AI hiring laws regulate the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions — from resume screening and video interview analysis to automated candidate scoring. States like Illinois and New York City have pioneered regulation requiring bias audits, candidate notification, and consent before AI is used in hiring.
The regulatory trend is accelerating: multiple states now require employers to disclose AI use in hiring, obtain candidate consent, conduct annual bias audits of automated employment decision tools (AEDTs), and provide opt-out mechanisms. Penalties for non-compliance range from per-violation fines to private rights of action.
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.
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.
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.
Creates a temporary state commission to study and investigate how to regulate artificial intelligence, robotics and automation; repeals such commission.
New York's S 8138-A (2023-2024) would have created a temporary state commission to study and investigate how to regulate artificial intelligence, robotics and automation. Fourteen members would study subjects such as current law, civil and criminal liability, employment and public-sector uses and issue a final report, with the act expiring December 31, 2025. The Senate passed it 59-0 on May 8, 2024, but it stalled in the Assembly and died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
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.
Election Law - Actions to Influence an Election - Social Media Platform Algorithms and Bots Purchased by Foreign Nationals
Maryland's SB 697 (2026, third reader text) would have added Election Law section 13-251 presuming a social media platform made an independent expenditure if it knowingly and purposely changed its algorithm, without a legitimate business purpose or standard editorial policy, to amplify political content benefiting a clearly identified candidate. It would also have barred foreign nationals from using bots to spread campaign material or amplify political content. It passed the Senate 45-0, was referred to a House committee, 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.
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 Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's House Bill 1384 (2025), as amended in HD 1, would have created a Hawaii Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council within the Department of Accounting and General Services to recommend an action plan and advise the Legislature on AI. It would have required an interim report by December 31, 2026 and a final report and action plan by December 31, 2027, when the council would be repealed. It passed House second reading February 10, 2025, was carried over to 2026 and was not enacted. The text stated a July 1, 3000 effective date.
Use of automated decision systems in employment settings regulated.
Minnesota's HF 4445 would have required employers to give workers written notice before using an automated decision system (ADS) for employment-related decisions, with consent, human review, post-decision notice, appeal and records rules, enforced by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry and by private suits. It would have banned using ADS for facial, gait or emotion recognition. Introduced March 18, 2026 and never left committee.
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.
Mandatory Human Reviews of Insurance Claim Denials
Not law: passed the House but died in the Senate when the session ended. Florida's CS/CS/HB 527 (2026) would have let workers' compensation carriers, insurers and HMOs use AI to help process claims but barred AI from being the sole basis for denying or reducing a claim; a qualified human professional would have had to review the facts independently and decide, keep records, and tell claimants in writing. The House passed it 108-0 on March 5, 2026; it died in Senate Rules on March 13, 2026.
Delivery of Commercial Goods by Autonomous Vehicles
Not law: died in committee. Florida's SB 1258 would have added s. 316.85(6), F.S., providing that an autonomous vehicle may not be used to deliver commercial goods directly to a residence or business for use or retail sale unless a licensed human operator is physically present in the vehicle. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles would have had to report to the Legislature, after consulting the Highway Patrol, Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation and independent experts. It died in Transportation on March 13, 2026.
AN ACT relating to technology in education and declaring an emergency.
Kentucky's SB 52 (2024 session) would have created the Artificial Intelligence in Kentucky's Schools project under the Department of Education and an Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education project under the Council on Postsecondary Education. It would have required AI guidelines by July 1, 2024, AI training for certified school employees and school board and council members starting in 2024-2025, district AI policies by August 1, 2024, and annual district and institution reports by June 30. Referred to Senate Education January 3, 2024; died.
An act relating to automated employment decision making and State employees
Vermont's H.714 (2026) would have added 3 V.S.A. 269 requiring each State agency using an automated employment decision-making tool, software using algorithms, computational models or AI to materially automate or replace human decisions on hiring, wages, discipline or promotion, to publish a list of the tools on its website. Tool use could not displace employees, impair collective bargaining agreements or transfer existing duties to a tool. A nine-member study committee would have reported by December 15, 2028. Referred to committee January 16, 2026; died.
Protecting state and local government systems and data from foreign entities
West Virginia's SB 70 (2026 regular session) would have created the Data Protection Act (new W. Va. Code art. 5-34). State agency officials, employees and contractors would have had to block, on state-owned or state-leased internet-capable devices, social media platforms owned by entities in a foreign country of concern, and could not use applications, software or AI algorithms owned by entities located in such a country. Senate Government Organization reported it do pass on February 6, 2026 and sent it to Judiciary, where it died when the session ended March 14, 2026.
Protecting state and local government systems and data from foreign entities
West Virginia's SB 694 (2025 regular session) would have created the Data Protection Act (new W. Va. Code art. 5-32). State agency officials, employees and contractors would have had to block, on state-owned or state-leased internet-capable devices, social media platforms owned by entities in a foreign country of concern, and could not use applications, software or AI algorithms owned by entities located in such a country. It was reported do pass but first to Judiciary on March 11, 2025 and went no further.
Prohibiting the use of deep fake technology to influence an election
West Virginia's HB 4963 (2024 regular session, committee substitute) would have added Article 3F to Chapter 61 barring anyone from disseminating a deep fake, or agreeing to, within 90 days before an election, knowing or reasonably should know it is a deep fake, without the depicted person's consent and with intent to injure a candidate or influence the result. Maximum prison terms would range from 90 days to 5 years. It passed the House on February 27, 2024 and died in Senate Judiciary.
To create an AI Task Force
West Virginia's HB 5490 (2024 regular session) would have created a Generative AI and Natural Language Processing Task Force (new W. Va. Code 5A-6-9) set up by the Governor's Office, to meet at least quarterly and report to the Governor and the Legislature by July 1, 2025. It would recommend consumer-information protections, school policies on student use of generative AI, public-service uses, civil-liberties protections, workforce effects and cybersecurity. It was sent to House Artificial Intelligence on February 6, 2024 and went no further.
Relating to artificial intelligence training programs for certain employees and officials of state agencies and local governments.
Texas's HB 3512 adds AI training to the state's annual cybersecurity training requirement. At least once a year, state agency employees who use a computer for at least 25% of their duties, and each elected or appointed agency officer, must complete an AI training program certified by the Department of Information Resources (DIR), as must local government employees and officials who have access to a local government computer system or database and use a computer for at least 25% of their duties. DIR must certify at least five programs each year, equal in length to the cybersecurity courses. Signed June 20, 2025; effective September 1, 2025.
Establishing protections for consumers interacting with artificial intelligence chatbots
Massachusetts S264 would add G.L. Chapter 93M requiring any commercial entity that deploys a chatbot to clearly and conspicuously disclose that the user is dealing with a chatbot and not a human, and making chatbot statements legally equivalent to those of an employee or agent. Reported favorably and referred to Senate Ways and Means December 18, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
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.
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.
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.
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 a study on employer and state agency use of automated employment decision tools in assessing an applicant's suitability for a position.
Texas HB 5118 (2025), as reported by the House committee (committee substitute), would have required the Texas Workforce Commission, with help from the Department of Information Resources, to study the use of AI systems and automated employment decision tools in hiring by employers, including state agencies. A report to the governor, lieutenant governor, House speaker and relevant committee chairs was due by November 15, 2026, and the Act would have expired September 1, 2027. No enrolled version exists, so the bill died when the regular session adjourned June 2, 2025.
Relating to prohibiting the use of certain political advertising manipulated by generative artificial intelligence technology; creating a criminal offense.
Texas SB 228 (2025), as introduced, would have added Election Code Sec. 255.009 making it a Class B misdemeanor to cause political advertising to be published, distributed or broadcast when it includes an image, audio or video of an officeholder's or candidate's appearance, speech or conduct intentionally manipulated using generative AI to create a realistic but false depiction. The bill has no pre-election window, disclosure safe harbor, exemptions or definitions. No enrolled version exists, so it died June 2, 2025.
Relating to the use of an automated employment decision tool by a state agency to assess a job applicant's fitness for a position.
Texas SB 2473 (2025), as introduced, would have added Government Code Subchapter E to Chapter 656 limiting how state agencies use automated employment decision tools to assess job applicants. An agency could not use a tool unless it notified the applicant and gave information on how it would be used and what characteristics may be evaluated, and it would have had to mitigate bias so the tool does not discriminate against protected classes. No penalties are stated. 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.
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the use of artificial intelligence in the financial services and housing industries.
A nonbinding House resolution stating that the House Financial Services Committee should lead policymaking on AI in the financial services and housing industries. It says the committee should promote a pro-consumer, pro-investor and pro-innovation culture, ensure regulators enforce existing laws including anti-discrimination laws, avoid rules that disproportionately burden smaller firms, consider reforms to financial privacy laws, strengthen AI cybersecurity standards and study AI's effect on the workforce. Financial Services approved it 54-0 on January 22, 2026 and reported it, as amended, on March 19, 2026.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Artificial intelligence; Responsible Deployment of AI Systems Act; AI Council; AI Regulatory Sandbox Program; Artificial Intelligence Workforce Development Program; effective date.
Oklahoma's HB 1916 (2025-26), as introduced, would have created the Responsible Deployment of AI Systems Act, covering public agencies and private entities that deploy AI systems affecting people in Oklahoma. Deployers would classify AI systems by risk (unacceptable, high, limited, minimal), assess them, and subject high-risk systems to oversight, notices and audits. It was referred to the Rules Committee on February 4, 2025 and died when the 2026 session ended May 14, 2026.
MS Artifical Intelligence and Stem Eduaction Act; create.
Mississippi's HB 1605 (2026), the Mississippi Artificial Intelligence and STEM Education Innovation Act, would authorize the Department of Education to set up a voluntary pilot program letting local education agencies use AI-assisted learning tools in STEM subjects in grades 6 through 12. Tools would have to comply with FERPA and state student data privacy laws, student data could not be sold or shared, and AI tools could not be used for teacher evaluation or employment decisions. It died in committee on February 3, 2026.
Election crime; create for dissemination of a deep fake within 90 days of an election.
Mississippi's HB 1689 (2024), as passed the House, would make it a crime to disseminate a deep fake that the person knows or has reason to know is a deep fake, within 90 days of an election, without the depicted individual's consent and with intent to injure a candidate, influence the result or deter anyone from voting. Penalties run up to one year and $5,000, or up to five years and $10,000 in aggravated cases. It passed the House on March 12, 2024 and died on the Senate calendar on April 10, 2024.
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.
Artificial intelligence disclosure statements.
North Dakota requires a disclaimer on political content made with AI to impersonate a person. Any communication or advertising for a political purpose (supporting or opposing a candidate, political committee or party, or an initiated or referred measure or petition) that contains images, graphics, video, audio, text or other digital content created in whole or in part with AI to visually or audibly impersonate a human must prominently state: 'THIS CONTENT GENERATED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.' AI used only for text generation, grammar, spelling or editing that creates no new impersonation is exempt. Signed April 10, 2025; effective August 1, 2025.
Autonomous vehicles; work group to conduct an assessment of workforce impacts, etc.
Virginia's HB 1124 directs the autonomous-vehicle work group convened by the Secretary of Transportation (with the Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security) under Chapter 498 of 2025 to assess the workforce impacts of autonomous vehicles, including an overview of job losses and gains. The group must include stakeholders from the auto manufacturing industry and labor representatives from the passenger and product carrier business, and complete its assessment of labor impacts by November 1, 2026. Approved April 13, 2026 (Chapter 738); effective July 1, 2026.
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).
Enacts the legislative oversight of automated decision-making in government act (LOADinG Act) to regulate the use of automated decision-making systems and artificial intelligence techniques by state agencies.
New York's S 7543-B, the LOADinG Act (Chapter 674 of 2024), as signed would have barred state agencies from using automated decision-making systems for public benefits or decisions affecting rights or safety without meaningful human review, and required impact assessments. Before those rules took effect, Chapter 96 of 2025 replaced them: each state agency using automated employment decision-making tools must post a list of them by December 30 each year, starting 2025; the Office of Information Technology Services keeps a public AI inventory; and, until July 1, 2028, AI use may not displace state employees. Signed December 21, 2024; effective July 1, 2025.
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).
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.
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.
Department of Technology: high-risk automated decision systems: inventory.
California's AB 302 required the Department of Technology, by September 1, 2024, to inventory every high-risk automated decision system that state agencies use, develop or procure, or have proposed to, and to report it to two legislative committees by January 1, 2025 and annually after that; the reporting duty becomes inoperative January 1, 2029. High-risk systems assist or replace human decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, such as access to housing, education, employment, credit, health care and criminal justice. It applies only to state agencies. Signed October 13, 2023 (Chapter 800); effective January 1, 2024.
Public employment: local public transit agencies: autonomous transit vehicle technology.
Vetoed. California's AB 2441 (2022) would have required local public transit employers to give the affected workforce's exclusive employee representative written notice at least 12 months before starting any procurement process or plan to acquire or deploy autonomous transit vehicle technology that eliminates job functions or jobs. On request, they would have had to provide an analysis of the effects on workers, skill gaps and training budgets, then bargain over the technology, a transition plan and retraining. Governor Newsom vetoed it September 29, 2022. A 10-month-notice version, AB 96, was enacted in 2023 (Chapter 419).
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.
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.
VIDEO INTERVIEW ACT
Illinois' Public Act 101-0260 (HB 2557) creates the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act. Employers that ask applicants to record video interviews and use AI analysis of them for Illinois-based positions must, before the interview, tell each applicant AI may be used to analyze it, explain how the AI works and what general types of characteristics it uses, and get the applicant's consent. Employers may not use AI to evaluate applicants who have not consented, may share videos only with those needed to evaluate the applicant, and must delete videos within 30 days of an applicant's request. Approved August 9, 2019; effective January 1, 2020.
