Insurance AI regulation addresses the use of artificial intelligence in underwriting decisions, rate-setting algorithms, claims automation, and policyholder risk assessment. As insurers increasingly rely on AI models to price policies and process claims, state regulators are scrutinizing these systems for algorithmic discrimination, lack of transparency, and unfair outcomes for consumers.
Colorado's SB 21-169 (2021) bars insurers from using external consumer data, algorithms or predictive models that unfairly discriminate, and directs the Division of Insurance to adopt testing rules. Alabama's SB 63 (effective October 1, 2026) requires prior-authorization denials based on medical necessity to be made by a licensed physician or other qualified professional. Other states are developing frameworks to ensure AI-driven insurance practices comply with existing unfair trade practice and anti-discrimination statutes.
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.
Advertisement claims: health-related consumer products and services: digital replicas and synthetic performers.
California's SB 1146 (Gonzalez) would add Business and Professions Code 651.4, requiring a person who creates an advertisement for a health-related consumer product or service that includes a digital replica or synthetic performer depicted as a health care provider to include a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the provider was AI-generated or altered or that no human provider is depicted. Passed the Senate 36-0 on May 18, 2026; held in Assembly Appropriations August 13, 2026; it did not pass.
Vehicle Laws - Fully Autonomous Vehicles
Maryland's SB 909 (2026, first reader text, cross-filed with HB 1295) would have allowed fully autonomous vehicles to operate without a human driver on Maryland highways if they meet safety, first responder plan and insurance requirements, including at least $1,000,000 combined single limit liability coverage when the automated system is engaged. It would have barred state and local bans on such vehicles. It had a Senate hearing set for March 4, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.
Vehicle Laws - Fully Autonomous Vehicles
Maryland's HB 1295 (2026, first reader text, cross-filed with SB 909) would have allowed fully autonomous vehicles to operate without a human driver on Maryland highways if they meet safety, first responder plan and insurance requirements, including at least $1,000,000 combined single limit liability coverage when the automated system is engaged. It would have barred state and local bans on such vehicles. It had a House hearing set for March 5, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.
Algorithmic Addiction Fund - Establishment
Maryland's SB 602 (2026, first reader text, cross-filed with HB 715) would have created the Algorithmic Addiction Fund, administered by the Maryland Department of Health, to hold civil penalties the State receives from judgments or settlements over harm to children from social media and improper use of algorithms, for prevention, intervention and treatment programs. The fund would start only after such a judgment or settlement. It had a Senate Finance hearing set for February 24, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.
Algorithmic Addiction Fund – Establishment
Maryland's HB 715 (2026, first reader text, cross-filed with SB 602) would have created the Algorithmic Addiction Fund, administered by the Maryland Department of Health, to hold civil penalties the State receives from judgments or settlements over harm to children from social media and improper use of algorithms, for prevention, intervention and treatment programs. The fund would start only after such a judgment or settlement. It had a hearing set for March 10, 2026 in House Appropriations 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.
Consumer Protection - Consumer Reporting Agencies - Use of Algorithmic Systems
Maryland's HB 1399 (2026, first reader text) would have added Commercial Law section 14-1228 requiring consumer reporting agencies that use algorithmic systems to assemble or evaluate consumer information to explain evaluations in plain language, keep a public registry of algorithms, meet error-rate targets, get quarterly independent bias audits, have humans review automated evaluations within 24 hours, and notify consumers when AI is used. It had a House Economic Matters hearing set for March 10, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.
Health Insurance - Artificial Intelligence, Adverse Decisions, and Grievances - Reporting Requirements
Maryland's HB 697 (2025) would have required each health insurance carrier to report quarterly to the Insurance Commissioner on how it creates, deploys and uses artificial intelligence or automated decision-making systems (new Insurance section 15-147), and expanded the demographic and call-center data carriers report on grievances and adverse decisions (section 15-10A-06). The sponsor withdrew it on February 17, 2025, after a canceled February 13 hearing.
Consumer Protection - Consumer Reporting Agencies - Use of Algorithmic Systems
Maryland's HB 1477 (2025) would have added Commercial Law section 14-1228 for consumer reporting agencies that use algorithmic systems to assemble or evaluate consumer information. They would have had to give plain-language explanations, keep a public registry of algorithms, meet error-rate and accuracy thresholds, get quarterly third-party bias audits, and have all automated evaluations reviewed by a human within 24 hours. It was introduced February 7, 2025, its March 4 hearing was canceled, and it died when the session ended.
Relating To The Patients' Bill Of Rights.
Hawaii's HB 2537 (2026), the Patients' Bill of Rights, would have amended HRS chapter 432E for managed care plans. It would set prior authorization deadlines (one business day urgent, three non-urgent), require notice and independent board-certified clinician review before an adverse action to which an automated decision support tool materially contributed, and require governance and bias-testing records by June 30, 2027. It was referred to HLT and CPC February 2, 2026 and died.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's SB 2967 (2026) would have added a part to HRS chapter 480 regulating businesses ('deployers') that use AI systems or automated decision tools with consumers. They would have to disclose AI interactions, give notice and explanation, correction, appeal and human review for AI-influenced consequential decisions, keep risk programs, do annual impact assessments and report incidents within 90 days. A violation would be an unfair or deceptive act. The Senate committee on LBT deferred it February 11, 2026; it died.
Relating To Health Care.
Hawaii's SB 2768 (2026) would have barred health carriers and utilization review organizations from using AI, algorithms or software tools to deny, delay or modify a determination to provide health care services, and would have required a licensed health care provider to independently review any adverse action before a carrier issues it. It was referred to HHS/LBT and CPN on January 30, 2026 and was not enacted.
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.
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.
Autonomous vehicles and on-demand autonomous vehicle networks operation authorized, and rulemaking authorized.
Not law. Minnesota's HF 4521 would have amended Minn. Stat. 169.011 and added sections 169.251 to 169.255 letting autonomous vehicles operate with annual commissioner of public safety authorization (not effective until July 1, 2027), at least $10,000,000 combined single limit liability coverage for driverless use, and independent safety verification. On-demand autonomous vehicle networks would need separate authorization. Fees and some deadlines were left blank. It never left committee.
Autonomous vehicles regulated.
Not law. Minnesota's HF 3513 would have authorized level 4 and 5 autonomous vehicles to operate on public roads, with driverless operation requiring commissioner authorization and a first responder interaction plan, and at least $1,000,000 combined single limit liability coverage. It would also have let on-demand autonomous vehicle networks operate under state rules, treated the driving system as the driver, and preempted local regulation. Introduced February 19, 2026; it never left committee.
Algorithm and AI use prohibited during health insurance prior authorization request review.
Minnesota's HF 2500 would have barred a health carrier from using an algorithm or artificial intelligence program when deciding whether to approve or deny a prior authorization request. It would have applied to health plans offered, sold, issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2026. Introduced March 17, 2025 and referred to Commerce Finance and Policy and it never left committee.
Prior authorization usage of algorithms or artificial intelligence prohibition provision
Minnesota's SF 3984 would have barred a health carrier from using an algorithm or artificial intelligence program when deciding whether to approve or deny a prior authorization request. It would have applied to health plans offered, sold, issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2026. Introduced February 26, 2026 and referred to Commerce and Consumer Protection and it 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.
Vehicles with Autonomous Technology
Florida's CS/HB 1207 (2012) defines an autonomous vehicle as one equipped with technology that can drive without active human control or monitoring, lets a person with a valid driver license operate one in autonomous mode (that person is the operator), sets equipment standards for registration, and permits testing by manufacturers' designees with a human monitor (except on a closed course) after proof of $5 million in insurance. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles must report to the Legislature by February 12, 2014. Approved April 13, 2012 (Chapter 2012-111); effective July 1, 2012.
An act relating to artificial intelligence
Vermont's H.821 (2026) would have required anyone using generative AI to interact with consumers to clearly disclose, when asked, that the consumer is dealing with AI, and would have required licensed professionals to disclose high-risk generative AI interactions. Violations would have been unfair and deceptive acts enforced by the Attorney General, and a person could not blame generative AI as a defense. It would also have added members to the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council and required a report by January 15, 2027. Referred to committee January 29, 2026; died.
An act relating to the use of artificial intelligence in health care coverage decisions
Vermont's H.776 (2026) would have added 18 V.S.A. 9423 on AI in health care coverage decisions. A health plan using an AI tool, algorithm or software for utilization review would have had to base determinations on the insured's clinical history and circumstances, not rely solely on a group dataset, apply it consistently, allow Department of Financial Regulation audits, and review it at least quarterly. AI could not deny, delay or modify coverage; adverse determinations would have been made only by a licensed human provider. Referred to committee January 27, 2026; died.
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.
Establishes requirements for health insurance issuers using artificial intelligence or automated decision systems. (8/1/26)
Louisiana's SB246 would have set rules for health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and independent review organizations that use AI or automated decision systems in utilization review: no use that denies, delays or modifies care, adverse determinations signed by a physician who reviewed the record, disclosure of AI use, and a presumption that AI-influenced adverse decisions are invalid on appeal. The Senate withdrew it from its files May 28, 2026, so it died.
Sexual offenses.
Indiana treats AI-generated and digitally altered sexual images as 'intimate images' under both its civil nonconsensual-pornography law and its crime of distributing an intimate image. Distributing such an image of a person who has not consented, when the distributor knows or reasonably should know that, is a Class A misdemeanor, or a Level 6 felony if the person has a prior unrelated conviction for this offense. The act also covers concealed-camera voyeurism and certain child sexual abuse claims. The AI provisions took effect July 1, 2024.
Provides relative to prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination
Louisiana's HB471 would have made 'surveillance-based price discrimination' an unfair or deceptive trade practice, so that no person could engage in it. It defines surveillance data, behaviors, biometrics and automated decision systems, and exempts cost-justified price differences, certain equal-terms discounts and refusals based on a Fair Credit Reporting Act consumer report. It was considered in House Commerce April 22, 2026 and died. A Senate bill on the same subject, SB362, also died.
Relating to downcoding.
Not law. Oregon HB 4054 (2026) would have required health insurers that provide utilization review to tell a provider in writing, within two business days after payment, when AI, an algorithm or other software automatically downcoded a claim, giving the reason and appeal rights, and would have given providers a timely appeal. It had a public hearing in the Information Management and Technology committee and was in committee upon adjournment March 6, 2026.
Concerning the operation of autonomous motor vehicles.
Washington's SB 6243 (2026 session) would have added rules for autonomous motor vehicles (Level 3 when engaged, or Level 4 or 5) to chapter 46.92 RCW. Operators would need department authorization with a first responder action plan, driverless operation would need liability insurance of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence (replacing the current $5 million), and local governments could not ban autonomous vehicles or add taxes or requirements. It would have taken effect October 1, 2026. It had a first reading on January 20, 2026, got no hearing and died at adjournment.
Relating to autonomous vehicles.
Not law. Oregon HB 4085 (2026) would have let autonomous vehicles run on Oregon highways with the driving system engaged if they can reach a minimal risk condition or request intervention, follow state vehicle law and meet federal safety standards. It would have required at least $1 million per occurrence third-party liability coverage, state authorization for driverless for-hire service and local preemption. It had a public hearing in the House Transportation committee and was in committee upon adjournment March 6, 2026.
To Prohibit Healthcare Providers And Healthcare Insurers From Using Artificial Intelligence In The Delivery Of Healthcare Services Or The Generation Of Medical Records Unless Certain Requirements Are Met.
Arkansas HB 1816 (2025) would have added Ark. Code § 17-80-123 to bar healthcare providers and healthcare insurers from using artificial intelligence in delivering healthcare services or generating medical records, unless the AI is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and verified by a quality assurance laboratory. It was filed March 17, 2025, referred to the House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee, and withdrawn by its author on April 14, 2025.
Biometric data and license plate readers-regulation.
Wyoming's HB 0181 (2026) would have barred governmental entities from using biometric data to identify or verify people, geolocation data to locate people or vehicles, and automatic license plate reader (ALPR) systems to identify vehicles, with narrow law enforcement exceptions (mostly warrant-based), a seven-day retention limit for data not tied to an investigation, and a civil action for damages or injunctive relief. Received for introduction February 11, 2026; the House did not consider it for introduction on February 13, 2026, so it died.
Relating to the regulation and reporting on the use of artificial intelligence systems by certain business entities and state agencies; providing civil penalties.
Texas HB 1709 (2025), as introduced, the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, would have set duties for developers, distributors and deployers of high-risk AI systems that are a substantial factor in consequential decisions, with attorney general enforcement and civil penalties of $50,000 to $100,000 per uncured violation. It also would have banned certain uses, created a regulatory sandbox and an AI Council. It died when the regular session adjourned June 2, 2025.
Relating to use of artificial intelligence in utilization review conducted for health benefit plans.
Texas HB 2922 (2025), as introduced, would have barred a utilization review agent from using an artificial intelligence-based algorithm as the sole basis for a decision to wholly or partly deny, delay, or modify health care services for an enrollee on medical necessity grounds. Only a physician or licensed health care provider could determine medical necessity, and the insurance commissioner could audit and inspect the agent's use of AI at any time. It did not pass both chambers and died when the session adjourned June 2, 2025.
Relating to motor vehicles, including automated motor vehicles; creating a criminal offense.
Texas rewrote its rules for self-driving vehicles. A vehicle with an automated driving system may operate with or without a human driver aboard if it can follow Texas traffic laws, has a manufacturer-installed recording device, meets federal safety standards, can bring itself to a safe stop if the system fails, is registered and titled, and carries the required insurance. Carrying passengers or goods commercially with no human driver requires authorization from the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles and a first-responder plan filed with the Department of Public Safety. The act took effect September 1, 2025.
Relating to the use of artificial intelligence-based algorithms by health benefit plan issuers, utilization review agents, health care providers, and physicians.
Texas SB 1411 (2025), as introduced, would have regulated AI-based algorithms in health coverage and care. Health benefit plan issuers and physicians could not discriminate on race, color, national origin, gender, age, vaccination status or disability using clinical AI algorithms. Issuers would have had to disclose AI use in utilization review, submit algorithms and training data to the insurance department, and have a specialist review before an adverse determination. Physicians and providers could have faced license sanctions and fines up to $5,000 per violation. It died June 2, 2025.
Relating to the use of artificial intelligence-based algorithms in utilization review conducted for certain health benefit plans.
Texas SB 1822 (2025), as engrossed, would have added Insurance Code Sec. 4201.156 requiring health benefit plan issuers and their utilization review agents to disclose whether they use AI-based algorithms in utilization review, ensure the algorithm and its training data minimize bias and follow evidence-based clinical guidelines, and file an annual compliance statement by December 31. It passed the Senate, but no enrolled version exists, so it died June 2, 2025.
Relating to establishing a framework to govern the use of artificial intelligence systems in critical decision-making by private companies and ensure consumer protections; authorizing a civil penalty.
