI disclosures, and a right to explanation. Penalties would run up to $250,000 per violation and consumers could sue. It was considered in House Insurance April 23, 2026 and died.
AI Fraud Accountability Act
The federal H.R. 7786 (AI Fraud Accountability Act) would make it a federal crime, in interstate or foreign communications, to pose in a "digital impersonation" (an AI- or software-generated image, video or audio indistinguishable from a real person) with intent to defraud someone of money or anything of value, punishable by a fine and up to 3 years in prison, with a parallel FTC-enforced ban. Introduced March 4, 2026 and referred to House committees; no further action.
No Robot Bosses Act
The federal H.R. 6371 (No Robot Bosses Act) would bar employers from relying exclusively on an automated decision system for an employment-related decision, and from using its output unless it was tested before use and at least annually for discrimination, disclosed to the individual, overseen by a human, explained in writing within 7 days and open to dispute and appeal. Employees could opt out of being managed by such a system. Enforcement would be by the Labor Secretary, private lawsuits and State attorneys general. Introduced December 3, 2025 and referred to three House committees; no further action.
Relating To The Patients' Bill Of Rights.
Hawaii's Senate Bill 3027 (2026), which calls itself the Hawaii Patients' Bill of Rights of 2025, would have set prior authorization deadlines for health carriers (one business day urgent, three non-urgent) and required written disclosure of any automated decision support tool used in utilization review. A board-certified clinician would have had to independently approve any adverse action the tool materially contributed to. It was referred to committee January 30, 2026 and not enacted. It would have taken effect July 1, 2026.
State Emergency Medical Services Board - Public Access Automated External Defibrillator Program - Revisions
HB276 revises the Public Access Automated External Defibrillator Program by establishing AED coordinator requirements, repealing regional council AED committees, and exempting AEDs in certain law enforcement patrol vehicles. It also sets certification qualifications for grocery stores and restaurants.
Facial Recognition Act of 2025
The federal H.R. 4695 (Facial Recognition Act of 2025) would let officers use facial recognition with a reference photo database only under a court order lasting no more than 7 days, or narrow emergency exceptions. It would ban face surveillance and use for immigration enforcement, bar a match as the sole basis for probable cause, require NIST accuracy testing and audits, exclude evidence from violations and allow suits for the greater of profits or $50,000 per violation. Introduced July 23, 2025 and referred to the House Judiciary and Science, Space, and Technology committees; no further action.
Law Enforcement - Use of Facial Recognition Technology - Images Captured in Dwelling Interior
Maryland's HB 756 (2026, first reader text) would have added an exception to Criminal Procedure section 2-503 letting law enforcement use facial recognition technology on still or video images captured by a camera inside a dwelling to investigate arson, burglary and trespass offenses. It had a House Judiciary hearing set for February 24, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.
Acquisition and use of facial recognition technology by government entities prohibited.
Minnesota's HF 3146 would have barred state and local government entities, law enforcement agencies and officials from obtaining, retaining, accessing or using face surveillance systems or their information, or contracting with private entities to do so. Evidence from violations would have been inadmissible, and people could sue for damages of at least $1,000 or $100 per violation, whichever is greater, plus injunctions. Introduced April 7, 2025 and referred to Public Safety Finance and Policy and it never left committee.
To provide accountability in the use of biometric recognition technology and comprehensive enforcement
Massachusetts H96 would add G.L. Chapter 110I regulating biometric recognition technology: covered entities that collect or process biometric data owe duties of loyalty, care and confidentiality, may not sell it, and may not install biometric recognition equipment in places open to the public. Referred to the Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity Committee February 27, 2025; on November 17, 2025 it accompanied new draft H4746, which was referred to House Ways and Means that day.
Fourth Amendment Restoration Act
West Virginia's HB 4682, the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act (2026 regular session), would have barred law enforcement officers, and anyone acting for law enforcement purposes, from using seven listed technologies, including facial recognition, license plate readers and surveillance drones, unless a warrant based on probable cause authorizes use against a specific person. Knowing and willful use would be a felony. It was sent to House Judiciary on January 21, 2026 and died when the session ended March 14, 2026.
Criminal Law - Identity Fraud - Artificial Intelligence and Deepfake Representations
Maryland's Chapter 445 of 2026 adds AI and deepfakes to the state's identity fraud law. Knowingly, willfully and with fraudulent intent using AI or a deepfake (a realistic image, video or audio of an actual, identifiable person) to impersonate, falsely depict or claim to represent someone to cause harm, or to create or distribute false records to cause harm, get personal identifying information or get something of value, is a felony: up to 5 years and $10,000 with one victim, 10 years and $15,000 with two or more. Victims can sue for an injunction and other relief. Effective October 1, 2026.