Regulates automated decision-making by government agencies; requires agencies to conduct impact assessments; requires disclosure of automated decision-making tools utilized by governmental agencies.
New York's S 7599-C (Chapter 711 of 2025) added State Technology Law Article 5, under which agencies would have listed automated decision-making tools and done bias-tested impact assessments from December 19, 2026. Chapter 86 of 2026 repealed Article 5, which had not yet taken effect, and the § 103-f state tool inventory. Now in force: public employers' use of AI systems may not displace employees or impair collective bargaining, and (added by Chapter 86) local governments, school districts, BOCES, SUNY, CUNY and community colleges must, where feasible, list automated employment decision tools yearly from December 30, 2026. Signed December 19, 2025; expires July 1, 2028.
Provides for the use of automated employment decision-making tools and artificial intelligence systems by a county, city, town, village, school district, board of cooperative educational services, county vocational education and extension board, district corporation, the state university of New…
New York's S 8831 (Chapter 86 of 2026) is the chapter amendment to Chapter 711 of 2025. It repealed Chapter 711's State Technology Law Article 5 (impact assessments, bias testing and public lists of government automated decision-making tools, set to start December 19, 2026), its state tool inventory and its report to the Legislature. Instead, local governments, school districts, BOCES, SUNY, CUNY and community colleges must, to the extent feasible, post yearly lists of automated employment decision tools, first by December 30, 2026, and public employers may not use AI systems to displace employees. Signed February 13, 2026, with effect from December 19, 2025; the rules expire July 1, 2028.
Creates a temporary state commission to study and investigate how to regulate artificial intelligence, robotics and automation; repeals such commission.
Vetoed. New York's A 4969 would have created a temporary New York State Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation Commission of 13 unpaid members to study state law on AI, robotics and automation, other states' regulatory approaches, criminal and civil liability, effects on employment and on confidential information, limits on use in weaponry, the impact of regulation on the technology industry, and public sector uses. Its final report would have been due no later than 30 days before the act's December 31, 2024 expiration date. The text matched Chapter 110 of 2019 except for that date. Passed both houses in 2023; vetoed by the Governor November 17, 2023 (Veto Memo 51).
Creates a temporary state commission to study and investigate how to regulate artificial intelligence, robotics and automation; and repeals such commission.
New York's Chapter 110 of 2019 (S 3971-B) created the New York State Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation Commission, a temporary state commission to study how to regulate AI, robotics and automation, including current state law, other states' approaches, civil and criminal liability, employment, confidential information, weaponry, the technology industry and public sector uses. It provided for 13 unpaid members appointed by the Governor, legislative leaders and the SUNY and CUNY chancellors, with a final report due no later than 30 days before the act expired. The act expired and was deemed repealed December 31, 2020. Signed July 24, 2019 (Chapter 110); effective immediately.
An Act Establishing A Task Force To Study The Effects Of Artificial Intelligence On The Trades Industry.
Connecticut's HB 5497 (2026), in the committee substitute text (File No. 433), would establish a task force to study the effects of artificial intelligence on the trades industry, including job displacement and the Technical Education and Career System's AI coursework, with a report due by January 1, 2027. The House passed it as amended by House Amendment Schedule A on May 6, 2026; it was tabled on the Senate calendar and died when the 2026 session ended May 6, 2026.
Creating the Kansas task force on artificial intelligence and emerging technologies to study such technologies and make recommendations to the legislature.
Not law. Kansas HB 2592 would have created the Kansas task force on artificial intelligence and emerging technologies: six legislators as voting members and five nonvoting members, appointed by August 1, 2026. It would have studied the impacts, risks, workforce effects and regulatory needs of AI, AI use in state and local government, and AI in public education, with written reports due December 31, 2026 and each December 30 after, and would have expired January 1, 2028. It had a House Legislative Modernization hearing February 9, 2026 and died in committee April 10, 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.
AI Workforce PREPARE Act AI Workforce Projections, Research, and Evaluations to Promote AI Readiness and Employment Act
The federal S. 3339 (AI Workforce PREPARE Act) would have the Labor and Commerce departments gather data and forecasts on AI's effect on jobs, including an AI Workforce Research Hub, forecasts for at least 15 AI-sensitive occupations, AI questions in federal surveys and a voluntary program for AI developers and deployers to share adoption data. If AI was a substantial factor in a mass layoff, the WARN Act notice would have to say so, for notices issued from 1 year after enactment. Authorizations total $53,500,000 over FY2026-2030. Introduced December 3, 2025 and referred to the Senate HELP Committee; no further action.
ICE Out of Our Faces Act
The federal S. 3779 (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 Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; no further action.
HEALTH AI Act Healthcare Enhancement And Learning Through Harnessing Artificial Intelligence Act
The federal H.R. 5045 (HEALTH AI Act) would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a grant program for research on the use of generative AI in health care. Grants would go to universities, 501(c)(3) nonprofits and federal, State, local or Tribal agencies, with priority for entities that encourage adoption, invest in workforce development, reduce burnout or health disparities, or serve underserved populations. Introduced August 26, 2025 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee; no further action.
Elections: Voter Reg./legal Fund/comms
Alaska's HB 129 (2023-24) was a broad elections bill; its Senate version, SCS CSHB 129(FIN) am S, would have changed voter registration list maintenance and, per its title, addressed candidate legal funds, absentee and special needs voting, defamation claims based on synthetic media, and synthetic media in electioneering communications. The House passed it 33-6 on February 2, 2024 and the Senate passed its version 14-6 on May 15, 2024. It was never enacted and died when the 33rd Legislature's 2023-24 session ended.
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.
"Mississippi Human Capital Supplemental Tax Act"; create.
Mississippi's HB 1810 (2026), the Mississippi Human Capital Supplemental Tax Act, would levy an annual tax on employers with 50 or more employees that implement AI systems resulting in 'AI displacement' of workers: $5,000 per displaced position for the first 10, $7,500 for positions 11-50 and $10,000 for 51 and above, phased in at 50% and 75% in years one and two. Revenue would fund a workforce transition fund. It died in committee on February 25, 2026.
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.
California State University: faculty employees.
California's SB 928 (Education Code § 89500.3) requires the instructor of record for a California State University course to be a person who meets the trustees' rules for faculty teaching credit or noncredit instruction, and every CSU faculty employee, from professors and lecturers to librarians, counselors and coaches, to be a person meeting the trustees' rules for that position. AI appears in one clause: the section does not prohibit CSU employees from using artificial intelligence tools to assist CSU operations or to serve students. Signed August 27, 2026 (Chapter 149); effective January 1, 2027.
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.
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).
EMPLOYMENT-TECH
Illinois's SB 2704 (101st General Assembly) would have amended the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (820 ILCS 42/1) only to make a technical change in the short title Section. It passed the Senate Executive Committee 16-0-0 on February 19, 2020 but was not passed by the Senate, and died at Session Sine Die on January 13, 2021.
EMPLOYMENT-TECH
Illinois's SB 2855 (101st General Assembly) would have made a technical change to Section 1 (short title) of the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (820 ILCS 42/1). Filed February 4, 2020 and referred to the Senate Committee on Assignments; it never advanced and died when the session ended with Session Sine Die on January 13, 2021.
Creates standards for independent bias auditing of automated employment decision tools.
New Jersey's A3855, as introduced, would bar an employer or employment agency from using an automated employment decision tool (AEDT) if more than one year has passed since its last independent bias audit, require audits by sex, race/ethnicity and intersectional categories, and require posted audit results and candidate notice at least 10 business days before use; it sets no penalties. Introduced February 22, 2024. The Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee reported an Assembly Committee Substitute on May 16, 2024, whose text is not described here. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
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).
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.
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.
State agencies: automated decision systems.
California's SB 1248 (2025-26 Regular Session) would restrict how state agencies use automated decision systems to confer services such as professional licenses and public benefits. An agency could not use a system's output as the sole basis for an adverse service determination affecting a person, except as specified, and would have to verify accuracy and promote nondiscrimination. Held under submission in Senate Appropriations on May 14, 2026; not passed before the session ended.
State agencies or departments: public communications.
California's AB 2412 (2025-26 Regular Session) would amend Government Code section 11549.66 to require a state agency or department that uses generative AI to directly communicate with the public, whether with a specific member of the public or in a general public announcement, to include a GenAI disclaimer and information on how to contact a human employee. Passed the Assembly 73-0; its final Senate committee hearing was canceled at the author's request June 26, 2026; not passed.
Employment: artificial intelligence.
California's SB 366 (2025-26 Regular Session) would add Government Code section 12815.5 to require the Department of General Services to contract with the UCLA Labor Center for a study of how artificial intelligence affects worker well-being, job quality, job types, different populations and state revenues. The department would report to the Legislature on or before June 1, 2027, after which the section would be repealed. Held in Senate Appropriations May 23, 2025; not passed.
Artificial Intelligence Workforce Impact Act; established, report.
Virginia's HB 310 (2026 Regular Session) would have created the Artificial Intelligence Workforce Impact Act. As introduced, state agencies would report quarterly to the Department of Human Resource Management on workforce impacts of AI systems; a subcommittee substitute would instead have required annual reports beginning January 1, 2028. The bill failed: left in House Appropriations Committee on February 18, 2026.
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.
Virginia Human Rights Act; equal credit opportunities, Virginia Fair Housing Law, nondiscrimination.
Virginia's HB 999 (2026 Regular Session) would have made it an unlawful discriminatory practice to use an automated decision system in decisions under the Human Rights Act, equal credit law or Fair Housing Law that results in discrimination. The House General Laws substitute focused on credit. It failed: left in House Appropriations Committee on February 18, 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).
EMPLOYMENT-TECH
Illinois's SB 456 (104th General Assembly) would make a technical change to Section 1 (short title) of the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (820 ILCS 42/1). The Senate Executive Committee gave it a Do Pass recommendation (11-0-0) on March 19, 2025, and it had second reading on March 20, 2025, but on April 11, 2025 it was re-referred to Assignments under Rule 3-9(a). The 104th General Assembly remains in session.
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 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.
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.
Enact the Enhanced Cybersecurity for SNAP Act
Ohio's SB 315 (the Enhanced Cybersecurity for SNAP Act and the Ohio Medicaid Program Integrity and Fraud Prevention Act) adds a human-in-the-loop rule for automated Medicaid decisions. When the Department of Medicaid uses automated review tools, including AI, automated fraud detection or algorithmic analysis, in the program-integrity and eligibility work listed in new R.C. 5162.90 and 5164.11, no action may be taken automatically from the tool's determination; the responsible employee must review and confirm the finding. It took effect Oct. 6, 2026.
Regarding The Ownership Of Model Training And Content Generated By A Generative Artificial Intelligence Tool.
Arkansas Act 927 of 2025 sets who owns what a generative AI tool produces. The person who provides the input owns the generated content, as long as it doesn't infringe existing copyrights or other intellectual property, and owns a model trained with the tool if the training data was lawfully acquired and ownership hasn't been transferred by contract. When an employee uses the tool within the scope of employment and under the employer's direction and control, the employer owns the result. Approved April 21, 2025; effective August 5, 2025.
Ai Legislative Task Force
Alaska's HCR 3 (2025-26) is a concurrent resolution and does not change the law. As the House Community and Regional Affairs committee substitute, it would have created a seven-member Joint Legislative Task Force on Artificial Intelligence (three senators, four representatives) to study AI in state government, the economy, ethics and privacy, and the workforce, and report by January 31, 2026. The committee reported it April 11, 2025; it went to Finance and died May 20, 2026.
Make state operating appropriations for FY 2026-27
Ohio's FY 2026-27 operating budget (HB 96) enacted R.C. 3301.24, an artificial intelligence policy requirement for K-12 schools. The Department of Education and Workforce had to develop a model policy on the use of AI in schools by Dec. 31, 2025, covering appropriate use by students and staff. Every school district, community school and STEM school must adopt its own AI use policy by July 1, 2026, and may adopt the department's model. R.C. 3301.24 took effect Sept. 30, 2025.
Artificial intelligence inventory and policies.
Indiana's HB 1296 would have required the Department of Education to create guidelines, a model policy and an inventory of at least 20 AI platforms for schools, survey teachers and students, and report yearly, and required every school corporation and charter school to adopt and post an AI policy and not penalize a student based solely on an AI detector. It was referred to the House Education Committee January 13, 2025 and died with the 2025 session.
Public employment: local public transit agencies: autonomous transit vehicle technology.
California's AB 96 adds Government Code §§ 3125-3130. At least 10 months before beginning a procurement process (a request for proposals or quotations) to acquire or deploy autonomous transit vehicle technology that would eliminate job functions or jobs, a local public transit employer, such as a city, county, transit district or joint powers authority, must notify the affected workforce's exclusive employee representative in writing. On the union's written request, the two must bargain over developing and implementing the technology, a transition plan and training for new positions. Signed October 8, 2023 (Chapter 419); effective January 1, 2024.
Establishes the New York workforce stabilization act; requires certain businesses to conduct artificial intelligence impact assessments on the application and use of such artificial intelligence and to submit such impact assessments to the department of labor prior to the implementation of the…
New York's S 1854-A, the New York workforce stabilization act, would add Labor Law § 201-j barring employers with more than 100 employees from using AI without a prior impact assessment submitted to the Department of Labor at least 30 days before implementation. It would also add Tax Law § 186-h, a 2% surcharge on business income base for corporations displacing workers through automation or using AI for data mining. Referred to Labor January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Statewide Study on Automation and Workforce Impact
Vetoed. Florida's SB 936 and its identical House bill, HB 827, would have required the Bureau of Workforce Statistics and Economic Research in the Department of Commerce to study the economic impact of automation, AI and robotics on employment, focusing on job losses and gains, and report to the Governor and legislative leaders by December 1, 2025 and every 3 years after. On April 29, 2025 the Senate substituted HB 827 for SB 936 and laid SB 936 on the table; HB 827 passed both chambers (House 112-1, Senate 35-0) and the Governor vetoed it on June 27, 2025.