Texas SB 2966 (2025), as introduced, would have added Business & Commerce Code Chapter 551 requiring a private company that uses an AI system to make a consequential decision, meaning one with a material, legal or similarly significant effect on a consumer, to establish a framework to govern the system's use to protect consumers. A company that violates it would be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one dollar. No enrolled version exists, so it died June 2, 2025.
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 licensing requirements for autonomous vehicle testing and establishing an automated and connected vehicle testing and deployment commission.
Vetoed. HB 314 (2017-2018) would have created a New Hampshire autonomous vehicle testing license, requiring at least $10 million in insurance, bond or self-insurance, a $500 annual fee, federal safety-standard compliance and a law enforcement interaction plan; allowed SAE level 5 fully automated vehicles on the road only for licensed testers with an escort vehicle; and set up an automated and connected vehicle testing and deployment commission. Governor Sununu vetoed it on July 2, 2018. The House voted to override (279-66) but the Senate sustained the veto (5-19) on September 13, 2018.
AN ACT 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.
An Act Prohibiting Health Insurers From Using Artificial Intelligence To Deny Health Insurance Claims.
Connecticut's HB 5590 (2025) was a short proposed bill with no operative text, stating its intent to amend the general statutes to prohibit any health insurer from using artificial intelligence to deny health insurance claims. It was referred to the Insurance and Real Estate Committee on January 21, 2025 and died when the 2025 session ended.
Autonomous Systems Amendments
Utah's SB 292 limits civil liability for automated driving systems (ADS). Noneconomic damages in actions over ADS-equipped vehicles are capped at $1,000,000 (not for wrongful death), with no punitive damages for level four or five ADS. People hurt by a driverless level four or five vehicle may sue its owner or dispatcher without proving negligence or defect, but recovery is capped at $100,000. Makers and developers of level four or five ADS are shielded from negligence claims and face product liability under stricter defect rules and a state-of-the-art defense. Signed March 23, 2026; effective May 6, 2026; the limits are repealed July 1, 2030.
Establishes autonomous vehicle pilot program.
Not law. S 4702 would have had the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission run a three-year pilot letting approved testers operate fully autonomous vehicles, overseen by a seven-member task force. Testers would need a trained operator able to take control and $5 million in insurance or a bond; vehicles would need safety redundancy, override controls, crash data recording, cybersecurity and visible AV markings, and collisions would be reported within 48 hours. It also set rules for autonomous taxis and trucks. The Senate Transportation Committee approved it 6-0 on November 10, 2025, but it died when the 2024-2025 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.
Establishes autonomous vehicle pilot program.
Not law. A 5919 would have had the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission run a three-year pilot letting approved testers operate fully autonomous vehicles, overseen by a five-member task force. Testers would need a trained operator able to take control and $5 million in insurance or a bond; vehicles would need safety redundancy, override controls, crash data recording, cybersecurity and visible AV markings, and collisions would be reported within 48 hours. It also set rules for autonomous taxis and trucks. It never left the Assembly Transportation Committee before the 2024-2025 session ended; its Senate twin, S 4702, got further.
Hospital and Medical Services Utilization Review Act; requiring utilization review organization that uses AI to adhere to requirements; prohibiting AI from making certain determinations. Effective date.
Oklahoma's SB 1967 (2026), as introduced, would have amended the Hospital and Medical Services Utilization Review Act to set conditions on AI tools used in utilization review by review organizations and insurers, including that the tool not supplant provider decision-making; per the official bill summary, the tool could not deny a claim based on medical necessity. It was referred to a Senate committee February 3, 2026 and died when the session ended May 14, 2026.
Mississippi Fully Autonomous Vehicle Enabling (MS FAVE) Act of 2023; establish to regulate operation of autonomous vehicle on public roads.
Mississippi's MS FAVE Act of 2023 lets fully autonomous vehicles run on public roads without a human driver if the system is engaged and the vehicle will reach a minimal risk condition if it fails, can obey traffic laws, and bears any federally required certification label. Operators must first file a law enforcement interaction plan and proof of insurance with the Department of Public Safety. The engaged system counts as the licensed driver; vehicles are registered and titled as autonomous; on-demand AV networks may operate; and state agencies and local governments cannot ban AVs or add AV-specific taxes, fees or rules. Effective July 1, 2023.
AI USE IN HEALTH INSURANCE ACT
Illinois's HB 35 (engrossed, with House Floor Amendment 1) would create the Artificial Intelligence Systems Use in Health Insurance Act. A health insurance issuer could not issue an adverse consumer outcome denying, reducing or terminating coverage or benefits that results solely from an AI system or predictive model, and denials, reductions or terminations resulting from AI would need meaningful review by a person able to override the AI. The Department of Insurance could review issuers' AI use. Passed the House 79-35 on April 9, 2025; re-referred to Senate Assignments June 2, 2025.
INS-ADVERSE DETERMINATION
Illinois' Public Act 103-0656 (HB 2472) is a broad health insurance act (explanation-of-benefits statements, prior authorization penalties, utilization review accreditation, adverse determinations). Its AI-related part covers algorithmic automated processes in utilization review: even when a plan or utilization review program uses one, only a clinical peer may make an adverse medical necessity determination or review an appeal. Programs using such processes must use objective, evidence-based criteria compliant with URAC or NCQA standards, set by board-certified physicians, and file proof with their registration. Approved July 19, 2024; effective January 1, 2025.
Relating To Insurance.
Hawaii's SB 2953 (2026) would have set rules for insurers' use of AI: a written AI governance program, testing and monitoring, clinician review of AI-supported adverse health determinations, and limits on adverse residential property underwriting actions based solely on aerial images or AI outputs. The Insurance Commissioner would have enforced it. It was referred to CPN/LBT and WAM on January 30, 2026 and was not enacted.
Requires collection of data by health insurers regarding health insurance claims and decisions made using automated utilization management systems.
New Jersey's S1029 would require health insurers (payers) to keep and report data on claims, including denials, appeals and prior-authorization outcomes, and would make them disclose whether they use an automated utilization management system (a system that may use AI to recommend or decide coverage) and how many claims it reviewed. A payer determined to have denied at least 20 percent of a year's claims without proper justification would have to repay covered persons for the denied services. Referred to the Senate Commerce Committee January 13, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Distribution Of Sensitive And Deepfake Images
New Mexico's HB 22 (2026) would have expanded the unauthorized-distribution-of-sensitive-images law (NMSA 30-37A-1) to cover 'sensitive deepfake images', meaning images created, altered or digitally manipulated to show a person's uncovered genitals, a woman's breast below the top of the areola, or an intimate act. It would also have made malicious threats to distribute such images a crime and created civil claims for libel, slander, invasion of privacy and emotional distress. It was referred to the House Pre-filed Committee (HPREF) on January 21, 2026, was not printed, and was postponed indefinitely (undated); the bill died.
Relates to the use of artificial intelligence by insurers and clinical peer reviewers for utilization review; establishes additional notice requirements for adverse determinations.
New York's S 10241 (same as A 11048) would add Insurance Law § 338 and amend the Insurance and Public Health Laws to regulate insurers' use of AI-based algorithms in utilization review. Insurers would give written notice of AI use, submit the algorithms and training data to the superintendent, and could not base a denial, delay or modification of care solely on an algorithm; and, where AI is used, adverse determinations would come only from clinical peer reviewers. Referred to the Senate Insurance Committee May 8, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Relating To The Hawaii Patients' Bill Of Rights And Responsibilities Act.
Hawaii's SB 2167 (2026) would have amended HRS chapter 432E, the Patients' Bill of Rights, to set prior authorization deadlines (one business day urgent, three non-urgent) and require that a denial initiated by an automated decision system be reviewed and co-signed by a board-certified specialist, with written notice to enrollees and providers whenever such a system is used. It was referred to HHS and CPN January 26, 2026 and died.
Place requirements on the use of artificial intelligence systems by health carriers in making determinations about the provision of health care services.
South Dakota's SB 169 (2026) would have required health carriers that use AI, algorithms or other software for utilization review to base determinations on the patient's clinical history and circumstances, not rely solely on a group dataset, and apply the tool consistently. AI tools could not deny, delay or modify a determination; only a licensed physician or qualified licensed health professional could make adverse determinations. Introduced January 29, 2026 and withdrawn by the prime sponsor February 17, 2026; it did not pass.
Health Insurance - Artificial Intelligence - Grievance Process and Reporting (AI Health Insurance Accountability Act of 2026)
Maryland's HB 795 (2026, the AI Health Insurance Accountability Act of 2026) would have required a carrier's internal grievance process to provide human review of adverse decisions made with AI, algorithms or other software tools, and added reporting of those grievances by claim type, member race, gender and profession, and policy type. It was introduced February 4, 2026, assigned to House Health, and withdrawn by its sponsor February 23, 2026, so it died.
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.
An Act Prohibiting Health Insurers From Using Artificial Intelligence As The Primary Method To Deny Health Insurance Claims.
Connecticut's HB 5587 (Rep. Menapace) is a proposed bill that would amend the general statutes to prohibit any health insurer from using artificial intelligence as the primary method to deny health insurance claims. The text is a one-sentence statement of purpose with no definitions, penalties or procedures. Referred to the Joint Committee on Insurance and Real Estate January 21, 2025; it did not advance and died when the 2025 session ended.
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.
HUMAN RIGHTS-AI-VIOLATIONS
Illinois's SB 3364 (104th General Assembly) would amend the Illinois Human Rights Act to make it a civil rights violation for an owner, broker or agent to use AI in a real estate transaction without telling the other party, to fail to tell a loan or credit card applicant that AI processed the application, or to fail to disclose AI used to decide access to a place of public accommodation. Re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026.
Mandatory Human Reviews of Insurance Claim Denials
Not law: died in committee. Florida's SB 202 would have created s. 627.4263, F.S., requiring that an insurer's decision to deny a claim or part of a claim be made by a qualified human professional who independently analyzes the facts and policy and reviews any AI or algorithm output. AI, machine learning or algorithms could not be the sole basis for adjusting or denying a claim. Denial notices would have had to name the human decision-maker, and the Office of Insurance Regulation could conduct market conduct examinations. It died in Banking and Insurance on March 13, 2026.
AI USE IN HEALTH INSURANCE ACT
Illinois's HB 5918 (103rd General Assembly) would have created the Artificial Intelligence Systems Use in Health Insurance Act. An insurer could not issue an adverse consumer outcome (denial, reduction or termination of plans or benefits) resulting solely from an AI system or predictive model, and such decisions would need meaningful human review. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).
AI USE IN HEALTH INSURANCE ACT
Illinois's SB 1425 (104th General Assembly) would create the Artificial Intelligence Systems Use in Health Insurance Act. It would place an insurer's use of AI systems to make or support adverse determinations under Department of Insurance oversight, bar adverse outcomes (denial, reduction or termination of plans or benefits) that result solely from an AI system or predictive model, and require meaningful review by an individual with authority to override. Re-referred to Assignments April 11, 2025.
VEH CD-AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
Illinois's HB 5192 (100th General Assembly) would have amended the Illinois Vehicle Code to define automated driving systems and autonomous vehicles (Levels 3 to 5), require the Secretary of State to create a unique registration plate for autonomous vehicles of 12,000 pounds or less, and require proof of insurance or a surety bond of $1,000,000 to $5,000,000 before registration. Filed February 15, 2018; died at Session Sine Die on January 8, 2019.
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.
Synthetic media; use in furtherance of crimes involving fraud, etc., report.
Virginia's HB 697 (2024 Regular Session) would have made it a Class 1 misdemeanor to use synthetic media to commit a criminal offense involving fraud, let the person depicted sue for actual damages and attorney fees, and had the Attorney General convene a work group on deepfake enforcement. It passed the House 98-0 but was continued to 2025 in Senate committee on February 19, 2024; it failed.
Insurance, Health, Accident - As introduced, creates the "Regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI) In Health Care Act." - Amends TCA Title 8, Chapter 27; Title 56 and Title 71.
Tennessee's SB 2010 (114th General Assembly), the "Regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Health Care Act," would have barred, on or after July 1, 2026, a health insurance issuer that uses AI, an algorithm or other software tool for utilization review or management based in whole or in part on medical necessity from denying, delaying or modifying care on medical necessity grounds unless a licensed healthcare professional or provider reviews the prior authorization request. Companion: HB 1866. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Assigned to General Subcommittee of Senate Commerce and Labor Committee (April 7, 2026).
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8, Chapter 27; Title 56 and Title 71, relative to health insurance.
Tennessee's HB 1382 (114th General Assembly) would have required a health insurance issuer that uses AI, an algorithm or other software tool for utilization review or management based on medical necessity to ensure the tool bases decisions on the enrollee's clinical history and circumstances, does not rely solely on a group dataset, does not supplant provider decision-making, and does not discriminate or cause harm. Companion: SB 1261. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Assigned to s/c Insurance Subcommittee (February 12, 2025).
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29; Title 45; Title 47 and Title 66, relative to algorithmic pricing.
Tennessee's SB1807 (114th General Assembly) would have barred an entity from setting the price of a specific good or service for a consumer in Tennessee using personalized algorithmic pricing, meaning dynamic pricing set by an algorithm that uses personal data. A violation would have been an unfair or deceptive act under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977. Insurers, certain financial institutions and some subscription prices were exempt. Companion: HB 1468. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Assigned to General Subcommittee of Senate Commerce and Labor Committee (April 7, 2026).
Fair and Future Ready Housing Act; enact
Georgia's HB 715, the Fair and Future Ready Housing Act, would add Code section 8-3-224 to the fair housing law. Discriminatory housing practices resulting from AI or automated decision tools would be prohibited, reliance on such tools would not be a defense, and no person could use them to make sale, rental or financing determinations without individual review or without disclosing their use. After notice and hearing, the Attorney General could impose a penalty of up to $10,000 for violating subsection (c) or (d). The bill reached House Second Readers on March 6, 2025 and died when the session ended.
Insurance; use of artificial intelligence in making certain decisions regarding coverage; prohibit
Georgia's HB 887 (2023-2024 session) would have barred coverage determinations, healthcare actions and public-assistance decisions based solely on the results of AI or automated decision tools, and required that such decisions be meaningfully reviewed by an individual with authority to override the tool. It would also have required the Georgia Composite Medical Board to adopt rules, including for disciplining physicians who do not comply. The bill reached House Second Readers on January 11, 2024 and died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Trade Practices; surveillance based price discrimination and surveillance based wage discrimination; prohibit
Georgia's SB 164 would add Article 37 to Title 10, Chapter 1, prohibiting 'surveillance based price discrimination' and 'surveillance based wage discrimination', meaning use of an automated decision system to set individualized prices or wages based on surveillance data about a consumer or worker. Defined exceptions would apply, such as cost-based price differences. According to its title, it would provide civil penalties and enforcement. The bill was read and referred on February 13, 2025 and died when the session ended.