Artificial intelligence; age verification systems required for chatbots, safeguard protocols required, therapy chatbot requirements established, private right of action and enforcement provided for
Alabama's HB 324, as introduced, would require AI chatbot deployers to verify the age of every user, keep chatbots with human-like features away from minors (under 19) or offer minors a version without them, adopt protocols for users who express intent to harm themselves or others, and limit the data they collect and store. It would allow licensed psychiatrists to prescribe qualifying therapeutic chatbots to minors, with a private right of action and Attorney General enforcement. Referred to House Judiciary January 22, 2026; the bill died when the 2026 regular session ended without final passage.
QUIET Act Quashing Unwanted and Interruptive Electronic Telecommunications Act
The QUIET Act (H.R. 1027) would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require anyone making a robocall or sending a robotext who uses AI to emulate a human being to disclose at the start that AI is being used. It would also double the maximum forfeiture and criminal fine when AI is used to impersonate an individual or entity with intent to defraud, cause harm or wrongfully obtain anything of value. Referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on February 5, 2025; it has not passed either house.
QUIET Act Quashing Unwanted and Interruptive Electronic Telecommunications Act
The federal S. 3354 (QUIET Act) would amend Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 to require anyone making a robocall or robotext who uses AI to emulate a human to disclose at the beginning that AI is being used, and would double the maximum forfeiture and criminal fine for violations in which AI is used to impersonate a person or entity to defraud, cause harm or wrongfully obtain something of value. Referred to the Senate Commerce Committee December 4, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Custodial interrogations; false statements to a child prohibited, inauthentic replica documents.
Virginia's HB 2692 amends Code § 16.1-247.1 to bar law-enforcement officers from knowingly and intentionally making false statements about known material facts, including by using inauthentic replica documents, before or during a custodial interrogation of a child to secure the child's cooperation, confession or conviction. Inauthentic replica documents include computer-generated documents created by any means, including AI. If an officer knowingly violates the rule, the child's statements are inadmissible in a delinquency or criminal proceeding against the child unless the prosecution proves they were made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. Chapter 669; effective July 1, 2025.
Synthetic digital content; definition, penalty, report, effective clause.
Virginia's HB 2124 (2025) would treat AI-made synthetic digital content that realistically but falsely depicts a person as "words" under the insulting-words, defamation-mitigation and criminal slander laws, and make using it for the purpose of a fraud crime a separate Class 1 misdemeanor, with a civil claim for the person depicted. Those changes needed reenactment by the 2026 General Assembly, which did not reenact them, so they are not in the Code of Virginia. The act also had the Attorney General convene a work group, which reported in January 2026. Approved March 24, 2025 (Chapter 398); identical to SB 1053.
Synthetic digital content; definition, penalty, report, effective clause.
Virginia's SB 1053 (2025) would treat AI-made synthetic digital content that realistically but falsely depicts a person as "words" under the insulting-words, defamation-mitigation and criminal slander laws, and make using it for the purpose of a fraud crime a separate Class 1 misdemeanor, with a civil claim for the person depicted. Those changes needed reenactment by the 2026 General Assembly, which did not reenact them, so they are not in the Code of Virginia. The act also had the Attorney General convene a work group, which reported in January 2026. Approved March 24, 2025 (Chapter 407); identical to HB 2124.
VEH CD-ALPR-RECORD RETENTION
Illinois's SB 3257 (104th General Assembly) would amend Section 2-130 of the Illinois Vehicle Code on automated license plate readers (ALPRs), redefining an ALPR as a camera or system using computer algorithms to convert plate images into searchable data. Law enforcement could retain detection records for 5 years, with archiving after 90 days. Last action: re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026.
Child Exploitation Material - Civil and Criminal Actions (Safe Kids Act)
Maryland's SB 989 (2026, the Safe Kids Act, cross-filed with HB 924) would have let a parent or guardian sue an online platform that knowingly and intentionally distributes, or creates or develops, unlawful child exploitation material, and would have amended Criminal Law section 11-208 so a computer-generated image includes one created through the use of artificial intelligence software. The history shows only first reading in Senate Rules on February 18, 2026, and the bill died when the 2026 session ended.
AN ACT relating to campaign practices; requiring certain communications relating to an election that include synthetic media to contain a disclosure; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Nevada AB 73 adds NRS 294A.3493. A campaign communication paid for by a person, candidate or committee that supports or opposes a candidate or party and includes synthetic media (an image, audio or video of a person intentionally manipulated with AI, generative AI or GAN techniques so it looks real but gives a fundamentally different impression) must clearly state "This (image/video/audio) has been manipulated." Video must show it throughout; audio must say it at the start, end and every 2 minutes. A depicted candidate can sue for an injunction. Broadcasters, platforms and satire/parody are exempt. Effective Jan. 1, 2026.