Requires disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence in customer services at the point of interaction with the customer; defines terms.
New York's S 8874 would add General Business Law § 399-m-1 requiring any person, firm, partnership, association or corporation, or its agent or employee, to disclose its use of AI to influence customer interaction (such as automated customer support, ad targeting, eligibility decisions and AI hiring tools). The disclosure must appear at the point of interaction, be clear and conspicuous in bold type of at least twelve points, and describe the AI's role. Referred to the Internet and Technology Committee January 13, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Governmental Use of Facial Recognition Technology
Utah SB 34 (2021) enacts Utah Code Title 77, Chapter 23e on government use of facial recognition technology, defined as a computer system that uses an algorithm to compare facial biometric data of an unknown person with known individuals. Only the Department of Public Safety may run facial recognition comparisons against image databases it shares or maintains, and only under listed conditions and a set request process. Employees must be trained, the public must be notified when a government entity uses facial recognition on images it takes, and the law sets which comparison records are public or protected.
House Study Committee on Exploring the Potential for Humanoids and Robotics in Georgia Workforce Development; create
Georgia's HR 815 is a House resolution that would create the House Study Committee on Exploring the Potential for Humanoids and Robotics in Georgia Workforce Development, with five House members appointed by the Speaker, to study whether and how humanoids and robotics can enhance economic development and recommend any action or legislation. The committee would be abolished on December 1, 2025. The resolution was reported favorably on March 31, 2025, then withdrawn and recommitted on April 4, 2025, and was never adopted. A resolution does not change the law.
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.
Artificial intelligence.
SJR 6 is a nonbinding joint resolution of the California Legislature. It urges the President and Congress of the United States to develop a comprehensive Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee and to adopt a comprehensive artificial intelligence policy. Its findings cite AI adoption by businesses and consumers, expected effects on the workforce, and national AI strategies adopted by other countries. It was filed with the Secretary of State on July 9, 2019 and creates no legal obligations.
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.
Elections policy and finance bill (Laws 2024, chapter 112), including article 2, sections 63-64 and 76-78 amending the election deep fake crime (Minn. Stat. 609.771)
Minnesota's 2024 elections omnibus (Laws 2024, chapter 112) rewrites parts of the 2023 election deep fake crime, Minn. Stat. 609.771. Under article 2, section 76, disseminating a deep fake of a candidate without consent to injure the candidate or influence an election is a crime if done with knowledge or reckless disregard that it is a deep fake, within 90 days before a party nominating convention or after absentee voting begins; broadcasters required by federal law to air a candidate's ad are exempt. Sections 63-64 and 77 require a convicted candidate to forfeit the nomination or office and bar appointment to it, and section 78 revises who may seek injunctive relief.
candidates; digital impersonation; injunctive relief (now: digital impersonation; injunctive relief; requirements)
Arizona's HB 2394 (Laws 2024, Ch. 193) adds A.R.S. 16-1023. A candidate on a state ballot, or any Arizona resident, may sue a person who publishes a "digital impersonation" of them without consent: synthetic video, audio or image made with deep generative or AI methods to deceive viewers into thinking it is authentic. The main remedy is declaratory relief on an expedited schedule. Injunctive relief and damages are limited to sexual or nude content of private figures. Parody, satire and commentary are excluded, and interactive computer services are protected. The act carried an emergency clause, and the section applies 14 days after its effective date.
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 Broadband Internet, Gaming, Social Media, Online Services and Consumer Contracts
Public Act 25-113 overhauls the Connecticut Data Privacy Act's rules on automated decision-making. From July 1, 2026, consumers can opt out of profiling used for any automated decision with legal or similarly significant effects (housing, insurance, health care, employment, financial services and more), question the result and learn why the decision was made, and for housing decisions correct inaccurate data. Controllers that profile for such decisions must complete impact assessments (for processing created on or after Aug. 1, 2026), and privacy notices must state whether personal data is collected, used or sold to train large language models.
An Act To Increase Privacy and Security by Regulating the Use of Facial Surveillance Systems by Departments, Public Employees and Public Officials
Maine's 2021 facial surveillance law (25 MRSA §6001) generally prohibits government departments, public employees and officials from obtaining, using or contracting for facial surveillance systems, defined as automated or semi-automated processes that identify people from facial characteristics. Limited exceptions allow searches for serious crimes with probable cause, missing or deceased persons and BMV fraud, but requests must go through the BMV or State Police, which log them. A facial match alone cannot establish probable cause, and illegally obtained data must be deleted and is inadmissible.
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).
Making improvements to transparency and accountability in the prior authorization determination process.
Chapter 157, Laws of 2026 regulates AI in health insurance prior authorization (RCW 48.43.830 for carriers and RCW 41.05.845 for public employee plans). AI may not be the sole means of denying, delaying or modifying care, and algorithms may approve requests but may not deny care for medical necessity without human review. A carrier using AI must base decisions on the enrollee's clinical history and individual clinical circumstances, not solely on group data; avoid discrimination; open its AI policies to audit by the Insurance Commissioner; and periodically review AI performance. Carriers must report the share of denials aided by AI (RCW 48.43.0161).
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.
Establishes AI and Labor Market Study Commission to analyze impact of artificial intelligence on labor market.
New Jersey's A4888 would establish an 11-member AI and Labor Market Study Commission in the Department of Labor and Workforce Development to study AI's effect on the workforce and a Job Transition Fund for displaced workers. Introduced October 17, 2024; reported by the Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee with amendments on January 23, 2025. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
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.
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.
Elections: deceptive audio or visual media.
AB 972 amended Elections Code Section 20010 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 35 to extend the 2019 election deepfake law (AB 730), which was set to expire January 1, 2023, to January 1, 2027. The extended provisions prohibit distributing, with actual malice and within 60 days of an election, materially deceptive audio or visual media of a candidate intended to injure the candidate or deceive voters, unless the media discloses it has been manipulated. Depicted candidates keep the right to seek injunctive relief and damages, with such cases given calendar precedence.
Elections: deceptive audio or visual media.
AB 686 amended Elections Code Section 20010 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 35 to extend the election deceptive media law (originally AB 730 of 2019, extended by AB 972 of 2022) from January 1, 2027 to January 1, 2031. The law prohibits distributing, with actual malice and within 60 days of an election, materially deceptive audio or visual media of a candidate intended to injure the candidate or deceive voters, unless the media discloses that it has been manipulated, and gives depicted candidates rights to injunctive relief and damages.
Artificial Intelligence Training for the Acquisition Workforce Act (AI Training Act)
The AI Training Act requires the Director of OMB, within one year and with GSA, to develop and provide an AI training program for federal employees in program management, procurement and contracting, logistics, cost estimating and related acquisition roles (sec. 2(b)). The training must cover how AI works, how it can benefit the government, its risks including discrimination and privacy risks, ways to mitigate those risks, and future trends. OMB must update the program at least every two years and track participation and feedback. The Department of Defense and NNSA are excluded, and the section sunsets 10 years after enactment.
Budget Act of 2025.
Section 11.25 of the Budget Act of 2025 (Artificial Intelligence Projects in State Departments) states the Legislature's intent that the workforce, fiscal, environmental, privacy, and policy effects of state generative AI projects be discussed publicly. It provides that no state fiscal or personnel resources may be spent implementing or maintaining generative AI projects in departments under the Governor's control unless the proposals were approved in the Budget Act or another statute. Projects in operation or development as of July 1, 2025 and projects responding to a declared state of emergency are excluded. Section 11.25 was amended the same day by AB 102 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2025).
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.
Employment: technological displacement: notice.
SB 951 amended Labor Code Sections 1400.5 and 1401 and added Section 1402.7. An employer giving notice of a mass layoff, relocation, or termination caused in whole or in substantial part by an artificial intelligence system or other automated technology replacing or automating positions must include specified information, such as the job functions that will be automated. The Employment Development Department must publish summaries of these notices and a quarterly statewide summary of technological displacement, and must report to the Legislature by January 1, 2028 on AI's effects on hiring practices across industries and occupations.
Relating to the creation of a criminal offense for fabricating a deceptive video with intent to influence the outcome of an election.
Texas SB 751 (2019) was one of the first state deepfake election laws. It adds subsections to Election Code 255.004 making it an offense, with intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election, to create a deep fake video and cause it to be published or distributed within 30 days of an election. A deep fake video is a video created with intent to deceive that appears to depict a real person performing an action that did not occur in reality. The offense is a Class A misdemeanor. Effective September 1, 2019.
Relating to a study on the impacts of using certain motor vehicle technologies.
Texas SB 1308 (2021) became law without the Governor's signature. It required the Department of Transportation and the Department of Public Safety, consulting the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, to study the use of automated driving systems, connected driving systems and other emerging vehicle technologies to reduce congestion at Texas-Mexico ports of entry, and their effects on the transportation workforce, the economy and safety, with a report due January 1, 2023. The act expired September 1, 2023.
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.
Establishes the New York workforce stabilization act; requires certain businesses to conduct artificial intelligence impact assessments on the application and use of such artificial intelligence and to submit such impact assessments to the department of labor prior to the implementation of the…
New York's S 9401 (2023-2024), the Workforce Stabilization Act, would have barred employers (in-state businesses with more than 100 employees) from using AI unless they first conducted an impact assessment, repeated at least every two years and submitted to the Department of Labor at least thirty days before implementation. It would also have imposed a 2% surcharge on corporations that terminate or substantially reduce hours for 15 or more employees because of AI, and on AI data mining. Referred to Labor May 15, 2024; it died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.
Contracts against public policy: personal or professional services: digital replicas.
AB 2602 added Labor Code Section 927. A provision in an agreement for personal or professional services is unenforceable as to new performances, fixed on or after January 1, 2025, by a digital replica of the individual if it allows the replica to be used in place of work the individual would otherwise have performed, lacks a reasonably specific description of the intended uses, and the individual was not represented by legal counsel or a labor union in negotiating it. A digital replica is a computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation readily identifiable as the individual's voice or visual likeness.
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.
Use of digitally altered media in elections
Indiana's HB 1133 (P.L. 81-2024) regulates deepfakes in campaign ads. Fabricated media includes undetectably altered recordings, lifelike artificially generated imitations of a person made without consent, and media of an artificially generated person. If a campaign communication includes fabricated media depicting a candidate, whoever paid for it must include the disclaimer 'Elements of this media have been digitally altered or artificially generated,' shown or read as the law specifies. A depicted candidate may sue for damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees if the disclaimer is missing. It took effect on passage.
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.
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.
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.
Creates standards for independent bias auditing of automated employment decision tools.
New Jersey's A1021 would bar an employer or employment agency from using an automated employment decision tool if more than one year has passed since its most recent independent bias audit. Audits would have to calculate selection or scoring rates and impact ratios across categories such as sex, race, age and disability. Pre-filed for introduction in the 2026 session.
AN ACT relating to protection of information and declaring an emergency.
Kentucky's HB 672 (2025 session) would have required state departments and agencies to route generative and high-risk AI through an Artificial Intelligence Governance Committee created by the Commonwealth Office of Technology. It would have required approval, a public registry, disclaimers on AI-generated decisions and outputs, risk management policies and impact assessments for high-risk systems, employee training, and regulations by July 1, 2025. It also would have let candidates and election officers sue over undisclosed synthetic media in election ads. Referred to House State Government; died. SB 4 (2025), with the same title, was enacted instead (Acts Ch. 66).
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.
Elections; criminal offense of election interference with a deep fake and solicitation; establish
Georgia's SB 392 (2023-2024 session) would have created the offense of election interference with a deep fake: creating, publishing, broadcasting, streaming or uploading a deep fake within 90 days of an election with intent to deceive electors in order to reduce a candidate's chance of being elected or otherwise influence an election or referendum. A deep fake created by or at the request of a candidate depicting that same candidate would be excluded. The bill was read and referred in the Senate on January 25, 2024, went no further, and died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
EMPLOYMENT-TECH
Illinois's HB 496 (104th General Assembly) would make a technical change to Section 1 (short title) of the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (820 ILCS 42/1). The House Executive Committee gave it a Do Pass recommendation (12-0-0) on March 12, 2025, but it was held on second reading and, on May 31, 2025, re-referred to the Rules Committee under Rule 19(a). The 104th General Assembly remains in session.
Establishes "Fair Pricing and Transparency Act."
New Jersey's A4742 (Wainstein, Rodriguez, Walker), the Fair Pricing and Transparency Act, would bar retail food stores from using surveillance-based price discrimination, dynamic pricing, or personalized pricing (personalized pricing means prices set using automated systems, AI, machine learning, or algorithms relying on consumer or inferred data) on groceries and other foodstuffs. Retail establishments with more than 50 employees would not be covered. Introduced March 19, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Consumer Affairs Committee; identical Senate bill S3952.
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.
Education - Artificial Intelligence - Guidelines and Professional Development
Maryland's HB 1391 (2025, third reader) would have added Education Article subtitle 22 (sections 7-2201 to 7-2203) on artificial intelligence in schools: the State Department of Education would develop and periodically update K-12 guidance on classroom AI use and promote AI training, and the CTE committees would have to use that guidance before adding AI to career and technical education plans. It passed the House 128-11 and was referred to a Senate committee March 17, 2025; it died when the session ended.