Regulate the use of artificial intelligence by health insurers
Ohio's HB 579, the House companion to SB 164 with identical text, would add section 3902.80 requiring health plan issuers to report annually to the superintendent of insurance on their use of AI-based algorithms in utilization review, and barring decisions about a covered person's care based solely on AI results. Medical necessity determinations would require a licensed physician or qualified provider. Introduced November 5, 2025; referred to the House Insurance Committee November 12, 2025.
An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in forgery and fraudulent practices, providing for the offense of digital forgery.
Pennsylvania's Act 35 of 2025 adds 18 Pa.C.S. 4101.1, digital forgery. A person commits it by generating or creating and distributing a "forged digital likeness" as genuine, knowing or having reason to know it is forged, with intent to defraud or injure anyone. A forged digital likeness is a computer-generated image or voice recording of a real, identifiable person that closely resembles a genuine one, materially misrepresents them, is likely to deceive, and is made and shared without consent. It took effect 60 days after approval (July 7, 2025).
An Act to establish provisions for the operation of automated motor vehicles.
South Dakota's 2024 HB 1095 creates a framework for automated motor vehicles. A fully autonomous vehicle (SAE J3016 level 4 or 5) may operate on public roads without a human driver if its automated driving system is engaged, it can reach a minimal risk condition when the system fails or leaves its operational design domain, and it can comply with traffic and safety laws. While engaged, the automated driving system is the driver. The act also covers on-demand autonomous vehicle networks, crash duties, insurance and registration. The act states no effective date.
Creates a subcommittee of the House of Representatives to study artificial intelligence, blockchain, and cryptocurrency
Louisiana's HR 317 is a House resolution, adopted as amended 90-0 on June 10, 2025. Despite its short title, the adopted text does not create a subcommittee: it urges and requests the House Committee on Commerce to study the impact of artificial intelligence, blockchain and cryptocurrency on the state, hold its first meeting by September 1, 2025, hold public hearings that specifically seek advice from AI, blockchain and cryptocurrency professionals, and submit a written report of findings and recommendations by February 1, 2026. As a resolution of one chamber, it does not change the law.
ALGORITHMIC PRICE TRANSPARENCY
Illinois's HB 4248, as the Senate amended it (Senate Floor Amendment 1), would create the Protection from Surveillance Pricing Act, banning surveillance pricing: customized prices for a consumer or group based on personal data. The House passed an earlier version 78-19 on May 22, 2026; the Senate passed it as amended 41-16 on May 31, 2026. The House has not concurred and re-referred it to the Rules Committee July 1, 2026, so it has not gone to the Governor.
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.
Preventing Deep Fake Scams Act
The federal H.R. 1734 (Preventing Deep Fake Scams Act) would create a Task Force on Artificial Intelligence in the Financial Services Sector, chaired by the Treasury Secretary, to report to Congress within 1 year of enactment on how banks and credit unions protect themselves and consumers from fraud using AI, AI risks from bad actors, best practices and recommendations. Introduced February 27, 2025 and referred to the House Financial Services Committee; no further action.
Enacts the NY privacy act to require companies to disclose their methods of de-identifying personal information, to place special safeguards around data sharing and to allow consumers to obtain the names of all entities with whom their information is shared.
New York's A 4947 (the "New York privacy act") would add General Business Law Article 42-A. For solely automated decisions that materially contribute to denials of lending, housing, insurance, health care or similar services, controllers would have to disclose the automation, offer an appeal with meaningful human review and run annual impact assessments by an external, independent auditor or researcher. Consumers would also get opt-in consent, access, correction and deletion rights. AG penalties up to $15,000 per violation; private suits. Most sections would take effect two years after enactment. Referred to committee February 10, 2025 and January 7, 2026; not passed by either chamber.
Establishes requirements for the use of artificial intelligence, algorithm, or other software tools in utilization review and management; defines artificial intelligence.
New York's A 3991 would add Insurance Law § 3224-e and define artificial intelligence in Insurance Law § 107(a). A health care service plan using an AI, algorithm or other software tool for utilization review or management would have to ensure it bases determinations on the enrollee's history and clinical circumstances, does not supplant provider decision making, does not discriminate, and is open to inspection. Medical necessity denials, delays or modifications would have to be made by a licensed physician or other competent provider. Would take effect immediately. Referred to Insurance January 30, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Requires certain disclosures by automobile insurers relating to the use of telematics systems in determining insurance rates and/or discounts.
New York's A 10364 would amend Insurance Law § 2313 and add § 2304-a so that insurers that offer or use telematics systems (technology that monitors, stores and transmits information such as vehicle location, driver behavior, engine performance and activity), and their third-party developers or vendors, would have to explain to the Superintendent how the factors in their model or algorithm relate to risk, publicly disclose scoring methodologies and let consumers request access to their data; vendors would have to also file their model or algorithm with the Superintendent. Referred to Insurance March 2, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Requires experts in professional fields to be consulted when developing and maintaining artificial intelligence technology for use in such fields.
New York's A 9219 would add General Business Law §§ 1710 to 1715. A developer of AI intended for a professional domain regulated under Title Eight of the Education Law would have to show that a licensed professional domain expert with three or more years of experience was directly and substantially involved in design, data and training, validation and ongoing risk assessment, and submit documentation to the Attorney General. Penalties up to $50,000 per violation. Would take effect one year after it becomes law. Referred to Science and Technology November 3, 2025 (and January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Relating to disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence in the denial of insurance claims.
Texas HB 4635 (Rep. Garcia Hernandez) would have required an insurer or health maintenance organization that denies a claim based on a determination made by artificial intelligence to give the claimant, with the denial notice, a written disclosure that AI made the determination, its basis, and instructions on appealing. It would apply to claims submitted on or after September 1, 2025. Left pending in House Insurance Committee May 7, 2025; it died when the session ended.
Prohibits the use of external consumer data and information sources being used when determining insurance rates; provides that no insurer shall unfairly discriminate based on race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, or gender…
New York's A 4427 would add Insurance Law § 2403-a barring insurers from unfairly discriminating on protected characteristics and, under Superintendent rules, from using external consumer data, algorithms or predictive models in ways that do. The Superintendent would run a stakeholder process and adopt rules requiring insurers to disclose data sources, keep a risk framework and file officer attestations; commercial lines are largely exempt. Would take effect on the 180th day after becoming law. Referred to Insurance February 4, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits discrimination through the use of clinical algorithms; provides exceptions for clinical algorithms that rely on variables to appropriately make decisions, including to identify, evaluate, and address health disparities.
New York's A 3993 would add Insurance Law § 3243-a providing that an insurer subject to the article shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability through the use of clinical algorithms in its decision-making, while permitting clinical algorithms that rely on variables to appropriately make decisions, including to identify, evaluate and address health disparities. Would take effect immediately. Referred to Insurance January 30, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Provides that health insurance plans would provide coverage the use of artificial intelligence technology for analysis of breast tissue diagnostic imaging.
Rhode Island H 8073 (2024), as introduced on March 15, 2024, would require individual and group health insurance contracts and plans delivered, issued or renewed in Rhode Island on or after January 1, 2025 to cover the use of AI technology for analysis of breast tissue diagnostic imaging, provided a physician qualified to read such imaging independently reviews and approves the imaging and the AI review. The same text is added in four insurance chapters. The text says it takes effect upon passage.
Provides for notice requirements where an insurer authorized to write accident and health insurance in this state, a corporation organized pursuant to article forty-three of this chapter, or a health maintenance organization certified pursuant to article forty-four of the public health law uses…
New York's A 1456 would add Insurance Law § 338 requiring accident and health insurers, Article 43 corporations and Article 44 HMOs to tell insureds on their public websites about their use or lack of use of AI-based algorithms in utilization review, to submit those algorithms and training data to the Department for certification that bias risk is minimized, and to have clinical peer reviewers document review of individual records before an adverse determination. Fines would be up to $5,000 per violation or $10,000 per willful violation. Referred to Insurance January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
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.
Relating to criminal and civil liability related to sexually explicit media and artificial intimate visual material; creating a criminal offense; increasing a criminal penalty.
Texas's SB 441 widens the Penal Code § 21.165 crime from deep fake videos to any deep fake media made or altered with AI or other technological means. Knowingly producing or distributing sexually explicit deep fake media of a person without signed written consent is a Class A misdemeanor, or a third-degree felony for a repeat offense or a depicted minor. Intentionally threatening to produce or distribute deep fake media to coerce, extort, harass or intimidate is a new offense. It adds civil liability for AI intimate images, including against nudification app owners, and requires websites and apps to honor removal requests within 72 hours. Signed June 20, 2025; effective September 1, 2025.
Requires certain disclosures by automobile insurers relating to the use of telematics systems in determining insurance rates and/or discounts.
New York's S 5486 would add Insurance Law § 2304-a requiring insurers that use telematics systems, and third-party developers and vendors of them, to explain to the Superintendent how model or algorithm factors relate to risk, publicly disclose scoring methodologies, report discrimination testing and give consumers access to their collected data. Collected data could be used only for underwriting and rating. Referred to Insurance January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits motor vehicle insurers from discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic factors in determining algorithms used to construct actuarial tables, coverage terms, premiums and/or rates.
New York's S 4082 would add Insurance Law § 2619 barring motor vehicle insurers from basing classification plans, rates or rating plans, in whole or in part, on eleven listed factors, including age, marital status, sex, education, occupation, income, credit information, property ownership and price elasticity of demand. It would also bar using them to adjust algorithms used to build actuarial tables or set coverage cost. Referred to Insurance January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Provides that surveillance-based price discrimination is an unfair or deceptive trade practice or act. (8/1/26)
Louisiana's SB362 would have made 'surveillance-based price discrimination' an unfair or deceptive trade practice, so that no person could engage in it. The bill defines surveillance data, behaviors and biometrics, mentions automated decision systems, and exempts cost-based price differences, equal-terms discounts and credit refusals based on a Fair Credit Reporting Act report. It was considered in committee April 22, 2026 and died.
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.
Relative to the use of artificial intelligence and other software tools in healthcare decision-making
Massachusetts S2632 would bar AI from denying, delaying or modifying health care on medical-necessity grounds, requiring a licensed professional to decide, and would limit AI in therapy: licensed therapists may use it only for administrative or supplementary support, with civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. Committee recommended ought to pass and referred to Senate Ways and Means April 2, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Health Claims & AI
South Carolina's S 443 would add Section 38-59-23 on health care coverage decisions made with artificial intelligence. Actions on coverage decisions could not be based solely on AI results or an automated decision-making tool, and a health care professional would have to supervise and meaningfully review decisions that modify or deny provider authorization requests. Introduced March 11, 2025 and referred to the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
Operation of certain autonomous vehicles and on-demand autonomous vehicle networks authorization
Not law. Minnesota's SF 4618 (1st engrossment) would have created Minn. Stat. chapter 169B letting autonomous vehicles operate with commissioner of public safety authorization, requiring at least $10,000,000 combined single limit liability coverage and independent safety verification for driverless operation. Commercial and on-demand network operations would stay prohibited until a task force reports and a permit process exists. It was re-referred to Judiciary and Public Safety on April 7, 2026.
Synthetic Media: Liability; Elections
Alaska's SB 33 (2025-26) would have made a defamation action based on synthetic media a claim for defamation per se and barred a person from knowingly using synthetic media in an electioneering communication with intent to influence an election. A harmed individual could sue for damages, attorney fees and costs or seek an injunction. It was heard and held in Senate State Affairs on April 29, 2025 and died when the session ended May 20, 2026.
Revises provisions relating to health insurance. (BDR 57-238)
Nevada's AB 295 (2025) would have set prior authorization deadlines for health carriers (5 days non-urgent, 48 hours urgent, replacing 20 days) and required carriers using AI or automated decision tools for prior authorization to notify insureds in writing, and barred using AI to make adverse determinations or reduce or modify approved care unless a physician (or dentist) independently reviews the request. Carriers would report annually. Under Joint Standing Rule 14.3.1 no further action was allowed after April 12, 2025, so it died.
Various mental health and insurance matters.
Indiana's HB 1201 (2026) would have barred using an AI system to impersonate or substitute for a licensed mental health professional in interactions that must be performed by one (discipline under IC 25-1-9; a board could impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation). It also covered insurance: downcoding limits, mental health reimbursement parity with medical providers relative to Medicare, a 180-day audit and recoupment window, and out-of-network balance-billing limits. Referred to the Insurance Committee January 5, 2026; it was not passed before the 2026 session ended.
Omnibus Public Safety policy bill (Laws 2026, chapter 97), including article 3, section 3 adding forged digital likenesses to the identity theft statute (Minn. Stat. 609.527)
Minnesota's Laws 2026, chapter 97 (public safety policy) brings deepfakes into identity theft law. Article 3, section 3 amends Minn. Stat. 609.527, subd. 1 to define a "forged digital likeness": a recording, image or photograph (or a technological representation derived from one) created or altered in a way that depends substantially on technical means, that misrepresents a person's appearance, speech or conduct and is realistic enough that a reasonable person would believe it depicts the actual individual. A forged digital likeness is added to the definition of identity, so using one with intent to commit an unlawful act falls under identity theft. The rest of the act is not AI-related.
Commerce policy bill (Laws 2026, chapter 124), including article 3, section 6 barring utilization review organizations from using artificial intelligence exclusively to make adverse determinations
Minnesota's 2026 commerce omnibus (Laws 2026, chapter 124) adds an AI rule to the state's utilization review law. Article 3, section 6 amends Minn. Stat. 62M.09, subd. 3 to prohibit a utilization review organization from exclusively using artificial intelligence to make an adverse determination on coverage of benefits; a clinician must review the denial. AI may still be used in other parts of the review process. Article 1, section 61 also routes civil penalties under the 2026 nudification ban to the victims of crime account. The rest of the act is not AI-related.
Establishing minimum requirements for the testing of autonomous vehicles.
Washington's Chapter 182, Laws of 2020 (ESHB 2676) sets minimum rules for testing autonomous vehicles on public roads under the Department of Licensing self-certification pilot program. Testers must carry at least $5 million in umbrella liability insurance (RCW 46.30.050). From October 1, 2021 (RCW 46.92.010), they must give the department contact details, testing locations and vehicle IDs, report collisions and moving violations annually, and notify local police or the State Patrol 14 to 60 days before testing. The department publishes the information and reports to the Legislature.
Implementing recommendations of the autonomous vehicle work group.
Washington's Chapter 193, Laws of 2021 (SSB 5460) implements recommendations of the state autonomous vehicle work group by amending the self-certification testing pilot program in RCW 46.92.010. It defines "autonomous" as a level four or five driving automation system under SAE J3016, and requires testers to give the Department of Licensing contact details, testing jurisdictions, vehicle identification and proof of insurance, file annual collision and violation reports, and notify law enforcement 14 to 60 days before testing. No autonomous vehicle may be tested on public roads until the information is filed. Section 1 takes effect October 1, 2022.