Restricts use of certain artificial intelligence generated communications in election campaigns.
New Jersey's S3702 would restrict AI-generated election campaign communications. Communications created or altered with AI could not be published within 90 days before an election, must carry the label 'Artificial intelligence was used in creating this message', and could not contain AI deceptive media portraying an opposing candidate as demonstrably false, fraudulent or defamatory. A violation would be a fourth-degree crime. Introduced February 24, 2026.
Prohibits advertising generative artificial intelligence as able to practice regulated profession or occupation.
New Jersey's S4088 would bar developers and deployers of generative AI in the State from advertising or representing to the public that the AI is able to practice a profession or occupation regulated under Title 45, by the Judicial Branch or by the Administrative Office of the Courts. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the consumer fraud act. Introduced May 4, 2026.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 33; Title 47 and Title 63, relative to mental health.
Tennessee's HB 1470 was enacted as its Senate companion, SB 1580 (Public Chapter 647): the House substituted SB 1580 for HB 1470 on March 16, 2026. The law adds Tenn. Code § 33-1-205: a person who develops or deploys an artificial intelligence system may not advertise or represent to the public that the system is, or is able to act as, a qualified mental health professional. A violation is an unfair or deceptive act under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, subject to its penalties and remedies, and carries a civil penalty of $5,000 per violation. Signed April 1, 2026 (Public Chapter 647); effective July 1, 2026.
Law Enforcement Usage of Artificial Intelligence
Utah SB 180 (2025) requires each law enforcement agency to have a policy on employees' use of generative AI, covering approved tools, permitted tasks, review of AI output and discipline for violations. A police report or other law enforcement record created wholly or partly with generative AI must carry a disclaimer that it contains AI-generated content, and the author must certify that they read and reviewed it for accuracy. The act defines artificial intelligence and generative AI. Effective May 7, 2025.
An act relating to use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement in cases involving sexual exploitation of children
Vermont's H.195 (Act 17 of 2021) makes a narrow exception to the 2020 moratorium on police facial recognition (Act 166 of 2020, Sec. 14). Law enforcement may use facial recognition technology during a criminal investigation into sexual exploitation of children under 13 V.S.A. chapter 64, but only to search for images, including video, of a victim, potential victim or identified suspect within electronic media legally seized in that investigation. The act took effect on passage; the Governor signed it May 4, 2021.
Requires policing agencies to conduct an inventory of, and develop a publicly-available policy for, any artificial intelligence used to aid criminal investigations.
New York's S 10425 would add Executive Law § 837-ww requiring policing agencies to publish a disclosure for any "covered AI" used to aid criminal investigations, including generative AI used to write police reports, at least 90 days before using a new product. Agencies would have to disclose AI use in filed reports, keep audit trails, and adopt an Attorney General model policy. Referred to Codes May 15, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Provides disparate impact based on automated decision system as cause of action for certain consumers.
New Jersey's S 4279 (as introduced) would bar a covered entity (lender, housing provider, screening company, creditor, servicer, insurer or their agents) from using an automated decision system in housing or credit decisions in a way that results in a disparate impact on a protected class, a violation of the Law Against Discrimination. It would require impact assessments at least every two years, notice and human review on request, and would let the Division on Civil Rights or Attorney General impose fines of at least $5,000 for certain violations. Introduced May 14, 2026 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; not passed.
State-by-State Regulation of AI Enforcement & Penalties
Artificial intelligence regulation is advancing at the state level. This page lists the 815 published bills we track on AI Enforcement & Penalties. State attorneys general, privacy regulators, and legislatures are developing a patchwork of laws that impose different obligations on businesses deploying AI systems related to this topic. Compliance teams and legal counsel must track both enacted laws and the pipeline of pending bills that could shift requirements at any time.
Obligations differ from bill to bill. Depending on the law, they can include consumer disclosure obligations, prohibition on specific high-risk uses, mandatory algorithmic impact assessments, bias audits, rights to explanation, and human override requirements. Penalties for non-compliance vary by state — use our Penalty Tracker to review enforcement provisions. For upcoming effective dates, see the Deadlines page.
To understand how AI Enforcement & Penalties laws intersect with specific industries, browse our Healthcare, Employment, Insurance, and Financial Services industry trackers. Compare how different state laws approach this topic using our Bill Comparator.