Requesting The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission To Examine The Applicability Of Existing State Anti-discrimination Laws To Algorithmic And Automated Decision Systems.
Hawaii's House Concurrent Resolution 192 (2026) would have requested the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission to examine how existing state anti-discrimination laws apply to algorithmic and automated decision systems, and to report before the 2027 session. The House adopted it April 9, 2026, but in the Senate it was only received and referred to JDC on April 10, 2026; it was adopted by the House but not the other chamber and died. A concurrent resolution does not change the law.
Prohibits employers from engaging in discrimination on the basis of a protected class when using artificial intelligence for recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, or the terms, privileges, or conditions of…
New York's S 9028 would amend the Executive Law (Human Rights Law) to make it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to use artificial intelligence in recruitment, hiring, promotion, discharge, discipline or other employment terms in a way that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on protected classes, or to use zip codes as a proxy for them, or to fail to notify employees of such AI use. Referred to the Senate Investigations and Government Operations Committee January 23, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Regulate the use of pricing algorithms
Ohio's HB 665 (as introduced) would amend Ohio's antitrust law (R.C. Chapter 1331) to bar using or distributing a pricing algorithm, including one derived from machine learning or AI, that uses or is trained with nonpublic competitor data, and would presume an illegal agreement in certain cases where the same algorithm is distributed to or used by others in the same or a related market. Enterprises with $5 million or more in gross receipts would have to disclose algorithmic pricing to customers, employees and contractors. Introduced January 29, 2026 and referred February 4, 2026 to the House Technology and Innovation Committee; 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.
Education for Filmmakers Pilot Program.
California's AB 2544 (2025-26 Regular Session), the Education for Filmmakers Pilot Program, would have required the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) to run a pilot program delivering workforce-centered AI literacy instruction focused on entertainment-industry careers, in partnership with unions, guilds, employers and film schools. It was re-referred to committee March 23, 2026 and was not passed before the session ended.
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.
AN ACT RELATING TO LABOR AND LABOR RELATIONS -- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USE AND FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
Rhode Island's H 7767 would add a chapter to Title 28 limiting how employers use electronic monitoring and automated decision systems on workers. Employers could monitor only for listed purposes, with written notice, an independent impact assessment, and human review of decisions based on monitoring data; monitoring tools using facial recognition or gait, voice analysis or emotion recognition would be barred. Introduced February 12, 2026; House Labor recommended it be held for further study April 15, 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.
Artificial intelligence; requiring certain disclosure for certain media. Effective date.
Oklahoma's SB 746 (2025), by Sen. Seifried, would have required political advertisements, electioneering communications and other candidate or election media from a candidate, candidate committee, PAC or party committee to carry the disclosure "Created in whole or in part with the use of generative artificial intelligence" when generative AI content appears to show a real person doing something that did not occur. A depicted candidate could have sued. The bill was referred to the Technology and Telecommunications Committee February 4, 2025 and died when the session ended in 2026 (adjourned May 14, 2026).
SCH CD-ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Illinois's HB 2503 (104th General Assembly) would amend the School Code to require the State Board of Education to establish a State Instructional Technology Advisory Board that guides and evaluates education technologies, including AI. With that board, the State Board would develop standards on safety, transparency, data privacy and educational quality for AI used in schools, plus guidance on AI use and AI literacy. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee 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.
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.
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.
Relating To Elections.
Hawaii's HB 1766 (2024, H.D. 1) would have barred distributing, within ninety days before a primary or general election, an advertisement containing a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate that the person knew or should have known was one, unless it carries a 'has been manipulated' disclosure. It passed the House March 5, 2024, was referred to Senate JDC March 7 and died when the 2024 session ended. The text set a July 1, 3000 effective date.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DCEO-AI Impact Study
Illinois's SB 2927 (104th General Assembly) would amend the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity Law of the Civil Administrative Code so the Department, in consultation with the Department of Labor, must conduct a comprehensive study of strategies to protect jobs at risk of loss due to AI. Re-referred to Senate Assignments on May 22, 2026.
SCH CD-TECHNOLOGY GUIDANCE
Illinois's HB 4945 (104th General Assembly) would add Section 2-3.118b to the School Code. Subject to appropriation, the State Board of Education, in consultation with other State agencies, may provide statewide guidance to school districts on workforce development curriculum or programming with best practices for teaching artificial intelligence, quantum computing and other fast-growing technologies. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee March 27, 2026.
EMPLOYMENT-TECH
Illinois's SB 971 (104th General Assembly) would make a technical change to Section 1 (short title) of the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (820 ILCS 42/1). The Senate Executive Committee gave it a Do Pass recommendation (11-0-0) on March 19, 2025, and it had second reading on March 20, 2025, but on April 11, 2025 it was re-referred to Assignments under Rule 3-9(a). The 104th General Assembly remains in session.
SCH CD-TECHNOLOGY GUIDANCE
Illinois's SB 3492 (104th General Assembly) would add Section 2-3.118b to the School Code. Subject to appropriation, the State Board of Education, in consultation with other relevant State agencies, may provide statewide guidance on workforce development curriculum or programming with best practices for teaching AI, quantum computing and other fast-growing technologies, and would have to prepare a review of other states' efforts. Last action: re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026.
$DCEO-AI WORKFORCE TRANSITION
Illinois's HB 5761 (104th General Assembly) would appropriate $150,000, or so much as may be necessary, from the General Revenue Fund to the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity for the expenses of the Commission on Artificial Intelligence and Workforce Transition and the assessments required under the Commission on Artificial Intelligence and Workforce Transition Act. Its Section 99 sets an effective date of July 1, 2026. Last action: referred to the House Rules Committee May 5, 2026.
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 Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's HB 2152 (2024) would have set up a plan for state use of generative AI: Office of Enterprise Technology Services risk assessments and procurement guidelines, an inventory of high-risk uses by each agency, employee training, a duty to tell people when AI mediates electronic communication, and chief information officer approval before adopting an automated decision system. It was referred to HET/LGO, CPC and FIN on January 24, 2024 and was not enacted.
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.
Establishes Artificial Intelligence Apprenticeship Program and artificial intelligence apprenticeship tax credit program.
New Jersey's S3871 would create an Artificial Intelligence Apprenticeship Program in the Department of Labor and Workforce Development and a tax credit for AI apprentices. The credit, under the corporation business tax and the gross income tax, would equal one-half of a qualified apprentice's wages, up to $5,000 per apprentice per privilege period, for periods beginning in 2026. Introduced November 18, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Relating To Elections.
Hawaii's Senate Bill 2396 (2024) would have barred anyone from distributing, within 90 days before a primary or general election, a synthetic media message in an electioneering communication that the person knows or should have known is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate or party, unless it carries a disclosure that it was manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence. JDC deferred it February 9, 2024 and it died at the end of the 2023-2024 biennium.
Establishes Artificial Intelligence Ethics Board in DOLWD.
A 2478 would create a seven-member Artificial Intelligence Ethics Board in New Jersey's Department of Labor and Workforce Development to oversee the sale and use of AI technology, with a focus on bias prevention, privacy, transparency and accountability. Anyone selling or offering an AI product or service in the state would first need an independent AI impact assessment, done within the prior year and meeting the board's standards on privacy and job displacement. The board would also recommend protections for workers displaced by AI, such as a month's notice, retraining and severance. Pending in the Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Establishes task force to research and report on potential sources of funding for artificial intelligence initiatives and appropriate tax incentives to support businesses impacted by expansion of use of artificial intelligence.
A 2620 would create an 11-member Artificial Intelligence Initiative Funding Task Force in the New Jersey Department of the Treasury to report, within 12 months of organizing, on public and private funding sources for AI initiatives in the state. It would recommend tax incentives for the industries most affected by expanded AI use, public-private partnerships, collaborations with colleges and universities, and ways to align AI funding with workforce needs and economic growth, and identify bills for the Legislature to adopt. Pending in the Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
An Act Requiring A Study Of The Effect Of Artificial Intelligence On The Trades Industry.
Connecticut's HB 5048 (2025) was a one-paragraph proposed bill that would amend the general statutes to require a study of the effect of artificial intelligence on trade workers, including job displacement and the curriculum of the Technical Education and Career System. It was referred to the Labor and Public Employees Committee on January 8, 2025 and died when the 2025 session ended.
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.
Requesting The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission To Examine The Applicability Of Existing State Anti-discrimination Laws To Algorithmic And Automated Decision Systems.
Hawaii's Senate Concurrent Resolution 184 (2026) asks the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission to examine how existing state anti-discrimination laws apply to algorithmic and automated decision systems, including AI tools used in employment screening, tenant selection, credit and public benefits decisions: whether current law gives enough authority to investigate and remedy such discrimination, jurisdictional and evidentiary hurdles, whether guidance or rulemaking would help, a possible complaint pathway, and any legislation needed. Report due 20 days before the 2027 session. Adopted by the Senate April 9 and the House April 24, 2026; a concurrent resolution does not change the law.
Establishes the New York workforce stabilization act; requires certain businesses to conduct artificial intelligence impact assessments on the application and use of such artificial intelligence and to submit such impact assessments to the department of labor prior to the implementation of the…
New York's A 5429-A (the "New York workforce stabilization act") would add Labor Law § 201-j barring employers (in-state businesses with more than 100 employees) from using AI without an impact assessment, repeated every two years and submitted to the department 30 days before implementation, and add Tax Law § 186-h imposing a surcharge of two percent of business income base on corporations that displace employees through AI above tiered thresholds or use AI for data mining. Section 2 takes effect immediately; the tax section on January 1, 2026. Referred to Labor January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Requires employers and employment agencies to notify candidates for employment if machine learning technology is used to make hiring decisions prior to the use of such technology.
New York's A 1952 would add Labor Law § 203-g requiring an employer or employment agency that uses an automated employment decision tool to screen candidates to notify each candidate, no less than ten business days before use, that the tool will be used, what job qualifications and characteristics it will assess, and the type and source of data collected and the retention policy. Candidates would have to be able to request an alternative process or accommodation. Referred to Labor January 7, 2026; 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 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.
Prohibits the use of automated systems to make employment decisions unless there is a meaningful human review of the output of such automated system prior to the final employment decision; requires employers that use an automated system in the hiring process to notify applicants of the use of such…
New York's A 9601 would add Labor Law § 211-b barring an employer from using an automated system (including an automated employment decision tool, algorithm or AI system) to screen resumes or applicants unless there is “meaningful human review” of its output before any final or adverse employment decision, and barring denial of employment solely on an automated system's action. Employers would have to notify applicants; applicants could request human review of an adverse decision. Referred to the Labor Committee January 21, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
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.
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.
DIGITAL LIKENESS PROTECTION
Illinois' Public Act 103-0830 (HB 4762), the Digital Voice and Likeness Protection Act, makes a provision in an agreement for personal or professional services unenforceable if it allows a digital replica of the individual's voice or likeness to be created and used in place of work the individual would otherwise have performed in person, does not include a reasonably specific description of the intended uses, and the individual was represented by neither legal counsel nor a labor union as the act describes. It applies to agreements entered into after it took effect; Public Act 104-0282 narrowed it from January 1, 2026. Approved and effective August 9, 2024.
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 "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.
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).
Prohibits the creation and dissemination of synthetic media within sixty days of an election with intent to unduly influence the outcome of an election
New York's A 6491 would add Election Law § 17-172, making it a class E felony to create, with "intent to injure a candidate or unduly influence the outcome of an election," synthetic media (realistic AI-manipulated or artificial images, video or audio of a scenario that did not occur) and disseminate or publish it within sixty days of an election. Exemptions cover commentary, parody, news, consent of all persons depicted, and initial dissemination by platforms. Would take effect on the 30th day after it becomes law. Introduced March 5, 2025 and referred to the Election Law Committee (again January 7, 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.
Artificial Intelligence Use in Political Advertising
Florida's HB 919 (s. 106.145, F.S.) requires political ads, electioneering communications and other political advertisements to prominently state "Created in whole or in part with the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI)." when they contain AI-generated content that appears to depict a real person doing something that did not happen, created with intent to injure a candidate or deceive about a ballot issue. A person paying for, sponsoring or approving the ad who omits the disclaimer commits a first-degree misdemeanor; anyone may complain to the Florida Elections Commission, which holds expedited hearings. Approved April 26, 2024 (Chapter 2024-126); effective July 1, 2024.
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.
Requesting The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission To Examine The Applicability Of Existing State Anti-discrimination Laws To Algorithmic And Automated Decision Systems.
Hawaii's Senate Resolution 165 (2026) asks the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission to examine how existing state anti-discrimination laws apply to algorithmic and automated decision systems, including AI tools used in employment screening, tenant selection, credit and public benefits decisions: whether current law gives enough authority to investigate and remedy such discrimination, jurisdictional and evidentiary hurdles, whether guidance or rulemaking would help, a possible complaint pathway, and any legislation needed. Report due 20 days before the 2027 session. Adopted by the Senate April 9, 2026; a resolution of one chamber does not change the law.
Urges generative artificial intelligence companies to make voluntary commitments regarding employee whistleblower protections.
New Jersey Assembly Resolution 158 urges generative AI companies to commit to principles that protect employees who raise risk-related concerns: no non-disparagement agreements over such concerns or retaliation through vested economic benefits, a verifiably anonymous process to reach the board, regulators and an independent organization, no retaliation for public disclosure after other processes fail, and legal and technical safe harbor for good-faith safety evaluation. The Assembly adopted it 74-0 on January 30, 2025. It is a resolution of one chamber that does not change the law.
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.