Autonomous Vehicles
Florida's CS/CS/HB 1289 (Chapter 2021-233) defines a low-speed autonomous delivery vehicle (fully autonomous, meeting the federal low-speed vehicle standard, not built to carry people) and lets it run on roads posted at 35 mph or less and, under conditions, up to 45 mph (about one continuous mile unless allowed more, right lane, pulling over for queued traffic). It needs specified lights and identification and autonomous-vehicle insurance, which the owner, teleoperation system owner or remote operator may provide. Equipment rules aimed at human drivers do not apply to fully autonomous vehicles. Effective July 1, 2021.
An Act amending section 13-2006, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to forgery.
Arizona's SB 1295 (Laws 2025, Ch. 184) adds a new form of criminal impersonation to A.R.S. 13-2006: using a computer-generated voice recording, image or video of another person with intent to defraud others. It is a class 5 felony, one level above the other impersonation offenses. "Defraud" means a false statement or omission of a material fact made to deceive and obtain a benefit. Parody, artistic works and content where it is clear to a reasonable listener or viewer that it was digitally manipulated are excluded.
An Act amending section 28-101, Arizona Revised Statutes, as amended by Laws 2019, chapter 89, section 1; repealing section 28-101, Arizona Revised Statutes, as amended by Laws 2019, chapter 89, section 1; amending title 28, chapter 3, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding article 22; relating to personal delivery devices.
Arizona's SB 1305 (Laws 2020, Ch. 78) adds A.R.S. 28-1221 to 28-1228 on personal delivery devices: devices built to carry cargo in pedestrian areas and equipped with automated driving technology (software and hardware) that operate with remote human support and supervision. Only a business entity may operate one, with an agent able to monitor or control it. Devices may travel up to 12 mph in pedestrian areas and 20 mph on road shoulders, must yield to pedestrians, carry an ID marker, brakes and lights, and be covered by $100,000 of liability insurance. Local rules may not conflict. The article is effective from and after August 31, 2020.
An Act relating to personal delivery devices, providing penalties, and making penalties applicable.
Iowa's 2021 Acts chapter 119 (HF 304) creates Iowa Code chapter 321O for personal delivery devices: cargo-carrying devices for pedestrian areas, equipped with automated driving technology (software and hardware), that operate with remote support and supervision. A business may operate one only if an agent can monitor and remotely control it. Devices may travel at up to 6 mph in pedestrian areas and up to 20 mph on roads with speed limits of 40 mph or less, must yield to others, carry identification, brakes and lights, and be covered by at least $500,000 of liability insurance. Local governments may bar them from unsafe areas but may not otherwise regulate them.
Automated Decision-Making Technology
Colorado's SB 26-189 repeals and reenacts the 2024 AI Act as rules for automated decision-making technology (ADMT) that materially influences consequential decisions such as hiring, lending, housing and health care. Developers must document covered ADMT for deployers; deployers must give notice before use, explain adverse outcomes within 30 days and, on request, give correction steps and, where commercially reasonable, human review. Signed May 14, 2026 (Chapter 131); applies from January 1, 2027. A stipulated April 27, 2026 order in X. AI LLC v. Weiser bars AG enforcement of 2026 laws replacing SB 24-205 for violations through 14 days after a ruling on xAI's planned injunction motion.
AN ACT concerning motor vehicles; relating to autonomous motor vehicles; providing for the use and regulation thereof; establishing the autonomous vehicle advisory committee; amending K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 8-2106 and 8-2204 and repealing the existing sections.
Kansas SB 313 (L. 2022, ch. 93, K.S.A. 8-2901 et seq.) authorizes driverless-capable vehicles. A vehicle with an automated driving system that can perform the entire driving task and reach a minimal-risk condition may operate without a human driver, subject to conditions such as a human on board during the first year for vehicles with manual controls and a law-enforcement interaction plan filed with the Highway Patrol. Owners must carry insurance and meet crash duties; the Highway Patrol regulates and local rules are preempted. An autonomous vehicle advisory committee reports yearly.
Autonomous Vehicles Testing Program Amendment Act of 2020 (D.C. Law 23-156)
D.C. Law 23-156, the Autonomous Vehicles Testing Program Amendment Act of 2020, amends the Autonomous Vehicle Act of 2012 (D.C. Code 50-2351 et seq.). It defines an autonomous driving system and autonomous vehicle and has the District Department of Transportation run a testing program: no one may test or operate an autonomous vehicle on a District roadway without an AV testing permit. Applicants submit a safety and risk-mitigation assessment, operational design domain and certifications, and must be able to cover a $5 million judgment. Testing entities report crashes and file periodic reports.
Health insurance; review agents; artificial intelligence system; adverse determinations; effective date.
Oklahoma's HB 3675 (2026), as introduced, would have required a qualified human professional to review any adverse determination made by an algorithm, AI system or automated decision system in utilization review before it is finalized, let the Insurance Commissioner audit use of such systems, and required adverse-determination notices to give reasons and appeal rights. It was referred to the Rules Committee February 11, 2026 and died when the session ended May 14, 2026.
Public Life and Activity Zones Amendment ("PLAZA") Act of 2024 (D.C. Law 25-312)
Section 6 of D.C. Law 25-312, the PLAZA Act of 2024, amends the Autonomous Vehicle Act of 2012. No person or entity may test or operate an autonomous vehicle on a District roadway without an AV testing permit. Until DDOT makes the permit application available, testing is allowed only with a test operator ready to take over and with electronic notice to DDOT at least 10 business days ahead. DDOT may restrict testing for non-compliance, emergencies, special events or safety, reporting becomes quarterly, and the grandfather clause for earlier operators is repealed. The rest of the act is about public space, not AI.
AN ACT to amend the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, by adding thereto a new article, designated §17C-24-1 and §17C-24-2, all relating to autonomous delivery vehicles; authorizing operation of low-speed autonomous delivery vehicle on certain streets and roads; authorizing operation of low-speed autonomous delivery vehicle on streets or roads with posted speed limit of up to a specified number of miles per hour under specified conditions.
HB 4675 lets autonomous or remotely monitored delivery robots operate in West Virginia. Personal delivery devices may use sidewalks, crosswalks and roadways with pedestrian-like rights, must yield to pedestrians, obey signals, carry an identifying plate with operator contact information, be monitored or controlled by an operator, and stay under 12 mph on sidewalks and 20 mph on roads. Small mobile carriers that follow their owner are also regulated. Owners must carry at least $100,000 of liability insurance, and localities cannot restrict the devices inconsistently with the article.
AN ACT to amend the Code of West Virginia Code, 1931, as amended, by adding thereto a new chapter, designated §17H-1-1, §17H-1-2, §17H-1-3, §17H-1-4, §17H-1-5, §17H-1-6, §17H-1-7, §17H-1-8, §17H-1-9, §17H-1-10, §17H-1-11, §17H-1-12, §17H-1-13, §17H-1-14, and §17H-1-15, all relating to establishing the Fully Autonomous Vehicle Act; defining terms; providing for construction of the act; providing requirements for the operation of fully autonomous vehicles without a human driver and with a human driver; providing for the operation of on-demand autonomous vehicle networks; providing for the operation of fully autonomous commercial and motor vehicle carriers; providing for the platooning of fully autonomous vehicles; providing for licensing, titling, registration, and insurance requirements of fully autonomous vehicles; providing for control and regulation of fully autonomous vehicles; providing for equipment standards for fully autonomous vehicles; and providing duties following a crash involving fully autonomous vehicles.
West Virginia's Fully Autonomous Vehicle Act (new Chapter 17H) authorizes self-driving vehicles on public roads. A fully autonomous vehicle may run without a human driver if its automated driving system can reach a minimal risk condition on failure, and the operator first files a law enforcement interaction plan with the Division of Highways/DOT and proves insurance or self-insurance to the DMV. The act also covers on-demand autonomous vehicle networks, autonomous commercial vehicles, three-vehicle platooning, crash duties and equipment standards, and bars local governments from banning or separately taxing autonomous vehicles.
An Act to Prohibit the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Denial of Health Insurance Claims
Not law. Maine's LD 1301 would have set conditions, beginning January 1, 2026, on health insurance carriers and their contractors that use artificial intelligence in medical or utilization review decisions to approve, deny, delay or modify coverage. Despite its title, it did not ban AI. AI determinations would have had to rest on the enrollee's medical history and clinical circumstances and not supplant provider decision-making, and could not discriminate. Any denial, delay or modification based on medical necessity would have needed a clinical peer. The committee voted Ought Not To Pass on January 14, 2026; final disposition January 27, 2026.
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 relating to motor vehicles operated by an automated driving system, and making penalties applicable.
Iowa's 2019 Acts chapter 75 (SF 302), codified at Iowa Code 321.514 to 321.519, sets rules for vehicles driven by an automated driving system, defined as the hardware and software collectively capable of performing the entire dynamic driving task on a sustained basis. A driverless-capable vehicle may operate on public highways with no human driver if it can reach a minimal risk condition after a system failure, can follow state traffic and safety laws, and is certified as meeting federal motor vehicle safety standards. Owners must carry liability coverage, and crashes must be reported. Driverless on-demand networks are allowed, and local governments may not add their own rules or taxes.
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).
Health Insurance; prohibiting issue of outcomes with AI; requiring decisions to be made by provider; requiring disclosures. Emergency.
Oklahoma's SB 2038 (2026), as introduced, would have barred a health insurance issuer from issuing an adverse consumer outcome (denial, reduction or termination of coverage or benefits) that results from an AI system, required a licensed professional to review and issue such final decisions, and required a disclosure notice. It was referred to a Senate committee February 3, 2026 and died when the session ended May 14, 2026.
Motor vehicles, use of motor vehicles equipped with an automated driving system.
Alabama's SB 226 (Act 2024-453) allows vehicles equipped with an automated driving system (ADS) to run on public roads without a conventional human driver on board if the vehicle can reach a minimal risk condition. A fully autonomous vehicle (SAE Level 4 or 5) may operate only with proof of at least $100,000 single-limit liability coverage. The act sets duties after a crash involving a driverless ADS vehicle (staying at the scene and giving registration and insurance details) and covers on-demand autonomous vehicle networks. Approved May 17, 2024; effective October 1, 2024.
Health care coverage: utilization review.
SB 1120 amended Health and Safety Code 1367.01 and Insurance Code 10123.135. Health plans and disability insurers that use an AI, algorithm or other software tool for utilization review must ensure it bases decisions on the enrollee's medical history and clinical circumstances, is applied fairly and equitably, does not supplant provider decisionmaking, and is open to inspection and review. Denials, delays or modifications for medical necessity must be made by a licensed physician or qualified health professional, not by the tool alone.
NETWORK ADEQUACY-STANDARDS
The Health Care Protection Act is a broad health insurance reform covering network adequacy, prior authorization, step therapy and short-term plans. Its automated decision provision amends Section 85 of the Managed Care Reform and Patient Rights Act (215 ILCS 134/85) on utilization review programs. Only a clinical peer may make adverse medical necessity determinations. A health care professional, an accredited algorithmic automated process, or both together may certify (approve) medical necessity in line with accreditation standards, and an automated process may be used to refer a case to a clinical peer for a possible denial. Effective January 1, 2025.
Relating to financial exploitation or financial abuse using artificially generated media or phishing communications; providing a civil penalty; creating a criminal offense.
Texas SB 2373 (2025) targets deepfake scams. It defines artificially generated media as images, audio, video, text or other media created or modified with AI or other software with intent to deceive. A person harmed by knowing or intentional dissemination of such media or phishing for financial exploitation may sue for damages, profits, fees and injunctions; the attorney general may seek up to $1,000 per day; and new Penal Code 32.56 makes financial abuse through such media or phishing a crime graded by amount, up to a first-degree felony. Platforms and broadcasters are exempt for others' content. Effective September 1, 2025.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 55, Chapter 1; Title 55, Chapter 10; Title 55, Chapter 12 and Title 55, Chapter 8, relative to personal delivery devices.
Tennessee's 2020 personal delivery device law (Public Chapter 685, SB 2836) authorizes electric delivery robots that travel mainly on sidewalks and crosswalks and can navigate with or without the active control or monitoring of a natural person. The devices are not motor vehicles; they must yield to pedestrians, have lights and brakes, carry an owner ID and no placarded hazardous materials, and may go up to 10 mph in pedestrian areas. They are exempt from titling, registration and licensing, and operators must carry at least $100,000 of liability insurance. Effective July 1, 2020.
Concerning protecting consumers from unfair discrimination in insurance practices.
Colorado SB 21-169 bars insurers from unfairly discriminating based on race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity or gender expression in any insurance practice, and from using external consumer data and information sources, algorithms or predictive models that unfairly discriminate. An algorithm is a computational or machine learning process that informs human decision making in insurance practices. Commissioner rules, effective no earlier than 2023, require insurers to disclose data sources, maintain a risk-management framework, test outcomes and file attestations. Title insurance, surety and most commercial lines are exempt.
Relating to Criminal Offenses -- Impersonation and Identity Fraud
Rhode Island's 2026 identity fraud amendment defines a forged digital likeness as a computer- or other electronic system-generated visual representation of an identifiable person, or an audio recording of their voice, made to closely resemble a genuine one, likely to deceive, and created and distributed without consent. Digital forgery, knowingly creating or distributing such a likeness as genuine to facilitate fraud, is now felony identity fraud under 11-49.1-3(a)(8). The act also covers impersonating an entity with intent to defraud. Constitutionally protected activity, law enforcement and providers or developers of the underlying technology are excepted. Effective on passage.
Relating to Criminal Offenses -- Impersonation and Identity Fraud
Rhode Island's 2026 identity fraud amendment defines a forged digital likeness as a computer- or other electronic system-generated visual representation of an identifiable person, or an audio recording of their voice, made to closely resemble a genuine one, likely to deceive, and created and distributed without consent. Digital forgery, knowingly creating or distributing such a likeness as genuine to facilitate fraud, is now felony identity fraud under 11-49.1-3(a)(8). The act also covers impersonating an entity with intent to defraud. Constitutionally protected activity, law enforcement and providers or developers of the underlying technology are excepted. Effective on passage.
Autonomous Vehicle Regulations
Utah HB 101 (2019) is the state's core autonomous vehicle law. It enacts Utah Code Title 41, Chapter 26, defining automated driving systems and related terms and allowing a vehicle to operate in Utah using an automated driving system. A vehicle with an engaged automated driving system is exempt from driver licensing requirements, must be titled, registered and insured, and is subject to a crash protocol. Political subdivisions may not regulate autonomous vehicles beyond state law.