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 A 6180 would amend Tax Law § 24(b)(3) so that a production "which uses artificial intelligence or autonomous vehicles" in a manner that displaces employees whose salaries are qualified expenses is not a "qualified film" for the Empire State film production credit, unless the replacement is permitted by a current collective bargaining agreement covering those employees. Would take effect immediately. Introduced February 26, 2025 and referred to the Ways and Means Committee (again January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
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 7422-B (2023-2024) would have amended Tax Law § 24 so a production is not a "qualified film" for the film production credit if it uses artificial intelligence or autonomous vehicles in a way that displaces employees whose salaries are qualified expenses. The exclusion would not apply where the replacement is permitted by a current collective bargaining agreement covering those employees. Amended March 27, 2024 and recommitted to committee; it died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Creates a temporary state commission to study and investigate how to regulate artificial intelligence, robotics and automation; repeals such commission.
New York's A 3361 would create a temporary 14-member "New York state artificial intelligence, robotics and automation commission" to study how to regulate AI, robotics and automation, including liability, employment impact, confidential information, weaponry and public-sector uses. Members serve without compensation. A final report is due 30 days before the act expires on December 31, 2026. Passed the Assembly and was delivered to the Senate January 28, 2026 (it had also passed May 12, 2025 and died in the Senate January 7, 2026); it has not passed the Senate.
Requires the department of labor to study the long-term impact of artificial intelligence on the state workforce including but not limited to job performance, productivity, training, education requirements, privacy and security; prohibits any state entity from using artificial intelligence in any…
New York's A 4550-A would add Labor Law § 12-a requiring the Department of Labor, with the Department of Civil Service and the Office of Information Technology Services, to begin a study within six months of the effective date on the long-term impact of artificial intelligence on the state workforce, with a final report by December 31, 2034. Until that report, state entities could not use AI in a way that displaces workers or impairs collective bargaining agreements. Takes effect immediately and expires January 1, 2035. Referred to Ways and Means 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.
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 7656 (the "respect electoral audiovisual legitimacy (REAL) act") would add Election Law § 14-106(2-a), providing that no political communication covered by that section may 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 with generative artificial intelligence. Would take effect immediately. Introduced April 4, 2025 and referred to the Election Law Committee (again 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.
Requires state-level public employers that intend to begin any procurement process or plan to acquire or deploy any new application or technology that utilizes an artificial intelligence model or artificial intelligence system to notify any duly recognized and certified employee representative of…
New York's A 11175 would add Civil Service Law § 216 requiring a public employer (the State, local governments, school districts, SUNY, CUNY and others) to notify any duly recognized and certified employee representative at least twelve months before starting a procurement process or plan to acquire or deploy new technology using an AI model or AI system that changes the work or eliminates jobs, and then to bargain. Referred to Governmental Employees May 1, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
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.
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.
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.
Relates to banning the use of biometric identifying technology in schools
New York's S 9643 would amend State Technology Law § 106-b so public and nonpublic elementary and secondary schools, including charter schools, are "prohibited from purchasing or utilizing biometric identifying technology for any purpose, including school security." Limited uses stay allowed: fingerprinting of prospective employees, fingerprint logins to digital devices, and identifying employees who consent in writing. Passed the Senate 38-22 on June 1, 2026 and was referred to the Assembly Education Committee; it has not passed the Assembly.
Creates a temporary state commission to study and investigate how to regulate artificial intelligence, robotics and automation; repeals such commission.
New York's S 6301 would create a temporary state commission on artificial intelligence, robotics and automation to study subjects such as current state law, civil and criminal liability, employment effects and public-sector uses. It would have 14 members, with no pay beyond expenses, and must issue a final report; the act would expire December 31, 2026. It places no duties on businesses. Referred to Internet and Technology January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Directs the department of labor to conduct a study and prepare a report on the effects of artificial intelligence on job losses in the state.
New York's S 9819 would require the Department of Labor, in conjunction with the office of information technology services, to conduct a study and prepare a report on the effects of artificial intelligence on job losses in the state. Within one year of the effective date the Department must issue the report to the governor, the temporary president of the senate and the speaker of the assembly. It takes effect immediately if enacted. Referred to Labor April 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Requires state-level public employers that intend to begin any procurement process or plan to acquire or deploy any new application or technology that utilizes an artificial intelligence model or artificial intelligence system to notify any duly recognized and certified employee representative of…
New York's S 10025 would add Civil Service Law § 216 requiring a public employer to notify any duly recognized and certified employee representative no less than twelve months before starting a procurement process or planning to acquire or deploy AI-based technology that changes operations, requires job training or eliminates job functions or jobs. The employer would then have to bargain over the acquisition, implementation, a worker transition plan and training. Referred to Civil Service and Pensions April 23, 2026; reported and committed to Internet and Technology May 18, 2026. It has not passed either chamber.
Relative to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence
Massachusetts S49 is a broad cybersecurity bill that would require annual cybersecurity training for public employees, create a Cybersecurity Control Board and state cybersecurity code (artificial intelligence is one listed standards area), and create an Automated Decision Making Control Board to study and regulate automated decision systems. Reported favorably and referred to Senate Ways and Means May 12, 2025.
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.
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.
A bill for an act relating to the use of artificial intelligence systems and related software by state agencies for employment and other purposes.
Iowa's SSB 3014 would require a state AI-system inventory, require state agencies using automated employment decision-making tools to list them publicly and report annually to the General Assembly, and bar agencies from using AI in ways that cut employee pay or positions, affect collective bargaining rights, or take over existing employee duties. Senate subcommittee recommended passage January 27, 2026.
ELEC CD-DECEPTION OR FORGERY
Illinois's SB 2983 (103rd General Assembly) would have amended Election Code Sections 29-4 and 29-18 so that "deception or forgery" in the offenses of preventing voting or candidate support, and conspiracy to do so, includes creating and distributing an AI-generated digital replica of an individual, or deceptive social media content, likely to dissuade voting. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).
Requires covered businesses to annually report to the department of labor regarding the impact of artificial intelligence on hiring and the nature of artificial intelligence use
New York's A 9581-B passed both houses in June 2026 but has not been delivered to the Governor, so it is not law. If enacted, each covered business (one doing business in New York that employs more than 50 people or is publicly traded) would have to report to the Department of Labor by March 1 each year on AI's impact on its hiring in the prior calendar year (estimated employees displaced or with hours cut, hired or with hours added, and previously filled positions left unfilled, due in full or in part to AI) and on its AI use. Failing to report: up to $500 a day, waived or reduced if the commissioner is satisfied it was cured within 90 days of notice. It would take effect immediately.
AI Week
South Carolina's House Resolution H. 5085 declares March 30 - April 2, 2026, as "AI Week" in South Carolina and encourages all citizens of the Palmetto State to learn more about artificial intelligence. Its recitals note that Horry-Georgetown Technical College will celebrate AI that week under the theme "Empowering Innovation with AI" and call competent use of AI a foundational skill for the modern workforce; a copy goes to the college. Introduced and adopted by the House February 4, 2026; a resolution of one chamber does not change the law.
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.
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.
Allowing bargaining over matters related to the use of artificial intelligence.
Washington's HB 1622 (engrossed substitute, 2025-26 biennium) would have required employers covered by the public collective bargaining laws in chapters 41.56 and 41.80 RCW to bargain over the decision to adopt artificial intelligence technology, or to modify its current uses, when that affects employees' wages or performance evaluations. It passed the House 58-38 on March 8, 2025 and stalled in Senate Ways & Means. In 2026 House Appropriations recommended a 2nd substitute on January 28 and the bill was referred to Rules 2 Review on February 3, 2026, where it died.
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.
SCH CD-TEACHER EVALUATION-AI
Illinois' Public Act 104-0565 (SB 2909) amends School Code Section 24A-5 on teacher evaluation plans. An evaluator may not use an AI tool to assign a numerical score or qualitative rating for any component of a teacher's evaluation or any evaluation task that requires professional judgment, and a teacher may not use an AI tool to generate evidence of professional practice used to evaluate the teacher; both may use AI to support administrative tasks. Any AI tool's name and specific purpose must be disclosed to the other party. Approved July 10, 2026; effective January 1, 2027.
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.
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.
An act relating to public safety; establishing a cause of action for nonconsensual dissemination of deep fake sexual images; establishing the crime of using deep fake technology to influence an election; establishing a crime for nonconsensual dissemination of deep fake sexual images
Minnesota's HF 1370 (Chapter 58) creates a civil claim (Minn. Stat. 604.32) and a crime (617.262) for disseminating without consent a deep fake that realistically depicts an identifiable person's intimate parts or sexual acts, and a crime (609.771) for disseminating a deep fake without consent to injure a candidate or influence an election. The election crime was amended in 2024 (2024 c 112) and now applies within 90 days before a political party nominating convention or after absentee voting starts for a primary or election. Signed May 26, 2023; effective August 1, 2023.
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.
A bill for an act relating to the ownership of artificial intelligence output and trained artificial intelligence. (Formerly SSB 3013.)
Iowa's SF 2199 (formerly SSB 3013) would create Code chapter 554J making the user who provides input the owner of an AI's output (if it does not infringe a third party's copyrights or other IP), a lawful trainer the owner of the trained AI, and the employer the owner when the use is within the scope of employment. On the Senate calendar since February 4, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Report: labor force impact: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 2545 (2025-26 Regular Session) would create the California Artificial Intelligence Worker Impact Data Assessment Project in the Employment Development Department, with a 14-member advisory panel. The department would assess data sources and collection methods on how advanced AI systems affect the labor force, and the panel would report to the Legislature by January 1, 2028. Passed the Assembly 70-0; held under submission in Senate Appropriations on August 13, 2026, and not passed before the session ended.
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.
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.
Revised for 1st substitute: Allowing bargaining over matters related to certain uses of artificial intelligence.
Washington's SB 5422 (1st substitute, 2025-26 biennium) would have required employers covered by chapters 41.56 and 41.80 RCW to bargain over the decision to adopt artificial intelligence technology, or to modify its current uses, when that affects employees' wages or performance evaluations. It was reported from Senate Labor & Commerce on February 21, 2025, was heard in Ways & Means on February 25, took no further action, and was retained in present status on January 12, 2026. It died with the 2026 session; companion HB 1622 also died.
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 requiring community colleges, school districts, and institutions under the control of the state board of regents to adopt policies related to the use of artificial intelligence by students and employees.
Iowa's HF 2153 would require community colleges, school districts and Board of Regents institutions to adopt policies by July 1, 2028 on how students and employees may and may not use artificial intelligence, and to publish them. The Department of Education and the Board of Regents would post the policies they receive. Referred to the House Education Committee January 26, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
A bill for an act modifying the duties of the workforce development board, state board of education, and department of education related to cyber and artificial intelligence. (Formerly HSB 609.)
Iowa's HF 2528 (formerly HSB 609) would direct the workforce development board, state board of education and Department of Education to build cyber and artificial intelligence workforce and education initiatives, including a voluntary school certification program and a community awareness effort. A grant program would be subject to appropriation. Placed on the House calendar February 16, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Certain use of artificial intelligence prohibition provision
Minnesota's SF 4573 (2026), by Sen. Maye Quade, would have amended the Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. § 363A.08) to make it an unfair employment practice for an employer to use artificial intelligence that has the effect of discriminating against an employee or applicant on a protected basis, or to fail to notify them that AI is being used for those purposes. Introduced and referred to the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee March 18, 2026, it died when the session adjourned May 18, 2026.
Establishes Artificial Intelligence Apprenticeship Program and artificial intelligence apprenticeship tax credit program.
New Jersey's S2860 would establish an Artificial Intelligence Apprenticeship Program in the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, with corporation business tax and gross income tax credits for tax years beginning in 2026. The credit is one-half of a qualified apprentice's wages, capped at $5,000 per apprentice per period. Pre-filed for introduction in the 2026 session.
Urges generative artificial intelligence companies to make voluntary commitments regarding employee whistleblower protections.
New Jersey's SR52 is a Senate resolution that would urge generative AI companies to make six voluntary commitments protecting employees who raise risk-related concerns. It is a resolution and does not change the law or bind any company. Pre-filed for introduction in the 2026 session.
Mississippi Dyslexia Generative Artificial Intelligence Education and Workforce Development Act; create.
Mississippi's HB 1242 (2026), the Mississippi Dyslexia Generative Artificial Intelligence Education and Workforce Development Act, would establish a program within the Department of Education to develop and deploy a state-funded, open-access dyslexia curriculum and generative AI system for public schools, correctional education, adult literacy and workforce training. Lighthouse Academy for Dyslexia and the Mississippi Dyslexia Institute would be founding development partners. It died in committee on February 3, 2026.
California Unconditional Benefit Program: employment replaced by automation or artificial intelligence: pilot program.
California's AB 3058 (2023-24 Regular Session) would establish, until January 1, 2029, the California Unconditional Benefit Income (CalUBI) Pilot Program in the Employment Development Department, upon appropriation. An eligible person found unemployed because of automation or artificial intelligence who has received the maximum unemployment benefits could apply for $1,000 a month for 12 months. Its only hearing, April 8, 2024, was canceled at the author's request; not passed.
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.
Establishes "Fair Pricing and Transparency Act."
New Jersey's S3952, the Fair Pricing and Transparency Act, would bar retail food stores with 50 or fewer employees from surveillance-based price discrimination, dynamic pricing and personalized pricing of groceries, and require them to post sale prices clearly. Stores of 15,000 square feet or more could not use electronic shelf labels until four years after the effective date. Introduced March 16, 2026.
Creates "New Jersey Responsible AI Advancement and Workforce Protection Act."
New Jersey's S1840 would create the New Jersey Responsible AI Advancement and Workforce Protection Act, funding worker retraining through an AI Horizon Fund fed by a 5% assessment on AI infrastructure entities' gross AI revenue. It would require environmental assessments and community benefit agreements for AI computing facilities and impact assessments for high-risk AI systems.
DIGITAL PROTECT-USE OF REPLICA
Illinois' Public Act 104-0282 (HB 3178) narrows Section 10 of the Digital Voice and Likeness Protection Act, which makes unenforceable a services-contract provision letting a digital replica of a person's voice or likeness replace work they would have done in person, if it lacks a reasonably specific description of intended uses and the person had neither a lawyer who negotiated the replica license nor a union contract covering replicas. The rule now applies only to new replica performances fixed on or after January 1, 2026, and not when uses fit the contract and the recording's fundamental character. Approved August 15, 2025; effective January 1, 2026.
Establishes public-private partnerships to develop artificial intelligence job training.
New Jersey's S2942 would let the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development contract with private entities in public-private partnerships to develop AI training, providing retraining for displaced workers and advancing the workforce's AI skills. The private entity would be exempt from procurement and contracting requirements and from prevailing wage requirements.
Provides civil penalties for campaign advertisements containing "deepfake" misrepresentations of candidates.
New Jersey's A4163 would make a covered person liable for fraudulent misrepresentation of a candidate if they knowingly and intentionally disseminate a campaign advertisement containing a deepfake of that candidate, unless it carries a prescribed disclosure and embedded content provenance. A candidate could sue for punitive damages and daily civil penalties of up to $15,000, $50,000 or $250,000 by office. Introduced February 19, 2026.
Requires disclosure to be made when generative artificial intelligence is used to operate chatbots that provide election related information.
New Jersey's A4729 would require a chatbot that uses generative AI to provide election-related information or information on a candidate's accomplishments, positions or qualifications to give a clear, conspicuous disclosure, before the content, that it is AI-generated. The person overseeing the chatbot would be liable for up to $6,000 for a first offense and up to $12,000 for each later one. This describes the bill as introduced March 10, 2026; later committee amendments, if any, are not reflected.
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.
Prohibits the use of biometric identifying technology in schools for any reason other than certain specified purposes; adds fingerprint identification of teachers, administrators and students for the purpose of securely logging into a digital device for academic and administrative purpose to…
New York's S 3827-A would amend State Technology Law § 106-b so public and nonpublic elementary and secondary schools, including charter schools, are "prohibited from purchasing or utilizing biometric identifying technology for any purpose," including school security. Exceptions cover fingerprinting of prospective employees, fingerprint logins to digital devices and employees who consent in writing. Passed the Senate 38-21 on June 12, 2025 and was referred to the Assembly Education Committee; it has not passed the Assembly.
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.
Further providing for definitions; providing for use of automated employment decision tool; and further providing for civil penalties.
Pennsylvania's HB 594 (2025-26) would amend the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act to require an employer or employment agency using an automated employment decision tool to notify and get consent from individuals before the interview and to use only tools with a bias audit from within the past year, with the results summary posted online. It was referred to the House Labor & Industry Committee on February 12, 2025.
Requires Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development to conduct study and issue report on impact of artificial intelligence on growth of State's economy.
New Jersey's A2069 would require the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development, in consultation with the New Jersey Commission on Science, Innovation and Technology, to study the impact of AI on the State's economy and report within one year of the effective date. The text reviewed is the pre-filed version.
Urging the Congress of the United States to amend 17 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 107 to protect creative workers against displacement by artificial intelligence technology.
Pennsylvania's HR 81 (2025-26) is a House resolution, so it would not change the law. It would urge Congress to amend 17 U.S.C. 102 and 107 to protect creative workers from displacement by AI, including making only majority human-made work copyrightable and treating scraping of copyrighted works into AI programs as outside fair use. The committee reported it 26-0 on April 24, 2025; it was laid on the table June 11, 2025.
Enacts the "Shirley Myers White Right To Reconciliation and Digital Identity Repair Act"; establishes a right for individuals to have outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete public and digital narratives corrected once a legal matter is resolved; requires institutions to provide mechanisms for context…
New York's A 10909, the "Shirley Myers White Right To Reconciliation and Digital Identity Repair Act," would add Executive Law § 296-e giving individuals a right to have outdated, inaccurate or incomplete narratives corrected after a legal matter is resolved. Among its domains, entities using automated tools for screening, ranking or decision-making would have to give notice when adverse decisions rely on automated narrative sources, allow correction, and ensure human review when narrative harm is alleged. Referred to the Governmental Operations Committee April 8, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Protecting consumers in interactions with artificial intelligence systems
Massachusetts's H 97 would add Chapter 93M requiring developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems (those making or substantially influencing decisions on education, employment, finance, government services, health care, housing, insurance or legal services) to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with documentation, risk programs, impact assessments and consumer notices, and requiring disclosure when consumers interact with AI. Reported favorably and referred to House Ways and Means December 24, 2025; it has not passed either house.
ELECT CODE-DEEP FAKE VIDEO
Illinois' SB 3171 (101st General Assembly, 2019-2020) would have added Section 29-21 to the Election Code. A person would commit a Class A misdemeanor by creating a deep fake video, with intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election, and causing it to be published or distributed within 30 days of an election. Introduced February 11, 2020 by Sen. Stadelman; it did not pass, and the session ended January 13, 2021 (Session Sine Die).
Relative to the use of artificial intelligence for personal defense.
New Hampshire's HB 1599-FN, the "Affirmation of Artificial Intelligence for Personal Defense Act", would have made a person justified in using autonomous artificial intelligence in any circumstance where the person would be justified in using the same level of force, judged by the same standards as a human's decision. If the AI's decision were not justified, justification would not be a defense for its owner or employer. The House found it Inexpedient to Legislate February 1, 2024; it is dead.
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.
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.
Creates a temporary state commission to study and investigate how to regulate artificial intelligence, robotics and automation; repeals such commission.
New York's A 9559 would have created a temporary 14-member “New York state artificial intelligence, robotics and automation commission” to study how to regulate AI, robotics and automation, including current state law, other states' policies, civil and criminal liability for entities equipped with AI, employment impact, use in weaponry and public sector applications. Members would serve without compensation and a final report was due no later than thirty days before the act expired on December 31, 2025. Referred to Science and Technology March 20, 2024; it died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.
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.
Establishes the transitional wage insurance program under which the department of labor provides temporary supplemental payments to eligible individuals who accept new employment at a lower wage than their prior employment.
New York's A 10183 would create a transitional wage insurance program run by the Department of Labor, paying temporary supplements to unemployment-insurance claimants who take lower-paid work after losing a job in whole or substantial part to automation or AI. Referred to the Assembly Labor Committee February 12, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Artificial intelligence and cybersecurity.
Indiana's SB 150 (Public Law 108 of 2024) creates a 15-member legislative AI task force (IC 2-5-53.7) that studies AI used, developed or considered by state agencies, assesses its benefits, risks and effects on residents' rights, privacy, employment and economic welfare, and reports recommendations by October 31 each year. From July 1, 2025, state agencies may submit AI inventories and public entities may adopt technology and cybersecurity policies; entities connecting to state technology infrastructure after July 1, 2026 (public entities after July 1, 2027) must meet cybersecurity rules. Signed March 13, 2024; task force effective July 1, 2024; the AI chapters expire December 31, 2027.
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.
AN ACT RELATING TO LABOR AND LABOR RELATIONS -- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USE AND FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
Rhode Island SB 2499 (2026), as introduced on February 6, 2026, would add a chapter on electronic monitoring and automated decision systems in employment. It would make it unlawful for an employer to use an electronic monitoring tool to collect employee information unless stated conditions are met, bar tools that incorporate facial recognition, and require impact assessments. Employers would have to keep records for five years; penalties would be those in title 28. The text says it takes effect upon passage.
CyberBay
Florida's Senate Resolution 1816 recognizes CyberBay as a cybersecurity and artificial intelligence innovation region within the Tampa Bay area. It acknowledges Florida's leadership in cybersecurity preparedness and the roles of the University of South Florida, its Bellini College of Artificial Intelligence, Cybersecurity and Computing, Cyber Florida, municipal partners and private-sector stakeholders in workforce development and innovation, and affirms the importance of continued public-private collaboration. Adopted by the Senate March 12, 2026; a resolution of one chamber that does not change the law.
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.
SCH CD-TEACHER EVALUATION PLAN
Illinois's SB 1677 (104th General Assembly) would amend Section 24A-5 of the School Code to provide that a teacher evaluation plan shall prohibit an evaluator from using artificial intelligence tools to perform teacher evaluation tasks. Introduced February 5, 2025; on April 11, 2025 it was re-referred to the Senate Committee on Assignments under Rule 3-9(a).
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.
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.
An Act Concerning Consumer Privacy And Protection.
Connecticut's Public Act 26-64 (SB 4) targets data-driven pricing and surveillance. Businesses that use an automated price setting device fed by personal data (other than to set a discount) and advertise the price online must show "THIS PRICE WAS INCREASED BY A PRICE SETTING DEVICE USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA" or similar. Retailers and delivery apps may not use surveillance pricing. Data privacy act controllers using facial recognition on premises for security must match only against their own database and post entrance signs. It also requires data brokers to register, bans selling precise geolocation data, and adds genetic-testing consent rules. Signed May 27, 2026; effective October 1, 2026.
Workforce of the Future Act of 2025
The federal S. 3319 (Workforce of the Future Act of 2025) would require the Secretaries of Labor, Commerce and Education to report jointly on AI's impact on jobs, authorize Education Department grants to expand emerging and advanced technology education (including AI), with $160,000,000 for fiscal year 2026, and authorize Labor Department grants to train workers in industries most impacted by AI, with $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2026. Introduced December 3, 2025 and referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; no further action.
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.
AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act
The federal S. 3108 (AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act) would require covered entities, meaning publicly traded companies, federal agencies and certain non-publicly-traded companies identified by Labor Department regulations, to disclose to the Secretary of Labor, within 30 days after each quarter, AI-related layoffs, hires, unfilled positions and retraining. The Secretary would publish quarterly reports within 60 days after each quarter. Introduced November 5, 2025 and referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 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.
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.
AI Training Extension Act of 2025
The federal H.R. 3775 (AI Training Extension Act of 2025) would amend the Artificial Intelligence Training for the Acquisition Workforce Act (Public Law 117-207) to move the federal AI training program from the OMB Director to the Administrator of General Services, in coordination with OMB. It would extend training to employees in acquisition positions, management officials, supervisors and employees in data or technology positions, update required topics, and rename the law the Artificial Intelligence Training Act. Introduced June 5, 2025 and referred to the House Oversight 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.
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 A 7634-B would have amended Tax Law § 24(b)(3) to exclude from the "qualified film" definition for the Empire State film production credit a production using artificial intelligence or autonomous vehicles in a manner that displaces employees whose salaries are qualified expenses, unless permitted by a current collective bargaining agreement. Introduced May 25, 2023 and last amended and recommitted to the Ways and Means Committee May 2, 2024; it never passed either chamber and died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.
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 a bias audit within the last year and the results of such audit have been…
New York's A 8328 would have added Labor Law § 203-g restricting employer use of electronic monitoring and automated employment decision tools: bias audits before use and annually, ten business days' notice to employees and candidates, human oversight, a ban on facial, gait or emotion recognition, a private right of action and civil penalties. Introduced December 13, 2023 and referred to the Labor Committee; the enacting clause was stricken January 10, 2024, and it died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.
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.
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.
Ai, Deepfakes, Cybersecurity, Data Xfers
Alaska's HB 306 would have required a statement ('This communication has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence') on campaign communications containing a deepfake meant to injure a candidate or party or deceive voters. It would also have set rules for state agency AI used for consequential decisions: inventories, impact assessments, notice, consent, appeals and bans. It was heard and held in House State Affairs March 19, 2024 and died when the 33rd Legislature ended.
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.
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.
A bill to establish Federal agency technology and artificial intelligence talent teams to improve competitive service hiring practices, and for other purposes.
The federal S. 3410 (a bill to establish Federal agency technology and AI talent teams to improve competitive service hiring) would let agencies and the OPM Director establish technology and AI talent teams to support hiring, allow experts to develop and share technical assessments, and require the OPM Director to operate an online platform for sharing them. Its definition of an examination would, from 5 years after enactment, include one that does not solely rely on self-assessment from an automated examination, subject to a waiver. Introduced December 10, 2025 and referred to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; no further action.
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.
Requires the owner, licensee or operator of a visual or audio generative artificial intelligence system to take steps to prohibit its users from creating unauthorized realistic depictions of public officials.
New York's A 10652 would have added General Business Law § 390-f requiring the owner, licensee or operator of a visual or audio generative AI system accessible to New York residents to implement a reasonable method to prohibit users from creating unauthorized realistic depictions of a public officeholder or candidate within sixty days of being notified by that person. Operators would have been liable for $100 per depiction, up to $100,000 in the aggregate. Introduced July 22, 2024 and referred to Consumer Affairs and Protection; it died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.
REGISTERED NURSE USE OF AI
Illinois's SB 3702 would amend the Nurse Practice Act to bar AI systems from providing nursing services in place of a registered professional nurse in direct patient care, require a nurse to get patient consent before AI records or analyzes an encounter, and require written notice that AI supports but does not replace the nurse. Health care entities employing nurses and deploying AI in direct patient care would have to keep validation and bias monitoring records, train nurses, and not rely solely on AI for staffing, triage, admission, discharge or transfer decisions. Introduced February 5, 2026; re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026 under Senate Rule 3-9(a); it has not passed either house.
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.