Motor vehicles; use of personal delivery devices to transport cargo; authorize
Georgia's HB 1009 (Act 814 of 2022) authorizes delivery robots. A personal delivery device is a powered vehicle that uses an automated driving system to transport cargo, carries no passengers and weighs at most 500 pounds empty or 600 pounds loaded. Devices may operate on sidewalks and on highways with lower speed limits, must yield to pedestrians, meet equipment rules and may not carry hazardous materials. An individual able to control navigation and operation must monitor each device while it operates, and operators need at least $250,000 of liability insurance. Local governments may limit operations, and violations carry civil penalties.
Prohibits motor vehicle insurers from discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic factors in determining algorithms used to construct actuarial tables, coverage terms, premiums and/or rates.
New York's A 1273 (2025-2026) would add Insurance Law section 2619 barring motor vehicle insurers from using classification plans, rules, rates or rating plans based in whole or in part on listed factors (age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, education, occupation, income, credit information, real property ownership, price elasticity of demand and other socioeconomic indicators). It would also make it unlawful to use them to adjust "any algorithm or equation" used to construct actuarial tables. Referred to Insurance January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Establishes "New Jersey Advanced Autonomous Vehicle Task Force."
New Jersey's AJR 164, enacted as P.L. 2019, Joint Resolution No. 2, created the New Jersey Advanced Autonomous Vehicle Task Force to study vehicles with SAE driving automation level 3, 4 or 5 and recommend laws to integrate them safely on state roads. Its 11 members include the Transportation Commissioner, the Motor Vehicle Commission chief administrator and public members with autonomous vehicle expertise. Within 180 days of its first meeting it had to report on state laws that may impede testing, on licensing, insurance, liability and infrastructure, and recommend pilot programs. It took effect immediately on approval (March 18, 2019) and expires when the report is issued.
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.
Insurance; standards of conduct for public adjusters, unauthorized practice of public adjusting.
Virginia HB 437 (Chapter 142 of 2026) tightens rules for public adjusters, who negotiate property insurance claims for policyholders. Its AI-relevant provision is Va. Code § 38.2-1845.23 D: a written or electronic ad that uses an unlicensed spokesperson must say the person is a paid or unpaid, unlicensed spokesperson endorsing the adjuster, and "shall also disclose if a computer-generated digital avatar is used." The licensed adjuster named in the ad must personally review it. The rest of the act covers unlicensed adjusting, assignment of benefits and conduct toward vulnerable adults. Effective July 1, 2026.
Automated vehicle network companies and autonomous vehicle operations
North Dakota's HB 1418 (2019) authorizes driverless operation. An autonomous vehicle with its automated driving system engaged needs no human driver on public highways if it can reach a minimal risk condition, such as a safe stop, when the system fails. Such vehicles must comply with traffic, registration, title and insurance laws, and a person riding in one while the system performs the whole driving task is not driving it and needs no license. On-demand autonomous vehicle networks may carry people or goods, including for hire and shared rides. State agencies and local governments may not impose autonomous-vehicle-specific performance standards, taxes or fees.
Personal delivery devices; authorizing certain use; limiting certain jurisdictional powers. Effective date.
Oklahoma's SB 706 (2021) authorizes delivery robots. Personal delivery devices are electrically powered cargo devices of up to 550 pounds equipped with automated driving technology for operation with remote support and supervision. Devices may use sidewalks, crosswalks and local roads if they carry an identifying number and operator contact information, obey traffic signals, do not exceed 10 mph on sidewalks, have a controlled-stop system and lights, and do not carry placarded hazardous materials. Operators need $100,000 of liability insurance. Local governments may ban them but not regulate their design. Effective November 1, 2021.
To authorize the operation of autonomous vehicles or fully autonomous vehicles on the streets and highways of this state under an autonomous vehicle pilot program
Arkansas's HB 1561 (Act 468 of 2019) authorizes autonomous vehicles under a pilot program approved by the State Highway Commission. A program is approved automatically 60 days after submission and must state its commercial purpose, any insurance requirements, and that the vehicles can obey traffic laws, that a fully autonomous vehicle can reach a reasonably safe state if its automated driving system fails, and that it can meet crash-reporting duties. Fully autonomous vehicles, meaning SAE level 4 or 5, may run without seat belts, a steering wheel or a rearview mirror, and up to three vehicles may operate at once. It took effect on approval under an emergency clause.
To allow the operation of a personal delivery device in pedestrian areas and certain streets and roads
Arkansas's Act 926 of 2021 (HB 1767), the Personal Delivery Device Act, authorizes delivery robots: electrically powered cargo devices of up to 500 pounds equipped with automated driving technology that lets them operate with or without a person's active control or monitoring. Devices may travel at up to 10 mph in pedestrian areas and 20 mph on county or city streets, but not on interstates, state highways or roads posted above 45 mph. They must yield to pedestrians, show lights at night and carry the operator's contact and a unique number. Operators need $100,000 of liability insurance per device. Localities may ban devices where unsafe but not regulate their design.
Adopt the Ensuring Transparency in Prior Authorization Act and provide for insurance and medicaid coverage of biomarker testing
Nebraska's LB 77 (2025) adopts the Ensuring Transparency in Prior Authorization Act. Its AI section says an artificial intelligence-based algorithm may not be the sole basis for a utilization review agent's decision to deny, delay or modify health care services based on medical necessity. Agents must disclose to the Department of Insurance, to every network provider, to every enrollee and on their public website whether AI-based algorithms are or will be used in utilization review. The department may audit an agent's automated utilization management system at any time, including through a third party. The section is operative January 1, 2026.
An Act Prohibiting Health Insurers From Using Software Tools To Automatically Downcode Health Insurance Claims.
Connecticut's Proposed SB 817 (2025), introduced by Sen. Looney, would have amended title 38a of the general statutes to prohibit any health insurer from using a software tool, including artificial intelligence or an algorithm, to automatically downcode or deny a health insurance claim submitted by a health care provider without detailed review by a clinical peer. The filed text is a brief proposed bill with a statement of purpose. Referred to the Joint Committee on Insurance and Real Estate January 21, 2025; it died when the 2025 session ended.
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.
To provide accountability in the use of biometric recognition technology and comprehensive enforcement
Massachusetts S36 would add G.L. Chapter 110I regulating biometric recognition technology: covered entities owe duties of loyalty, care and confidentiality, may not sell biometric data, and may not install biometric recognition equipment in places open to the public. Referred to committee February 27, 2025; on May 12, 2025 it accompanied S43 (An Act to protect personal biometric data), which was referred to Senate Ways and Means.
Autonomous Vehicles
Florida's HB 311 lets fully autonomous vehicles operate in Florida whether or not a human operator is in the vehicle, needing no licensed human operator, and deems the automated driving system the operator when engaged. Fully autonomous vehicles must be able to reach a minimal risk condition if the system fails. On-demand autonomous vehicle networks follow transportation network company law, with $1 million primary liability, PIP and uninsured motorist coverage while logged on. Local governments may not impose taxes, fees or other requirements on autonomous vehicles. Approved June 13, 2019 (Chapter 2019-101); effective July 1, 2019.
Enacting the use of artificial intelligence in medical decisions transparency act and requiring that all medical necessity determinations be made by a competent licensed physician or healthcare professional.
Kansas's SB 467 (2026) would have enacted the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Decisions Transparency Act. Health insurers and utilization review organizations using AI, algorithms or software tools for utilization review would have had to ensure the tool bases decisions on the enrollee's clinical information and does not supplant provider decision-making, and the tool could not deny, delay or modify care on medical necessity; only a licensed physician or competent licensed professional could. Referred to committee February 4, 2026; Died in Committee April 10, 2026.
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.
Permits testing and use of autonomous vehicles on State roadways under certain circumstances.
New Jersey's A768 would allow autonomous vehicles to be tested on New Jersey public roads if a designated operator sits in the driver's seat and the manufacturer has $5,000,000 in insurance, a surety bond or self-insurance and the Motor Vehicle Commission has approved its application. Manufacturers would also have to give buyers a written disclosure of the data the technology collects.
Clarifies that owners of self-driving motor vehicles must comply with existing insurance requirements.
New Jersey's A1639 would extend the State's compulsory automobile liability insurance requirement and the no-fault Automobile Reparation Reform Act to self-driving motor vehicles of any SAE automation level, so their owners would have to carry the same insurance as other vehicle owners.
Providing for artificial intelligence in facilities, for artificial intelligence use by insurers and for artificial intelligence use by MA or CHIP managed care plans; imposing duties on the Department of Health, the Insurance Department and the Department of Human Services; and imposing penalties.
Pennsylvania's SB 1113 (2025-26) would add rules for AI in health care facilities, AI use by insurers and AI use by MA or CHIP managed care plans, with duties for the departments of Health, Insurance and Human Services and penalties. The captured text covers the facilities chapter: patient disclosure, responsible-use rules and annual AI compliance statements filed with the Department of Health. It was referred to the Senate Institutional Sustainability & Innovation Committee on January 9, 2026.
In culpability, providing for liability for deployment of artificial intelligence system.
Pennsylvania's HB 1533 (2025-26) would add 18 Pa.C.S. 306.1, making a person who deploys an AI system to perform an automated or autonomous function subject to criminal or civil liability, or both, for any negative outcome from the deployment. Claims that the AI acted autonomously or was supplied by a third party would not avoid liability. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on May 30, 2025.
Establishing the Comprehensive Massachusetts Consumer Data Privacy Act
Massachusetts S 33 would create a comprehensive consumer data privacy act. After a joint committee hearing on April 9, 2025, the committee folded it into new draft S2516 on May 12, 2025, so S33 itself does not move further. The successor, redrafted as S2608 and passed by the Senate 40-0 on September 25, 2025 as S2619, would let consumers opt out of profiling for solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. The House passed different text on June 4, 2026 and a conference committee was appointed in June 2026; nothing is law.
Consumer protection: privacy; personal data privacy act; create. Creates new act.
Michigan's SB 359 would create a Personal Data Privacy Act giving consumers rights over personal data, including opting out of profiling in furtherance of solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. Introduced June 5, 2025 and referred to the Committee on Finance, Insurance, and Consumer Protection, it was reported favorably without amendment on June 11, 2025 and referred to the Committee of the Whole on June 12, 2025; it has not passed either house.
Urge Congress to reject moratorium on state regulation of AI
Ohio's SCR 14 is a concurrent resolution that would urge Congress to reject any moratorium on state laws regulating artificial intelligence. It would condemn such a moratorium in all its forms and urge members of Congress to reject it in federal legislation and executive orders. Offered in the Senate on December 17, 2025 and referred to the Senate Financial Institutions, Insurance and Technology Committee on February 11, 2026; it has not been adopted. It is a resolution and would not change Ohio law even if adopted.
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.
Regulate the use of pricing algorithms
Ohio's SB 79 would bar using or distributing a pricing algorithm that uses or was trained with nonpublic competitor data, presume an unlawful agreement in certain cases, and require businesses with $5 million or more in gross receipts to disclose algorithmic pricing, with disclosure violations treated as unfair or deceptive acts. Introduced February 4, 2025; referred to the Senate Financial Institutions, Insurance and Technology Committee February 12, 2025; it has not passed.
Enacts the New York Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act establishing protections for individual rights with respect to computational algorithms; establishes protections against the use of algorithms involved in consequential decisions, such as those that impact people's rights, civil…
New York's A 9654 (the New York Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act) would bar developers and deployers from using covered algorithms in consequential actions (such as employment, housing, credit, health care, insurance, education, criminal justice and government services) in ways that discriminate or have a disparate impact on protected characteristics. It would require independent audits where harm is plausible. Referred to the Assembly Science and Technology Committee January 21, 2026; it has not passed either house.
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.
Creates new provisions governing autonomous vehicles
Missouri's SB 1050 would let a person operate a fully autonomous vehicle on public roads without a human driver while the automated driving system is engaged, if the vehicle can reach a minimal risk condition after a system failure, can comply with state traffic laws, and carries any federally required certification label. Operators would have to show proof of insurance or self-insurance, and local governments could not ban or specially tax these vehicles. A Senate committee hearing was held January 27, 2026; the bill died when the 2026 regular session ended in May 2026 without being truly agreed to and finally passed.
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.
Algorithmic Addiction Fund - Establishment
Maryland's HB 1119 (2024) would have created the Algorithmic Addiction Fund, a special nonlapsing fund in the Maryland Department of Health holding revenue the State receives from judgments or settlements with technology or social media companies, to pay for algorithmic addiction research, prevention, intervention and treatment services. A House Appropriations hearing was set for February 28, 2024; it went no further and died when the session ended. The bill does not define "algorithmic addiction" and does not regulate algorithms.
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.
Synthetic media; expands applicability of provisions related to defamation, etc., penalty.
Virginia's SB 571 (2024 Regular Session) would have extended defamation, slander and libel provisions to synthetic media and made it a Class 1 misdemeanor to generate, create or use deceptive audio or visual media to commit a fraud offense, with a rebuttable presumption, a civil action for the person depicted and an Attorney General work group. Continued to 2025 in committee on February 12, 2024; it failed.
Provides that a person may operate a fully autonomous vehicle on the public roads of this state without a human driver provided that the automated driving system is engaged and the vehicle meets certain conditions; defines terms; requires insurance and that such vehicle is registered as a fully…
New York's A 4901-B (same as S 344-B) would add Article 34-E to the Vehicle and Traffic Law, letting a person operate a fully autonomous vehicle (gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less) on public roads without a human driver if the automated driving system is engaged and the vehicle can reach a minimal risk condition after a system failure. Operators would need to file insurance proof and a law enforcement interaction plan, and registration and title would be marked as fully autonomous. Referred to the Transportation Committee; amended and recommitted April 24, 2026. It has not passed either chamber.
Relates to the use of artificial intelligence by insurers and clinical peer reviewers for utilization review; establishes additional notice requirements for adverse determinations.
New York's A 11048 would add Insurance Law § 338 on AI-based algorithms in utilization review. Insurers would have to notify insureds, enrollees and providers of AI use, submit their algorithms and training data to the Superintendent with a certification, and could not use AI as the sole basis to deny, delay or modify care. Fines of up to $5,000 per violation ($10,000 if willful) would apply. Introduced April 24, 2026 and referred to the Insurance Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Amendments
Utah's SB 226 replaces the 2024 generative AI disclosure rules with Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 75. A supplier using generative AI with an individual in a consumer transaction must disclose it is AI, not a human, if the individual clearly asks. Regulated professionals must prominently disclose generative AI at the start of high-risk interactions (collecting health, financial or biometric data, or personalized financial, legal, medical or mental health advice). AI that discloses itself at the outset and throughout gets a safe harbor. Fines up to $2,500 per violation. Signed March 27, 2025; effective May 7, 2025.
Concerning Artificial Intelligence, Algorithms, And Other Automated Technologies; And To Regulate Certain Practices Of Healthcare Insurers.
Arkansas HB 1297 (2025), as engrossed, would have added a subchapter (Ark. Code §§ 23-63-2101 to 2113) regulating healthcare insurers' use of AI and automated decision-making in utilization review. Insurers would have had to disclose algorithm details from January 1, 2026, give explanations for AI-supported denials, and have a clinician licensed in Arkansas review adverse prior authorization determinations. The Insurance Commissioner could fine up to $25,000 per determination. The author withdrew it on April 1, 2025.
An Act Prohibiting Health Carriers From Using Artificial Intelligence In The Evaluation And Determination Of Patient Care.
Connecticut's SB 447 (2025) was a short proposed bill with no operative text, stating its intent to amend title 38a of the general statutes to prohibit health carriers from using artificial intelligence in the evaluation and determination of patient care, to safeguard patient access to testing, medications and procedures. It was referred to the Insurance and Real Estate Committee on January 10, 2025 and died when the 2025 session ended.
A bill for an act establishing requirements and guidelines for conversational AI services, and providing civil penalties, and including applicability provisions. (Formerly SSB 3011.) Effective date: 07/01/2026. Applicability date: 07/01/2027.
Iowa's SF 2417 (Iowa Code ch. 554J) covers public conversational AI services built mainly to simulate human conversation. For known minors, operators must disclose AI use, take reasonable measures against sexual content and human-like claims, not give rewards at unpredictable intervals to boost engagement, and offer privacy tools. If a reasonable user would think it is human, it must say it is AI. Operators need self-harm crisis-referral protocols and may not knowingly and intentionally program it to claim licensed mental health care. AG enforces: the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation (penalty capped at $500,000). Signed May 2, 2026 (Acts Chapter 1068); applies July 1, 2027.
Revises provisions relating to transportation network companies. (BDR 58-935)
Nevada's SB 288 lets a transportation network company (TNC) contract with monitored autonomous vehicle providers, who own and operate autonomous vehicles with an employed monitor physically present at all times, to give rides through the TNC's app largely on the same terms as drivers. Providers are liable in tort like drivers and must carry at least $1,500,000 of TNC insurance while operating; the TNC must hold a Transportation Authority permit and inspect the vehicles. Local governments generally may not tax or charge fees on these providers or rides. Approved June 10, 2021 (Chapter 550); effective on approval.
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.
Senate Study Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Digital Currency; create
Georgia's SR 391 is a Senate resolution, adopted 52-0 on April 2, 2025, that created the Senate Study Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Digital Currency: six members appointed by the President of the Senate, who names a legislative member as chair. It was to study AI and digital and cryptocurrency, including safeguards against fraud, unintended bias, discrimination and privacy infringements from AI, and to recommend any action or legislation. The committee stood abolished December 1, 2025. As a resolution of one chamber, it does not change the law.
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.
Provides that a person may operate a fully autonomous vehicle on the public roads of this state without a human driver provided that the automated driving system is engaged and the vehicle meets certain conditions; defines terms; requires insurance and that such vehicle is registered as a fully…
New York's A 539-B (2023-2024) would have added Vehicle and Traffic Law Article 34-E allowing a person to operate a fully autonomous vehicle (SAE Level 4 or 5) on public roads without a human driver if the automated driving system is engaged, the vehicle can reach a minimal risk condition after a failure, a law enforcement interaction plan is filed and proof of insurance under VTL Article 6 is submitted. A city of five million or more could set local rules for for-hire services. The enacting clause was stricken July 22, 2024; the bill died with the 2023-2024 session.
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.
Promotes transparency and accountability in the use of artificial intelligence by health insurers to manage coverage and claims.
Rhode Island H 7190 (2026), as introduced on January 21, 2026, would add chapter 27-84 requiring health insurers to disclose to OHIC and DBR how they use AI to manage claims and coverage and to keep records of AI decisions for at least five years. A non-administrative adverse benefit determination on medically necessary care in which AI made, or was a substantial factor in, the decision would need review and approval by a provider with the same license status as the ordering provider. The text says it takes effect upon passage.
Relates to the use of automated lending decision-making tools by banks for the purposes of making lending decisions; allows loan applicants to consent to or opt out of such use.
New York's A 773-C would add Banking Law § 103-a requiring covered banking organizations and licensed lenders that use automated lending decision-making tools to commission an annual independent impact assessment and post a summary report, report discriminatory or biased findings to the Department within thirty days, and give applicants notice at least 24 hours before use and, to the extent practicable, a denial reason within 24 hours. It contains no consent or opt-out right. Reported and advanced to third reading (calendar 393) April 30, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Mississippi Medical Judgement Protection Act; create.
Mississippi's HB 1717 (2026), the Mississippi Medical Judgment Protection Act, would require a provider or facility whose clinical AI materially contributes to a diagnosis, treatment plan, order or clinical note to disclose that in the medical record and have a licensed clinician accept or reject it. It would bar payers from issuing automated denials or delays of coverage or payment, and require adverse determinations to be reviewed and signed by a physician. It died in committee on February 3, 2026.
Relates to the use of automated lending decision-making tools by banks for the purposes of making lending decisions; allows loan applicants to consent to or opt out of such use.
New York's S 8115-C would add Banking Law section 103-a on automated lending decision-making tools used by banking organizations, licensed foreign and interstate branches and licensed lenders (national and federal institutions are excluded). Covered entities must get an annual independent impact assessment, post the final report on their website, keep records for seven years, report discriminatory outcomes to the department within thirty days, and give applicants notice at least 24 hours before use. Reported from Banks and committed to Internet and Technology May 12, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Mississippi Consumer Privacy Protection Act; create.
Mississippi's HB 1051 (2026) would have created the Mississippi Consumer Privacy Protection Act for businesses with over $25 million in revenue that handle personal information of 175,000+ consumers (or 25,000+ with over half of revenue from selling data). Consumers could opt out of profiling used for decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. It was referred to House Judiciary A on January 16, 2026 and died in committee on February 3, 2026.
Mandatory Human Reviews of Insurance Claim Denials
Florida's CS/SB 794 (Banking and Insurance Committee; Bradley) would require an insurer's decision to deny a claim or part of a claim to be made by a qualified human professional and bar algorithms, AI and machine learning systems from being the sole basis for determining whether to adjust or deny a claim. Committee substitute reported 9-0 on March 25, 2025; it died in Appropriations on June 16, 2025.
Concerning vehicle and operator requirements for autonomous vehicles.
Washington's HB 1984 (2025-26 biennium) would have required registered autonomous vehicles to meet federal motor vehicle standards and barred operating one on a highway to carry passengers or goods unless a human safety operator is physically present to monitor and intervene. It also amended the self-certification testing pilot (RCW 46.92.010) so testing entities must give proof of insurance and report collisions and moving-violation citations, and could not test on public roads unless the new requirements are met. It had a House Transportation hearing on February 24, 2025, was reintroduced January 12, 2026 and died at adjournment.
Autonomous Vehicles
Florida's CS/SB 712 (2018, committee substitute) would have let a fully autonomous vehicle operate in Florida whether or not a licensed human operator is physically present, with the automated driving system deemed the operator. It would have required fully autonomous vehicles to carry at least $500,000 in combined liability coverage (plus PIP and uninsured motorist coverage), allowed the Florida Turnpike Enterprise to build test facilities, and exempted autonomous vehicles from the in-vehicle video display ban. Scheduled to take effect July 1, 2018, it died in Banking and Insurance on March 10, 2018.
Artificial intelligence; regulate use in health coverage decisions
Alabama's HB 515 (2025, as introduced) would have limited how health insurers use AI, algorithms or other software in utilization review. Medical necessity determinations would always have been made by a licensed physician or other competent health care professional. Insurers would have had to disclose AI use to enrollees and contracting providers, periodically review outcomes, and face civil suits for compensatory or punitive damages. Introduced April 3, 2025 and referred to the House Committee on Insurance; it died in committee when the 2025 session ended.
AI Fraud Accountability Act of 2026
The federal S. 3982 (AI Fraud Accountability Act of 2026) would make it a federal crime, punishable by up to 3 years in prison and a fine, to pose falsely as a real or imaginary person in an AI-made or other computer-generated audio or visual impersonation, intended to be taken as genuine, to defraud someone. It would also make the conduct an FTC-enforced unfair or deceptive practice. Referred to the Senate Commerce Committee March 4, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Relative to AI health communications and informed patient consent
Massachusetts' H 1210 would give patients the right to be told when health information they get was generated by AI, with instructions for reaching a human provider if the provider had not reviewed it. Health insurance carriers would have to disclose AI or automated decision tools used in claims review and file an annual report on AI algorithms and training data used in utilization review, with a bias attestation. Referred to Financial Services February 27, 2025; on February 9, 2026 it accompanied a study order (H 5066) and did not advance as its own bill.
RISE Act of 2025 Responsible Innovation and Safe Expertise Act of 2025
The RISE Act would shield AI developers from civil liability for errors made by their AI products when licensed or certified professionals use them to serve clients, if the developer publishes a model card and its model specification (including system prompts) before deployment and gives professionals clear documentation of known limitations, failure modes and appropriate uses. The shield would not cover recklessness or willful misconduct, would be lost if disclosures are not updated within 30 days of a new version or newly found failure mode, and would preempt covered state-law claims except those for fraud, knowing misrepresentation or non-professional use. Introduced June 12, 2025.
Relative to health carrier recordkeeping requirements in utilization review, including specifications regarding the use of artificial intelligence.
New Hampshire's HB 1406 (2026), as amended by the House, would require health carriers to keep written records on their use of algorithms and AI in utilization review and require adverse determinations, including payment reductions and down coding, to be made by a qualified health care provider, with written notice and records. It passed the House with amendment on March 11, 2026; the Senate voted it Inexpedient to Legislate on May 7, 2026 and it was killed.
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.
Clarifies that owners of self-driving motor vehicles must comply with existing insurance requirements.
New Jersey's S2324 would extend the State's no-fault Automobile Reparation Reform Act and compulsory liability insurance requirement to self-driving vehicles capable of operating without active control or monitoring by a human operator, so their owners would have to carry the same coverage as other owners, including personal injury protection (per the Statement).
Disclosure of artificial intelligence use in health care.
Indiana's HB 1620 would have required a health care provider that uses AI technology to make or inform any decision in a patient's care, or to generate any part of a communication to the patient (including through a chat bot), to disclose that use to the patient. An insurer providing accident and sickness coverage would have had the same duty toward an insured. Introduced January 21, 2025 and referred to the House Committee on Public Health; the Indiana General Assembly's record marks it dead.
Internet and E-mail Fraud; the criminal offense of digital identity fraud; establish
SB594 seeks to establish the criminal offense of digital identity fraud in Georgia, providing for criminal and civil penalties, a cause of action and damages, definitions, and repealing conflicting laws.
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.
Personal delivery devices
Indiana's HB 1072 (P.L. 15-2021) authorizes delivery robots. A personal delivery device is a powered device of up to 500 pounds, excluding cargo, used mainly on sidewalks and crosswalks to carry property and capable of navigating with or without the active control or monitoring of an individual. Devices may operate on sidewalks, crosswalks, roads and streets, but not on state highway system routes inside municipalities, and must carry a unique identifying number and operator identification. Operators need $100,000 of liability insurance, and local governments may restrict devices by ordinance after a public meeting and notice to affected companies. Effective July 1, 2021.
AN ACT RELATING TO INSURANCE -- THE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USE BY HEALTH INSURERS TO MANAGE COVERAGE AND CLAIMS ACT
Rhode Island's proposed Transparency and Accountability in AI Use by Health Insurers to Manage Coverage and Claims Act. Health insurers, and contractors acting for them, would have to disclose to the health insurance commissioner and DBR how they use AI in claims and coverage decisions (models, role, training data, performance metrics, governance) and keep records of AI-driven decisions for five years. Any clinical denial in which AI was a substantial factor would need review and approval by a provider with the same license as the ordering provider, or it would be invalid. Regulators would report yearly. The Senate passed a substitute on June 9, 2026.
Regulate the use of artificial intelligence by health insurers
Ohio's SB 164 would add section 3902.80 requiring health plan issuers to report annually to the superintendent of insurance on their use of AI-based algorithms in utilization review, and barring decisions about a covered person's care, including denials, delays or modifications based on medical necessity, based solely on AI results. Medical necessity determinations would require a licensed physician or qualified provider. It was introduced April 1, 2025 and referred to the Senate Financial Institutions, Insurance and Technology Committee April 2, 2025.
A bill for an act relating to utilization review organizations, prior authorizations and exemptions, medical billing, and independent review organizations.
The bill addresses utilization review organizations, prior authorizations, and medical billing practices in Iowa.
AI Chatbots-Licensing, Safety, and Privacy.
SB 963 would require a state license from the North Carolina Department of Justice to operate or distribute any chatbot dealing substantially with health information, with evidence of effectiveness, insurance, encryption, fast breach reporting and annual audits. A Chatbot Safety and Privacy Act would give larger chatbot providers a duty of loyalty: respond to users at risk of harm, prevent emotional dependence, disclose at each new interaction that the chatbot is not human and get consent, deidentify data, and keep sensitive data out of training. Users could sue for $1,000 per violation. Pending in the Senate.
An Act Concerning Online Safety
Public Act 26-15 is Connecticut's main AI statute. AI companion operators must disclose that users are talking to AI, run suicide and self-harm protocols and protect minors (from Jan. 1, 2027). Developers and deployers of automated employment-related decision technology must give notices to workers and applicants, enforced by the Attorney General, and AI use is no defense to discrimination claims (Oct. 1, 2026). It also adds frontier-developer whistleblower protections, provenance duties for large generative AI providers, AI subscription disclosures, a statutory AI definition, the CT AI Academy, an AI working group and state-agency AI inventory and assessment rules.
Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act of 2025
The federal S. 3308 (Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act of 2025) would bar developers and deployers from offering or using a covered algorithm in a way that causes or contributes to disparate impact or otherwise discriminates based on a protected characteristic in consequential actions such as employment, education, housing, health care, credit, insurance and government benefits. It would require independent-auditor evaluations and annual assessments, public disclosures, human alternatives and appeals, with enforcement by the FTC, State attorneys general and private suits. Introduced December 2, 2025 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; no further action.
Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025
The federal H.R. 5511 (Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025) would direct the FTC to issue regulations within 2 years requiring covered entities to assess the impact of covered algorithms before and after deployment and file summary reports. Covered entities include those with over $50,000,000 in average annual gross receipts or $250,000,000 in equity value, or data on over 1,000,000 consumers, households or devices. Violations would be treated as FTC rule violations, and state attorneys general could sue. Introduced September 19, 2025 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee; no further action.