DIGITAL LIKENESS PROTECTION
Illinois's SB 3705 (103rd General Assembly) would have created the Digital Voice and Likeness Protection Act. A provision in a personal or professional services agreement would be unenforceable if it allows a digital replica of the individual's voice or likeness to replace work they would otherwise perform, does not clearly detail all uses, and the individual lacked counsel or union representation. Died at Session Sine Die on January 7, 2025.
AN ACT relating to the promotion of family well-being and making an appropriation therefor.
Kentucky's HB 734, the omnibus ALPHA Act on family well-being, included a provision that would bar the Cabinet for Health and Family Services from relying exclusively on automated, AI-based or algorithmic software to identify fraud in public assistance programs and from denying, discontinuing or reducing benefits without staff review of the documentation. Introduced February 26, 2024; sent to the House Appropriations & Revenue Committee March 5, 2024. It died when the 2024 session ended without passing.
AN ACT relating to the promotion of family well-being and making an appropriation therefor.
Kentucky's SB 34, the omnibus ALPHA Act on family well-being, included a provision that would bar the Cabinet for Health and Family Services from relying exclusively on automated, AI-based or algorithmic software to identify fraud in public assistance programs and from denying, discontinuing or reducing benefits without staff review of the documentation. Introduced January 2, 2024; sent to the Senate Appropriations & Revenue Committee January 5, 2024. It died when the 2024 session ended without passing.
Establishes Artificial Intelligence Apprenticeship Program and artificial intelligence apprenticeship tax credit program.
New Jersey's A4935 would establish an Artificial Intelligence Apprenticeship Program in the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, with corporation business tax and gross income tax credits for periods beginning in 2026. The credit is one-half of a qualified apprentice's wages, up to $5,000. Introduced October 21, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Establishes public-private partnerships to develop artificial intelligence job training.
New Jersey's A5033 would let the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development contract with a private entity that takes on full financial and administrative responsibility for developing AI job training, including retraining for displaced workers and building AI skills in the State workforce. Each agreement would create an advisory council reporting annually to the Governor and Legislature. The entity would be exempt from procurement and certain prevailing wage requirements. Introduced November 14, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
VIDEO INTERVIEW DEMOGRAPHIC
Illinois' Public Act 102-0047 (HB 53) adds Section 20 to the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act. An employer that relies solely upon an AI analysis of a video interview to decide whether an applicant gets an in-person interview must collect and report the race and ethnicity of applicants who are and are not given an in-person interview after the AI analysis, and of those hired. Reports go to the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity by December 31 each year, covering the 12 months ending November 30; by July 1 each year the Department reports whether the data shows racial bias in AI use. Approved July 9, 2021; effective January 1, 2022.
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.
Creates standards for independent bias auditing of automated employment decision tools.
New Jersey's S2964 would bar an employer or employment agency from using an automated employment decision tool (AEDT) if more than one year has passed since its last independent bias audit. Audits would have to compute selection or scoring rates and impact ratios by sex, race/ethnicity and intersectional categories. Employers would have to post audit results and notify candidates at least 10 business days before use. The text sets no penalties. Introduced March 18, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
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.
Establishes public-private partnerships to develop artificial intelligence job training.
New Jersey's S3984 would let the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development contract with a private entity that takes on full financial and administrative responsibility for developing AI job training, including retraining for displaced workers and building AI skills in the State workforce. Each agreement would create an advisory council reporting annually to the Governor and Legislature. The private entity would be exempt from the Department's procurement rules and certain prevailing wage requirements. Introduced December 19, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Artificial intelligence: education and workforce development.
California's AB 2487 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have enacted the Artificial Intelligence Education and Workforce Development Act. Upon appropriation, the California Community Colleges would have developed AI-use guidance for districts, supported AI literacy and skills partnerships and instructor training, run a classroom AI pilot program and reported to the Legislature. It was never heard; its first hearing was canceled at the author's request on April 7, 2026, and it was not passed before the session ended.
Urges generative artificial intelligence companies to make voluntary commitments regarding employee whistleblower protections.
New Jersey's SR121 is a Senate resolution that would urge generative AI companies to make six voluntary commitments protecting employees who raise risk-related concerns. It is a resolution and does not change the law or bind any company. Introduced January 14, 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.
Surveillance-based price and wage discrimination prohibited.
Not law. Minnesota's HF 4131 would have added Minn. Stat. 325D.141 prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination and wage discrimination, meaning use of an automated decision system to inform individualized prices or wages from surveillance data about a consumer or worker. Listed cost, group-discount and insurer risk exceptions would apply, and wage-setters would have to disclose the data and how the system uses it. The text has no penalties or enforcer. Introduced March 9, 2026; effective August 1, 2026 if enacted.
Relating to: prohibiting state agencies and local governmental units from using facial recognition technology or data generated from it.
Wisconsin's AB 575 (2025-26) would have created s. 995.80 to prohibit any state agency or local governmental unit from using facial recognition technology, or data generated from it, for any purpose except identifying its own employees for employment-related purposes. It was referred to the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee on October 24, 2025 and failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 on 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.
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.
Advisory board established to study impacts of commercial autonomous vehicle operations implementation, minimum requirements for operation of commercial autonomous vehicles established, and permit process for commercial autonomous vehicle operations required.
Minnesota's HF 4216 would have barred commercial autonomous vehicle operations until an advisory board's study is complete and the commissioner sets up a permit process, and would have required a permit for any entity to begin such operations. Permitted autonomous vehicles carrying passengers or goods would have needed a human safety operator physically present who can take control. Introduced March 12, 2026 and never left committee.
Public employees: notice: artificial intelligence performing service within scope of work.
Vetoed. AB 2656 would have required California public employers to give a recognized employee organization at least 45 days' written notice before taking action to develop, purchase or require the use of generative AI to perform a service within the scope of work of a job classification it represents. Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 30, 2026, saying it would add redundant administrative layers for public agencies, slow even harmless tools, and that the issue is best handled through collective bargaining.
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.
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.
Directs the commissioner of education to conduct a study on the use of biometric identifying technology; prohibits the use of biometric identifying technology in schools until July 1, 2022 or until the commissioner authorizes such purchase or utilization, whichever occurs later.
New York's A 6787-D barred public and nonpublic elementary and secondary schools, including charter schools, from buying or using biometric identifying technology until July 1, 2022 or until the Commissioner of Education authorized it after a public report, whichever was later. As signed it added Education Law § 2-e; Chapter 2 of 2021 moved it to State Technology Law § 106-b, had the Office of Information Technology Services write the report, and allowed employee fingerprinting and consenting-employee uses. In September 2023 the Commissioner banned facial recognition in schools and left other biometrics to local decision. Signed December 22, 2020 (Chapter 349); effective immediately.
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.
Enact the Ohio Right to Compute Act
The Ohio Right to Compute Act would bar state agencies and local governments from restricting anyone's lawful use, development, deployment or possession of computing resources, including AI and machine learning systems, unless the restriction is narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest, such as critical infrastructure reliability, fraud, protecting minors from nonconsensual deepfakes, or rules for employees' AI use. Anyone operating an AI system that controls critical infrastructure would need a risk management policy following the NIST AI framework or another recognized standard. The House Technology and Innovation Committee reported an amended version on June 10, 2026.
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.
WARN ACT-AI LAYOFFS
Illinois' SB 3571 would amend the Illinois WARN Act so that an employer reporting the reason for a mass layoff or closing must disclose AI-related job impacts, including how many employees were laid off substantially due to replacement or automation by AI. Filed February 5, 2026, assigned to the Senate Executive Committee on February 17 and sent to its AI and Social Media panel; re-referred to Assignments on May 22, 2026 under Rule 3-9(a). It has not passed either house.
Digital replicas.
California's SB 1111 clarifies that the voice or likeness protected by Civil Code § 3344, the right to sue over knowing use of a person's name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness on products or in advertising without consent, includes a digital replica: a computer-generated, highly realistic representation readily identifiable as a person's voice or visual likeness. It drops the presumption that using an employee's incidental likeness without consent was not knowing. New Penal Code § 540 makes using a digital replica with intent to impersonate someone false impersonation for crimes such as §§ 528.5, 529 and 530. Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 862); effective January 1, 2027.
AI Talent Act
The federal H.R. 6573 (AI Talent Act) would let federal agencies and the OPM Director establish technology and AI talent teams to support hiring, allow individuals with expertise in the job field to develop and share technical assessments, and require the OPM Director to operate an online platform for sharing them. Its definition of an examination would, from 5 years after enactment, include one that does not solely rely on self-assessment from an automated examination, subject to a waiver. Introduced December 10, 2025 and referred to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee; no further action.
Human Control of AI Act
Illinois's HB 4980 (104th General Assembly) would create the Meaningful Human Control of Artificial Intelligence Act. Public employers and their contractors could not use or procure automated decision-making systems for specified functions without meaningful and continuing human review, and would have to run impact assessments at least every 2 years. It passed House committee as amended; re-referred to Rules April 17, 2026.
AI Workforce Training Act
H.R. 7576, the AI Workforce Training Act, would add Internal Revenue Code section 45BB, a general business credit equal to 30 percent of a taxpayer's qualified AI training expenses, capped at $2,500 per trained employee per year, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025. Introduced February 13, 2026 and referred to the House Ways and Means Committee; it has not passed either house.
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.
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.
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.
Imposes liability for misleading, incorrect, contradictory or harmful information to a user by a chatbot that results in financial loss or other demonstrable harm.
New York's A 10494 would have added General Business Law § 390-f barring a chatbot proprietor (an entity with more than twenty employees) whose chatbot serves as an alternative to a human representative from disclaiming liability when the chatbot gives “materially misleading, incorrect, contradictory or harmful information” causing financial loss or other demonstrable harm, unless it cured the harm within thirty days of notice. Clear notice that users face an AI chatbot was also required. Referred to Consumer Affairs and Protection May 29, 2024; it died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.
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.
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.
ELEC CD-AI ADVERT DISCLOSURE
Illinois's SB 150 (104th General Assembly) would add Section 9-9.6 to the Election Code. A person, committee or other entity that creates, originally publishes or originally distributes a qualified political advertisement, meaning a paid ad about a candidate, election or ballot question containing an image, audio or video generated in whole or substantially by AI, would have to include a clear and conspicuous statement that it was AI-generated. Re-referred to Assignments April 11, 2025.
Establishes contract requirements for contracts involving the creation and use of digital replicas.
New York's S 7676-B adds General Obligations Law § 5-302. A clause in a personal or professional services agreement is void as to new performances by digital replication if it lets a digital replica of the person's voice or likeness replace work they would have done in person, lacks a reasonably specific description of the intended use, and the person was not represented by counsel who negotiated the replica license (the text also refers to terms stated clearly and conspicuously in a signed writing) or by a union whose bargaining agreement expressly addresses digital replicas. Signed December 13, 2024 (Chapter 581); effective January 1, 2025, for contracts made or modified from then on.
Prohibits the use of biometric identifying technology in schools for any reason other than specified purposes.
New York's S 7944 (2023-2024) would have amended State Technology Law § 106-b to prohibit public and nonpublic elementary and secondary schools, including charter schools, from purchasing or using biometric identifying technology for any purpose, replacing the earlier temporary bar. Schools could still use it for fingerprint identification of prospective employees as education law requires and to identify employees who consent in writing. Referred to Internet and Technology January 4, 2024, reported and committed to Education May 7, 2024; it died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Prohibits the creation and dissemination of synthetic media within sixty days of an election with intent to unduly influence the outcome of an election; makes such act a class E felony.
New York's S 8400-A (2023-2024) would have added Election Law § 17-172 making it a class E felony to create, or cause to be created, synthetic media and disseminate or publish it within sixty days of an election with intent to injure a candidate or unduly influence the outcome. It excluded commentary, parody, news reporting and media made with consent. Amended January 30, 2024 and left in the Elections Committee; it died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
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.
Imposes liability for misleading, incorrect, contradictory or harmful information to a user by a chatbot that results in financial loss or other demonstrable harm.
New York's S 9381 (2023-2024) would have added General Business Law section 390-f on chatbots. A proprietor with more than twenty employees that uses a chatbot in place of a human representative could not disclaim liability for materially misleading, incorrect, contradictory or harmful information causing financial loss or other demonstrable harm, with no liability if cured within 30 days of notice, and must give clear notice users are talking to an AI chatbot. Referred to Internet and Technology May 14, 2024; it died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Providing for a report on artificial intelligence in the workforce; and imposing duties on the Department of Labor and Industry and Department of Community and Economic Development.
Pennsylvania's SB 293 (2025-26), the Artificial Intelligence Workforce Impact Act (Printer's No. 1269), would require the Secretary of Labor and Industry, in consultation with the Department of Community and Economic Development and the Office of Administration, to study AI's impact on the workforce and report to the General Assembly within 18 months. The Labor & Industry Committee reported it as amended on October 22, 2025; it was laid on the table on February 2, 2026 and remains pending.
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.
Fostering artificial intelligence responsibility
Massachusetts H77 would add G.L. Chapter 149B limiting employers' electronic monitoring and use of automated decision systems (independent impact assessments, 10 business days' notice, human oversight, no primary reliance for hiring, discipline or pay), and bar state agencies from using such systems for benefits or rights decisions unless authorized by law. Reported favorably and referred to House Ways and Means December 24, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
SCHOOLS: Prohibits the use of deepfake material against students enrolled in K-12. (8/1/26)
Louisiana's SB 346 (Act 496) adds R.S. 17:416.14.1: no student, faculty member, administrative staff member or other employee at an elementary or secondary school may use material considered a deepfake against a K-12 student with the intent to coerce, harass, intimidate, or maliciously disseminate or sell the material. A deepfake is audio or visual media made or altered to falsely appear to a reasonable observer to be an authentic record of an individual's speech or conduct, or that swaps in another's likeness. BESE, with the Department of Education, must adopt rules to implement it. Signed May 29, 2026; effective August 1, 2026.