Unleashing AI Innovation in Financial Services Act
The federal S. 2528 (Unleashing AI Innovation in Financial Services Act) would require each federal financial regulatory agency to establish, or identify an office to serve as, an AI Innovation Lab where regulated entities may apply to run AI test projects under an alternative compliance strategy waiving or modifying a regulation. Agencies would have 120 days to decide (extendable by 120 days, after which the application is deemed approved) and must issue rules within 180 days after enactment. Introduced July 29, 2025 and referred to the Senate Banking Committee; no further action.
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models".
The federal H.J.Res. 51 is a joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act that would disapprove the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection rule "Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models" (89 Fed. Reg. 64538, August 7, 2024). If enacted, the rule would have no force or effect. Introduced February 12, 2025 and referred to the House Financial Services Committee; no further action.
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care
Colorado's HB 26-1139 regulates AI in utilization review. Insurers, PBMs, utilization review organizations, behavioral health administrative services organizations and managed care entities that use it must ensure the AI relies on the individual's clinical information, not solely group data, does not unlawfully discriminate, keeps audit logs and is periodically reviewed, and must disclose their AI use and human oversight to regulators. A medical-necessity denial may not rest solely on AI output without a competent clinician's review and approval. Health plans, Medicaid and CHP+ may not pay for psychotherapy conducted by AI. Signed June 2, 2026 (Chapter 325); effective January 1, 2027.
Unleashing AI Innovation in Financial Services Act
The federal H.R. 9309 (Unleashing AI Innovation in Financial Services Act) would have required each financial regulatory agency to set up a regulatory sandbox where regulated entities could test AI projects with waivers of rules. Agencies would have had 90 days to decide applications, and an undecided application after a 90-day extension would be deemed approved. Introduced August 6, 2024 and referred to the House Financial Services Committee; it died when the 118th Congress ended on January 3, 2025.
Provides that a person may operate a fully autonomous vehicle on the public roads of this state without a human driver provided that the automated driving system is engaged and the vehicle meets certain conditions; defines terms; requires insurance and that such vehicle is registered as a fully…
New York's A 3650 would have added Vehicle and Traffic Law Article 34-E allowing a fully autonomous vehicle (SAE level 4 or 5) to operate on public roads without a human driver when its automated driving system is engaged, if it can reach a minimal risk condition, is registered and titled as fully autonomous, and the operator files a law enforcement interaction plan and proof of insurance. The Department of Motor Vehicles would be the exclusive state regulator. Introduced January 29, 2025; enacting clause stricken February 5, 2025.
AN ACT relating to autonomous vehicles.
Kentucky's HB 7 (2024 Ky. Acts Ch. 176), enacted over the Governor's veto, sets rules for fully autonomous vehicles in KRS Chapter 186. Vehicles with automated driving systems may operate on public highways if they meet the act's requirements, including a law enforcement interaction plan filed with the Transportation Cabinet and State Police, single-limit liability coverage or self-insurance of at least $1,000,000, and titling and registration. Until July 31, 2026, fully autonomous vehicles over 62,000 pounds must carry a credentialed human driver to monitor and intervene. The Transportation Cabinet is the sole regulator and local governments may not add rules.
Prescribes requirements and safeguards for the use of an artificial intelligence, algorithm, or other software tool for the purpose of utilization review for health and accident insurance.
New York's A 8556 would add Public Health Law § 4905-a and Insurance Law § 4905-a. A utilization review agent or disability insurer using AI, an algorithm or another software tool for utilization review based on medical necessity would have to base determinations on the enrollee's clinical history, not solely a group dataset, and the tool could not "deny, delay, or modify health care services" on medical necessity; only a licensed health care professional could. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after it becomes law. Referred to the Insurance Committee May 20, 2025 (and January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Provides for notice requirements where an insurer authorized to write accident and health insurance in this state, a corporation organized pursuant to article forty-three of this chapter, or a health maintenance organization certified pursuant to article forty-four of the public health law uses…
New York's A 9149 (2023-2024 session) would have added Insurance Law § 338. Accident and health insurers, article 43 corporations and certified HMOs would have had to post on their websites whether they use AI-based algorithms in utilization review, submit the algorithms and training data to the Department for bias certification, and ensure a clinical peer reviewer documents review of individual clinical records before an adverse determination. Penalties included fines up to $5,000 per violation ($10,000 if willful) and license action. Introduced February 8, 2024 and referred to the Insurance Committee; it never advanced and died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.
AN ACT relating to autonomous vehicles.
Vetoed. Kentucky's HB 135 (2023) would have let fully autonomous vehicles (SAE level 4 or 5) run on Kentucky highways without a human driver if the system could reach a minimal risk condition after a failure and follow traffic laws. Operators would have filed a law enforcement interaction plan with the Transportation Cabinet and State Police and shown $5 million in liability coverage; the owner would have been the operator under traffic laws, public agencies could not ban the vehicles, and only the lead truck in a platoon would have needed a driver. The Governor vetoed it April 10, 2023.
Prohibits the use of any automated or algorithm-driven process by which the price charged for an essential good or service is adjusted on a real-time basis substantially in reference to any non-cost-based factor.
New York's A 9152 would add General Business Law § 396-rrr prohibiting sellers of essential goods and services, including platforms, from using dynamic pricing: an automated or algorithm-driven process adjusting price in real time "substantially in reference to any non-cost-based factor." Exemptions include auctions, bona fide contracts, financial and insurance products and emergencies. Only the Attorney General could sue, for civil penalties up to $25,000 per violation or three times gross receipts. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after it becomes law. Referred to Consumer Affairs and Protection October 17, 2025 (and January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Algorithmic Addiction Fund - Establishment
Maryland's SB 739 (2024) would have created the Algorithmic Addiction Fund, a special nonlapsing fund holding revenue the State receives from judgments or settlements with technology or social media companies on State-law damages claims, plus money appropriated in the State budget, for algorithmic addiction prevention and treatment. The Secretary of Health would set goals, run a grant program and report each November 1. A Senate Finance hearing was set for February 20, 2024; it died when the session ended.
Autonomous vehicles; allowing fully automated vehicles to operate on public roads. Effective date.
Oklahoma's SB 1541 (2022) lets fully autonomous vehicles drive on public roads without a human driver when the automated driving system is engaged and the vehicle can reach a minimal risk condition if the system fails, can obey traffic laws and meets federal safety certification. Before driverless operation, the operator must file a law enforcement interaction plan with the Department of Public Safety and prove at least $1 million of insurance or self-insurance. The vehicle must stay at the scene of a crash and the owner must report it. The automated driving system counts as the licensed driver. Effective November 1, 2022.
Establishing the Massachusetts consumer data privacy act
Massachusetts H 78 would create the Massachusetts Consumer Data Privacy Act, giving consumers rights over personal data, including opting out of profiling for solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. After a hearing on April 9, 2025, the committee folded it into new draft H4746 on November 17, 2025, which was referred to House Ways and Means; the page shows no later action. Separately, Senate bill S2619 is in a conference committee (June 2026). Neither bill has passed both houses.
TRANSPARENCY IN DOWNCODING ACT
The Transparency in Downcoding Act regulates how health care payors reduce the billing code on medical claims. Section 15 prohibits a payor from implementing any policy or using any algorithm or other automated process, system or tool that bypasses evaluation of the information submitted by the billing health care professional in order to downcode a claim. Payors may use automated processes to flag claims that may justify downcoding under AMA CPT coding guidelines, but every downcoding determination must be made or reviewed by a natural person. The Act applies to policies issued, amended, delivered or renewed on or after January 1, 2028, and is a limit on home rule powers.
Interim study to examine the impact of artificial intelligence on Nebraska's private and public sectors, including the technology and insurance sectors
Not a law. Nebraska LR430 (2024), introduced by Senator Bostar, is an interim study resolution that designated the Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee to study the impact of artificial intelligence on Nebraska's private and public sectors, including the technology and insurance sectors, and to recommend policies. Introduced March 26, 2024, it was referred to the committee April 5, 2024; no hearing or report is shown. A resolution does not change the law.
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.
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.
Adopt the Agricultural Data Privacy Act and the Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act
Nebraska's LB 525 creates the Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act, operative July 1, 2027, and an Agricultural Data Privacy Act. Operators of public AI chat services must tell minors they are talking to AI, take reasonable measures to prevent sexual content and claims of being human, sentient or emotionally or romantically attached for minors, offer privacy and parental tools, disclose AI to anyone who could be misled, keep a suicide and self-harm referral protocol, and not claim to provide mental health care. The Attorney General enforces: at least $1,000 per violation, up to $500,000 per operator. Signed April 14, 2026.
Health care plans; to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in determinations of coverage
Alabama's SB 63 (Act 2026-589) limits how health benefit plan providers, including insurers, HMOs and utilization review contractors, use AI in prior authorization. AI-assisted medical necessity determinations must rest on the enrollee's medical history, clinical circumstances presented by the requesting provider and other information in the record, and any denial, delay or modification must be made by a licensed physician or other competent health care professional. Providers must certify their AI annually to the Department of Insurance, disclose its use and review its outcomes. Fines up to $5,000 for repeat violations. Signed April 16, 2026; effective October 1, 2026.
Advanced driver assistance systems.
California's SB 1315 (2025-26 Regular Session), titled 'Advanced driver assistance systems,' would have required the manufacturer of an advanced driver assistance system, or of an automobile equipped with one, to ensure a driver can disable or disengage that system or autonomous technology where manual operation was previously available. The Attorney General, district attorneys or city attorneys could seek civil penalties up to $25,000 per violation. The Senate passed it 38-0 on May 18, 2026; it was placed on the Assembly inactive file on August 30, 2026 and was not passed before the session ended.
AN ACT relating to privacy protection.
Kentucky's HB 58 (2026) makes it unlawful for anyone, including the state and local governments, to use automated license plate readers (ALPRs: high-speed cameras plus data processing that turn vehicle and plate images into computer-readable data) except for listed purposes such as parking, secured-area access, public safety and auto theft, law enforcement, commercial vehicle enforcement and tolls. Captured data generally may not be kept over 90 days or sold or shared, with exceptions for police, insurers and lenders. Violations carry fines of $20 to $2,000, up to one year in jail, or both. Signed April 10, 2026 (Acts Ch. 71).
Relating to the use of certain automated systems in, and certain adverse determinations made in connection with, the health benefit claims process.
Texas's SB 815 bars utilization review agents from using an automated decision system to make, wholly or partly, an adverse determination (a finding that health care services are not medically necessary or appropriate, or are experimental or investigational). Such tools may still be used for administrative support or fraud detection, and the insurance commissioner may audit and inspect an agent's use of them at any time. Adverse determination notices must describe the screening criteria and review procedures used. Signed June 20, 2025; effective September 1, 2025; applies to utilization review for health benefit plans delivered, issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2026.
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.
A bill for an act relating to the licensure of artificial intelligence augmented and autonomous service providers, and including penalties.
Iowa's HSB 766, a House Appropriations study bill, would create a board of autonomous medical practice to license AI augmented and autonomous service providers (AAASPs) that run clinical AI services. A license would be required for fully autonomous AI and for certain advisory and supervised AI. Providers would face patient disclosures, a duty of loyalty, insurance and bond requirements, and civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation per day. A subcommittee recommended passage March 24, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
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.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29; Title 45; Title 47 and Title 66, relative to algorithmic pricing.
Tennessee's HB1468 (114th General Assembly) would have barred an entity from setting the price of a specific good or service for a consumer in Tennessee using personalized algorithmic pricing, meaning dynamic pricing set by an algorithm that uses personal data. A violation would have been an unfair or deceptive act under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977. Insurers, certain financial institutions and some subscription prices were exempt. Companion: SB 1807. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Sponsor(s) withdrawn. (March 18, 2026).
Relating to the regulation of autonomous vehicles; creating a criminal offense.
Texas HB 3837 (2025), as introduced, would have created an Autonomous Vehicle Commission and required a permit for autonomous vehicles to operate on Texas highways, with an operating plan for emergency responders, a recording device, insurance, and collision reporting within 48 hours. An owner operating a vehicle in violation would have committed a Class A misdemeanor. It also covered deceptive 'self-driving' advertising. It died in committee when the session adjourned June 2, 2025.
ALGORITHMIC PRICING
Illinois's HB 4544 would create the Preventing Algorithmic Pricing Discrimination Act. Anyone who knowingly advertises personalized algorithmic pricing based on a person's consumer data would have to state that the price was set by an algorithm using the person's personal data, and pricing could not use protected class data to deny or vary offers. Filed January 22, 2026; referred to the House Rules Committee January 30, 2026 (co-sponsor added February 18, 2026); it has not passed either house.
A bill for an act relating to health carriers standards of conduct; utilization review organizations, artificial intelligence, audits, and prior authorizations; certificate of need processes; and including applicability provisions. (Formerly HF 2438.) Effective date: 07/01/2026.
Iowa's HF 2635 is a health insurance and certificate-of-need law. Its AI rule (Iowa Code § 514F.8(2A)) lets a utilization review organization use an AI-based algorithm or system for the initial review of a prior authorization request, but for a request based on medical necessity AI may not be the sole basis for denying, delaying or downgrading it. The act also requires denials to be made by a same- or similar-specialty physician or clinical peer, sets audit deadlines, bars prior authorization for certain cancer screenings and inpatient emergencies, and raises certificate-of-need thresholds. Signed May 13, 2026 (Acts Chapter 1087); effective July 1, 2026, with many rules applying from 2027.
Provides that a person may operate a fully autonomous vehicle on the public roads of this state without a human driver provided that the automated driving system is engaged and the vehicle meets certain conditions; defines terms; requires insurance and that such vehicle is registered as a fully…
New York's S 344-B would add Vehicle and Traffic Law Article 34-E allowing a fully autonomous vehicle (10,000 pounds or less gross weight, with two distinct sensing modalities) to operate without a human driver while its automated driving system is engaged. Operators must file a law enforcement interaction plan with the DMV and show proof of insurance or self-insurance, and the owner is liable for traffic violations while the system is engaged. Amended and recommitted to Transportation May 6, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Health insurance
Not law. S. 920 would have required South Carolina health insurers that use AI, algorithms or other software for prior authorization to base decisions on the patient's own medical history and clinical circumstances, have a licensed physician or other qualified professional make every denial, reduction or deferral, tell enrollees that AI is used, certify yearly that their tools are fair and non-discriminatory, and share denial rates on request, with Department of Insurance enforcement. The Senate Banking and Insurance Committee reported it favorably on April 30, 2026, but it was never taken up before the regular session ended.
Relating to use of artificial intelligence in utilization review conducted for health benefit plans.
Texas HB 4018 (2025), as introduced, would have added Insurance Code Sec. 4201.156, requiring a utilization review agent that uses an AI-based algorithm or other software tool to ensure it bases determinations on the enrollee's clinical history and circumstances, does not override a physician or provider, and does not discriminate. The agent could not use AI as the sole basis to deny, delay or modify health care services. It died when the regular session adjourned June 2, 2025.