Regulating high-risk artificial intelligence system development, deployment, and use.
Washington's HB 2157 (Substitute House Bill, 2026 session) would have required developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems, those specifically intended to make, or be a substantial factor in making, consequential decisions such as employment, lending, housing, insurance, health care and education, to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with developer documentation, deployer risk programs and impact assessments, consumer notices, and private lawsuits. It died when the session adjourned March 12, 2026, after the House Rules "X" file on February 19.
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.
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.
State contracts: report: modern foundation models and associated artificial intelligence systems.
California's AB 2653 (2025-26 Regular Session) would add Public Contract Code Chapter 6.5 requiring the Department of Industrial Relations, in consultation with the Department of Technology, to convene a nine-member Foundation Model Labor and Procurement Working Group. It would assess labor practices behind modern foundation models and recommend whether and how the state should include labor standards in procurement, reporting by December 31, 2027. Held in Assembly Appropriations May 14, 2026; not passed.
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.
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.
Requires Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development to conduct study and issue report on impact of artificial intelligence on growth of State's economy.
New Jersey's A1781 would require the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development, in consultation with the New Jersey Commission on Science, Innovation and Technology, to study the impact of AI-powered technology and automation on the growth of the State's economy and to submit a written report within one year after the act takes effect. Pre-filed for the 2024 session. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Preventing the dissemination of deepfake materials of political candidates before an election.
New Hampshire's HB 630 (2025) would have amended RSA 664:14-c, which bars distributing a deepfake of a candidate, election official or party within 90 days of an election unless it carries a prescribed disclosure, so that it covers deepfakes created using any "synthetic media technology" rather than only "artificial intelligence or generative AI", and so the disclosure refers to "digital technology" instead of "artificial intelligence technology". The House adopted the committee's Inexpedient to Legislate report 201-169 on March 20, 2025, and the bill died.
Directing the Joint State Government Commission to establish an advisory committee to conduct a study on the field of artificial intelligence and its impact and potential future impact in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania's House Resolution 170 directs the Joint State Government Commission, with an advisory committee of state officials, House members, labor, civil liberties, academic, AI, medical, business and other experts, to investigate AI, recommend how to grow the state's emerging technology markets and use AI in state government, and study how other states regulate AI. Its report, due 18 months after adoption, covers AI's benefits and risks, possible legislation, a definition of AI, worker and employer rights, disinformation, student use and fraudulent impersonation. Adopted by the House July 3, 2024 (125-77); a resolution of one chamber that does not change the law.
Community colleges: artificial intelligence: pilot program.
California's AB 2504 creates the Future of Creative Industries Pilot Program at up to 10 community colleges to retrain workers in film, TV, music, touring and live events who have been or may be displaced by generative AI, such as sound engineers, voice actors, concept artists and entry-level staff. The Chancellor's office designs it with creative-worker unions and industry, sets eligibility by June 30, 2027, starts it by July 1, 2028 and reports results by January 1, 2032. It operates only if the Legislature funds it and is repealed January 1, 2033. Signed September 18, 2026 (Chapter 305).
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.
Education - Artificial Intelligence - Guidelines, Professional Development, and Collaborative (Artificial Intelligence Ready Schools Act)
Maryland's SB 720, the Artificial Intelligence Ready Schools Act, requires the State Department of Education to provide AI guidance online, with separate guidance for students, educators, administrators and parents, offer AI professional development, and publish a rubric that local school systems must use to evaluate AI tools. Each local school system must name a central-office AI coordinator and must have an AI policy within 120 days after the guidance is released. By June 1, 2027, AI literacy must be in K-12 computer science and workforce standards. An AI Education Collaborative reports by December 1, 2027 and ends May 31, 2028. Approved May 26, 2026 (Chapter 634); effective June 1, 2026.
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.
Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act
The federal S 4214 (Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act) would bar construction or upgrading of AI data centers from enactment until laws are enacted requiring federal pre-release review of AI products, protecting workers, and setting conditions for new centers. It would also require export limits on computing hardware. Read twice and referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee March 25, 2026; it has not passed either house.
NSF AI Education Act of 2026
The federal S. 3957 (NSF AI Education Act of 2026) would direct the National Science Foundation, subject to available funding, to award AI-related undergraduate and graduate scholarships and fellowships, designate at least 5 community college and vocational school Centers of AI Excellence, publish K-12 AI guidance within 2 years, and develop an AI workforce framework with NIST. Introduced March 2, 2026 and referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee; no further action.
Workforce of the Future Act of 2025
The federal H.R. 6621 (Workforce of the Future Act of 2025) would require the Secretaries of Labor, Commerce and Education to report jointly on AI's impact on jobs, authorize Education Department grants to expand emerging and advanced technology education (including AI), with $160,000,000 for fiscal year 2026, and authorize Labor Department grants to train workers in industries most impacted by AI, with $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2026. Introduced December 11, 2025 and referred to the House Education and Workforce Committee and, in addition, Science, Space, and Technology; no further action.
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.
Relates to the disclosure of automated employment decision-making tools; requires the office of information technology services to maintain an artificial intelligence inventory; provides that the use of artificial intelligence systems shall not affect the existing rights of employees pursuant to an…
New York's S 822 (Chapter 96 of 2025) is the chapter amendment to the LOADinG Act (Chapter 674 of 2024). It dropped that act's human-review and impact-assessment rules for state agency automated decision-making. Instead, each state agency using automated employment decision-making tools must post a list of them on its website by December 30, 2025 and yearly; the Office of Information Technology Services must keep an inventory of state agency AI systems that may directly impact the public, posted on the state's open data site each December 30; and, until July 1, 2028, AI use may not displace state employees or impair collective bargaining. Signed February 14, 2025; effective July 1, 2025.
State government; require state agencies to provide a notice to employees when using artificial intelligence in personnel matters
Georgia's HB 1351 would add Code section 50-1-15 requiring a governmental agency that uses AI, or contracts with a third party to use it, in hiring to state in the job description that AI may be used to evaluate applications. If AI is used to evaluate an employee's performance in a way that leads to termination, the agency would have to provide a disclaimer documenting all decision pathways, including human review. The bill reached House Second Readers on February 19, 2026 and died when the session ended.
An act relating to restricting electronic monitoring of employees and the use of employment-related automated decision systems
Vermont's H.262 (2025-2026 biennium) would have limited employers' electronic monitoring of employees and use of automated decision systems (ADS) in employment decisions (new 21 V.S.A. sec. 495q). Employers would have had to give 15 days' notice before monitoring and could use an ADS only with human corroboration, an impact assessment and notice, never relying on its output alone. Facial, gait, voice and emotion recognition would be banned. It was referred to House General and Housing on February 19, 2025 and died.
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.
Prohibition from using artificial intelligence to dynamically set product prices
Minnesota's SF 3098 (1st engrossment) would add Minn. Stat. 325D.141 prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination and wage discrimination, meaning individualized prices or wages set with an automated decision system from surveillance data about a consumer or worker, and would require published procedures for data accuracy and challenges. Introduced March 27, 2025; amended and re-referred to Commerce and Consumer Protection March 18, 2026 with no recommendation. It died when the 2026 session adjourned without passing.
Requesting The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission To Examine The Applicability Of Existing State Anti-discrimination Laws To Algorithmic And Automated Decision Systems.
Hawaii's House Resolution 182 (2026) asks the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission to examine how existing state anti-discrimination laws apply to algorithmic and automated decision systems, including AI tools used in employment screening, tenant selection, credit and public benefits decisions: whether current law gives enough authority to investigate and remedy such discrimination, jurisdictional and evidentiary hurdles, whether guidance or rulemaking would help, a possible complaint pathway, and any legislation needed. Report due 20 days before the 2027 session. Adopted by the House April 9, 2026; a resolution of one chamber does not change the law.
Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act of 2025
The AI Civil Rights Act would bar companies from developing or using AI-driven 'covered algorithms' in decisions about jobs, education, housing, utilities, health care, credit, insurance, criminal justice, elections, government benefits or public accommodations in a way that causes a disparate impact or otherwise discriminates based on a protected characteristic. Where harm is plausible, an independent auditor must evaluate the algorithm before deployment, and deployers must assess impacts every year, with summaries made public. The FTC would set rules for human alternatives and appeals. Enforced by the FTC, state attorneys general and private lawsuits. Introduced December 2, 2025.
Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act
The federal H.R. 5272 (Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act) would add Section 325 to the Federal Election Campaign Act, barring 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, with intent to influence an election or solicit funds. Candidates could sue. Referred to the House Administration Committee September 10, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Expanding AI Voices Act Expanding AI Voices through Capacity Building Act
The federal H.R. 7158 (Expanding AI Voices through Capacity Building Act, also called the Expanding AI Voices Act) would amend the National AI Initiative Act so the National Science Foundation makes competitive, merit-reviewed awards to eligible institutions and nonprofit organizations, or consortia of them, to broaden participation in AI research, education and workforce development. Eligible institutions include minority-serving institutions, HBCUs, Tribal Colleges and Universities and institutions outside the top 100 in federal R&D spending. Introduced January 20, 2026 and referred to the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee; no further action.
State management: other; artificial intelligence pilot program; establish for state departments and agencies. Creates new act.
Michigan's HB 5899 (2026), by Rep. Jaime Greene, would create the Artificial Intelligence Pilot Program Act. The Department of Technology, Management, and Budget (DTMB) would run a pilot, beginning no later than January 1, 2027, letting approved state employees, agencies and departments use generative AI, guided by a three-member AI governing board appointed by the governor. Introduced April 23, 2026; the Communications and Technology Committee reported it for referral to the Rules Committee May 19, 2026. It has not passed either chamber.
AI WORK TRANSITION COMMISSION
Illinois's HB 5760 (104th General Assembly) would create the Commission on Artificial Intelligence and Workforce Transition Act. The Commission would direct State agencies to assess the actual and projected impact of generative and frontier AI systems on Illinois industries, occupations, regions and workers, and make recommendations on State and federal workforce, education, apprenticeship, unemployment insurance and income support programs. The Act would be repealed January 1, 2034. Last action: referred to the House Rules Committee May 5, 2026.
Artificial Intelligence Systems
Not law. Colorado's HB 25B-1009, introduced in the August 2025 extraordinary session, would have amended the Colorado AI Act (SB 24-205). It would have narrowed 'consequential decision' to employment and public safety decisions, delayed the effective date from February 1, 2026 to August 1, 2027, and exempted businesses with fewer than 250 employees or under $5 million in annual revenue and local governments with fewer than 100,000 residents. The House Business Affairs & Labor Committee postponed it indefinitely 8-4 on August 21, 2025.
An Act Prohibiting The Disclosure Of The Residential Address Of Public School Employees Under The Freedom Of Information Act And Establishing A Task Force Concerning Mass Requests Under The Act.
Connecticut's SB 325 (2026), in the committee substitute text (File No. 292), would add school employees to the list of public employees whose residential addresses a public agency may not disclose from personnel, medical or similar files under the Freedom of Information Act (effective October 1, 2026), and would establish a task force to study individuals using artificial intelligence to develop mass FOIA requests. It passed the Senate on April 22, 2026, and died when the 2026 session ended May 6, 2026.
A bill for an act relating to private entity requirements concerning biometric data, and providing civil penalties.
Iowa's SSB 3085 would create Code chapter 554J requiring private entities holding biometric data (such as facial geometry, fingerprints or voice) to have a public retention policy, give written notice before collecting, never sell it, and protect it. The Department of Inspections, Appeals, and Licensing would enforce with civil penalties of $1,000, $5,000 and $10,000; no private right of action. Senate subcommittee recommended passage February 4, 2026.
AN ACT relating to protection of information and declaring an emergency.
Kentucky's SB 4 (2025) governs state government's use of AI. The Commonwealth Office of Technology must create an Artificial Intelligence Governance Committee, set standards for agencies' use of generative and high-risk AI, keep a registry of those systems and report yearly. Agencies must disclose AI use to the public, explain AI-driven decisions and offer appeals of consequential decisions. A candidate whose appearance, action or speech is altered with synthetic media in an electioneering communication may sue the sponsor to require a clear disclosure. Signed March 24, 2025 (Acts Ch. 66); emergency act, effective on signing.
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.
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.
Creating a West Virginia Task Force on Artificial Intelligence
West Virginia's HB 5690 (2024) adds Code §5A-6-9, creating the West Virginia Task Force on Artificial Intelligence in the Office of the Governor, with state officials, non-voting legislators and Governor-appointed industry members. It was to recommend an AI definition and legislation protecting rights and consumer data, develop best practices for public-sector AI, recommend model school policies, assess AI's workforce effects, inventory state agencies' AI use, and report by July 1, 2025. HB 3187 (2025) later required annual reports and set its end at July 1, 2027. Approved March 27, 2024 (Chapter 43); effective June 2, 2024.
William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Division E: National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020)
Division E of the FY2021 NDAA is the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020. It sets up a National AI Initiative to sustain U.S. leadership in AI research and promote trustworthy AI (sec. 5101), and creates a National AI Initiative Office at OSTP, an interagency committee, a National AI Advisory Committee and a National AI Research Resource Task Force (secs. 5102-5106). It authorizes National AI Research Institutes (sec. 5201) and gives AI duties to NIST (including a voluntary AI risk management framework), NOAA, NSF and the Department of Energy (secs. 5301-5501). The rest of the NDAA is outside this entry.
State-by-State Regulation of AI Hiring Laws by State
Artificial intelligence regulation is advancing at the state level. This page lists the 404 published bills we track on AI Hiring Laws by State. 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 Hiring Laws by State 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.