Providing for artificial intelligence in facilities, for artificial intelligence use by insurers and for artificial intelligence use by MA or CHIP managed care plans; imposing duties on the Department of Health, the Insurance Department and the Department of Human Services; and imposing penalties.
Pennsylvania's HB 1925 (2025-26), as amended (Printer's No. 3963), would add rules for AI in health care facilities, AI use by insurers and AI use by MA or CHIP managed care plans, with duties for the departments of Health, Insurance and Human Services and penalties. The captured text covers the facilities chapter: patient disclosure and responsible-use rules for AI in clinical decision making. It passed the House 144-59 on September 30, 2026.
Insurance: health insurers; use of artificial intelligence tools to make decisions regarding claims; prohibit. Amends 1956 PA 218 (MCL 500.100 - 500.8302) by adding sec. 3406ss.
Michigan's HB 4536 would add section 3406ss to the Insurance Code of 1956 providing that an insurer that delivers, issues for delivery, or renews in Michigan a health insurance policy shall not deny, modify, or delay a claim based on a review using artificial intelligence. Introduced June 3, 2025; re-referred to the House Committee on Communications and Technology March 19, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Relating to the disclosure and use of artificial intelligence.
Texas HB 5496 (2025), as introduced, would have added Chapter 611 to the Business & Commerce Code. A person using AI in conducting business or providing a good or service to a Texas resident, including social media, political advertising or financial services, would have had to maintain AI industry best-practice standards, give individuals a tool to detect AI use, explain how and why an AI decision was reached, and ensure the AI does not show bias or discriminate on any legally protected classification. A violation would have been a deceptive trade practice. No enrolled version exists, so it died June 2, 2025.
An act relating to regulating developers and deployers of certain automated decision systems
Vermont's H.340 (2025-2026 biennium) would have regulated developers and deployers of automated decision systems used for consequential decisions in areas such as education, employment, housing, health care, financial services and government services. It would have made algorithmic discrimination unlawful, required independent audits and reports to the Attorney General, notices, explanations and human-review appeals for consumers, and a risk management program. It was referred to House Commerce on February 25, 2025 and died when the biennium ended.
Provides that a person may operate a fully autonomous vehicle on the public roads of this state without a human driver provided that the automated driving system is engaged and the vehicle meets certain conditions; defines terms; requires insurance and that such vehicle is registered as a fully…
New York's S 1012-B (2023-2024 session) would have added Vehicle and Traffic Law Article 34-E allowing a person to operate a fully autonomous (SAE level 4 or 5) vehicle on public roads without a human driver while its automated driving system is engaged, subject to conditions, a law enforcement interaction plan, proof of insurance and registration as a fully autonomous vehicle. The state would have governed these vehicles exclusively, with any city of five million or more people able to set local for-hire rules. It was referred to the Transportation Committee and last amended March 1, 2024; it did not pass, and the session ended without action.
A bill for an act relating to utilization review organizations' use of artificial intelligence, prior authorization determinations and exemptions, and audits, and including applicability provisions. (Formerly SSB 3118.)
Iowa's SF 2421 (formerly SSB 3118) would have let utilization review organizations use an AI-based algorithm for initial review of prior authorization requests but not as the sole basis to deny, delay or downgrade a medical-necessity request, and would have required review by a qualified reviewer or clinical peer, written reasons, and deadlines for claim audits. HF 2635 was substituted and SF 2421 was withdrawn March 4, 2026.
An Act relating to defamation claims based on the use of deepfakes; and relating to the use of deepfakes in electioneering communications.
Not law. HB 358 passed the Alaska House 38-2 on May 9, 2024. It would have made a defamation claim based on a deepfake defamation per se and barred knowingly using a deepfake in an electioneering communication to influence an election. People harmed could sue creators, knowing distributors or anyone who stripped a disclosure; a clear 'has been manipulated' label was a defense, and platforms and broadcasters carrying others' ads were not liable. The Senate Judiciary Committee rewrote it on May 13, 2024, but it died when the session ended.
Suspending Rules 24(c), 35, 41(b), and 42(e), Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature, concerning House Bill No. 358, relating to defamation claims based on the use of deepfakes; and relating to the use of deepfakes in electioneering communications.
Not adopted. SCR 28 was a procedural resolution from the Alaska Senate Judiciary Committee to suspend the Legislature's Uniform Rules so that HB 358, the deepfake defamation and election bill, could take a new title after the committee rewrote it. It was read once and held on the Senate Secretary's desk on May 13, 2024, and neither it nor HB 358 passed before the session ended. It has no substantive provisions of its own.
Private Review Agents; certain decisions with regard to the provision of insurance coverage for healthcare services shall not be based solely on artificial intelligence systems; provide
Georgia Act 411, effective January 1, 2027, adds O.C.G.A. 33-46-7.1 for health insurance utilization review. Private review agents and utilization review entities may use AI and other software tools as part of a utilization review plan that meets state standards and Insurance Commissioner rules, including to automate tasks and take part in decisions. But no adverse determination may be issued to a patient until a natural person qualified as a private review agent or utilization review entity conducts a review in which a clinical peer participates, and AI may never supersede that clinical peer's judgment.
Relative to the use of artificial intelligence and other software tools in healthcare decision-making
Massachusetts S46 would amend G.L. c. 176O, s. 12 so that insurers using AI, algorithms or software for medical-necessity review may not let the tool deny, delay or modify care; only a licensed physician or competent licensed professional may decide. On October 16, 2025 it accompanied new draft S2632, which on April 2, 2026 was sent to Senate Ways and Means with an ought-to-pass recommendation.
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.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE – Adds to existing law to establish the Conversational AI Safety Act.
Idaho's Conversational AI Safety Act (Idaho Code Title 48, ch. 21) regulates public-facing AI chatbots that simulate human conversation. Operators must disclose that the service is AI when a reasonable person could be misled, adopt a suicide-ideation protocol that refers users to crisis services, and not claim the service provides professional mental health care. For users they know or reasonably believe are minors, operators must show AI disclosures, avoid engagement rewards, block sexually explicit content, and prevent claims of sentience, emotional dependence and romantic role-play. The Attorney General enforces it. Effective July 1, 2027.
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.
An act relating to neurological rights and the use of artificial intelligence technology in health and human services
Act 101 states Vermont's intent for the ethical and responsible use of AI in health care and human services and recognizes individual neurological rights, including mental and neural data privacy, freedom of thought, and protection from unauthorized access to or manipulation of brain activity (18 V.S.A. ch. 42C). It adds members to the state Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council, extends the Council to June 30, 2030, and directs it to report by January 15, 2027 on neurological-rights protections, generative AI use by regulated professions, and AI in health insurance utilization review. Effective May 18, 2026.
Unleashing AI Innovation in Financial Services Act
U.S. Congress's H.R. 4801, the Unleashing AI Innovation in Financial Services Act (119th Congress), would require each federal financial regulatory agency to set up an AI Innovation Lab where regulated financial entities could apply to run AI test projects under waived or modified regulations and an alternative compliance strategy. The Financial Services Committee ordered it reported, as amended, 33-19 on May 13, 2026. It was reported June 24, 2026 and awaits House action.
Relating To Algorithmic Discrimination.
Hawaii's SB 59 (2025) would have added an Algorithmic Discrimination chapter. Covered entities (those holding data on more than 25,000 residents, over $15,000,000 in receipts, data brokers, or service providers) could not use algorithmic processes using machine learning, AI or similar techniques to decide eligibility for credit, insurance, education, employment, housing or public accommodations in a discriminatory way, and would owe notices, annual audits and reports. Penalties up to $10,000 per violation, plus private suits. Referred January 16, 2025 and carried over to 2026, it died.
Health insurance
South Carolina's Bill S0920 requires health insurers to consider factors like bias and transparency when using AI, mandates disclosures about AI usage to enrollees, and details disciplinary actions such as fines or license suspensions for violations.
Relating To Health Care.
Hawaii's House Bill 1787 (2026) would have set rules for health carriers and utilization review organizations that use AI, algorithms or other software tools in utilization review: determinations would have to rest on individual clinical history, be open to commissioner inspection and be reviewed at least quarterly. It would also have barred using these tools to deny, delay or modify care, and required a licensed provider to review adverse actions. It was referred to committees January 26, 2026 and not enacted.
Permits testing and use of autonomous vehicles on State roadways under certain circumstances.
Not law. A 1589 would have let autonomous vehicles be tested on New Jersey roads with Motor Vehicle Commission approval. Testing would have needed a licensed operator employed or designated by the manufacturer, seated in the driver's seat and able to take control at once, and $5 million in insurance, a surety bond or self-insurance. Manufacturers would have had to certify prior testing on private tracks or out-of-state roads and tell buyers what information their autonomous technology collects. It never left committee in the 2024-2025 session.
Enacts into law major components of legislation necessary to implement the state transportation, economic development and environmental conservation budget for the 2025-2026 state fiscal year; relates to the waterfront commission act; makes amendments to change "applicant" to "licensee or…
New York's 2025-26 budget bill (Chapter 58 of 2025) includes two AI laws. Part U requires operators of AI companions (AI that simulates a sustained human-like relationship) to make reasonable efforts to detect and address suicidal ideation or self-harm and refer users to crisis services such as 988, and to tell users at the start of an interaction and every three hours that they are not talking to a human; the Attorney General can seek up to $15,000 a day (in effect since November 5, 2025). Part X requires businesses using personalized algorithmic pricing to show 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA' (since July 8, 2025).
Sensitive Deepfake Images
New Mexico's HB 530 (2025) would have expanded the unauthorized-distribution-of-sensitive-images law (NMSA 30-37A-1) to cover 'sensitive deepfake images', meaning images created, altered or digitally manipulated to show a person's uncovered genitals, a woman's breast below the top of the areola, or an intimate act. It would also have made malicious threats to distribute such images a crime and added civil claims. It was introduced and referred to HCPAC and HJC on February 20, 2025, then postponed indefinitely (undated), and died.
Interim study to examine the current status of artificial intelligence legislation occurring at the state and federal levels to address risks to public safety and to determine what action Nebraska should take to address such risks
Not a law. Nebraska LR421 (2026), introduced by Senator Storer, is an interim study resolution that designates the Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee to study the status of state and federal artificial intelligence legislation addressing public safety risks and what Nebraska should do. It cites LB1083. Introduced March 24, 2026, it was referred to the Executive Board and then, on March 30, 2026, to that committee; no hearing or report is shown. A resolution does not change the law.
Providing consumer protections for artificial intelligence systems.
Washington's HB 2667 (2026 session), the House companion to SB 6284, would have required deployers of high-risk AI systems used for consequential decisions on education, employment, lending, health care, housing, insurance, legal services and similar matters to guard against algorithmic discrimination. Deployer duties would start July 1, 2027 and consumer notice July 1, 2026; only the Attorney General could enforce. It had a first reading on January 26, 2026, never got a hearing and died at adjournment on March 12.
Enacts the "New York artificial intelligence consumer protection act", in relation to preventing the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to discriminate against protected classes.
New York's A 768, the "New York artificial intelligence consumer protection act," would add General Business Law Article 45-A. Beginning January 1, 2027, developers and deployers of high-risk AI decision systems used in consequential decisions (education, employment, lending, government services, health care, housing, insurance, legal services) would have to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with documentation, impact assessments, consumer notices and appeal rights. Only the Attorney General would enforce it. Referred to Consumer Affairs and Protection January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Establishing limitations on the use of artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence technology to deliver mental health care, with exceptions for administrative support functions
West Virginia's HB 4770 (2026 regular session, committee substitute) would have limited AI in mental health care. AI could assist only with administrative or supplementary support, with patient care, reimbursement or claims decisions not based exclusively on AI; AI could not act as or be marketed as a licensed professional, and licensed professionals could not let AI make independent therapeutic decisions. Violations would have carried civil penalties up to $10,000 each. It passed House Health and Human Resources but died in House Finance when the session ended March 14, 2026.
Prescribes requirements and safeguards for the use of an artificial intelligence, algorithm, or other software tool for the purpose of utilization review for health and accident insurance.
New York's S 7896 would add Public Health Law § 4905-a and Insurance Law § 4905-a. A utilization review agent using AI, an algorithm or another software tool based on medical necessity must base determinations on the enrollee's clinical history, may not rely solely on a group dataset, and must not let the tool supplant provider decision-making. The tool could not deny, delay or modify services on medical necessity grounds; only a licensed physician or health professional could. Referred to Health January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Health Insurance - Use of Artificial Intelligence - Human Evaluation
Maryland's HB 1385 (2026, first reader text) would have amended Insurance section 15-10B-05.1 so that audits and compliance reviews of AI, algorithms or software tools used by carriers for utilization review include a human evaluation of the patient's medical records by a licensed health care professional who can question, modify or override the tool's determination, and quarterly performance reviews include a human evaluation of real-world health outcomes. It had a House Health hearing set for March 12, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.
Regulates the use of artificial intelligence in aiding decisions on rental housing and loans; requires a study on the impact of artificial intelligence and machine learning on housing discrimination and redlining.
New York's A 3930 would regulate algorithms in housing and lending. Landlords and banks using automated decision tools to screen applicants would need annual disparate impact analyses, 24-hour notice to applicants, and (landlords) public posting of results; landlords could not use pricing algorithms with nonpublic competitor data to set rent. Tenants could sue for damages. The housing agency would study AI and housing discrimination. Would take effect immediately. Referred to Housing January 30, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Creates the Louisiana Artificial Intelligence Insurance Fairness Act (OR +$1,029,533 SG EX See Note)
Louisiana's HB880, the Louisiana Artificial Intelligence Insurance Fairness Act, would have regulated insurers that use algorithmic decision systems in homeowners, commercial property and casualty, auto, health or life insurance: annual independent disparate-impact audits, prohibited variables, human review of claims decisions, AI disclosures, and a right to explanation. Penalties would run up to $250,000 per violation and consumers could sue. It was considered in House Insurance April 23, 2026 and died.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8, Chapter 27; Title 56 and Title 71, relative to health insurance.
Tennessee's HB1866 (114th General Assembly), the "Regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Health Care Act," would have barred, on or after July 1, 2026, a health insurance issuer that uses AI, an algorithm or other software tool for utilization review or management based in whole or in part on medical necessity from denying, delaying or modifying care on medical necessity grounds unless a licensed healthcare professional or provider reviews the prior authorization request. Companion: SB 2010. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Taken off notice for cal in s/c Insurance Subcommittee of Insurance Committee (March 11, 2026).
AI Fraud Accountability Act
The federal H.R. 7786 (AI Fraud Accountability Act) would make it a federal crime, in interstate or foreign communications, to pose in a "digital impersonation" (an AI- or software-generated image, video or audio indistinguishable from a real person) with intent to defraud someone of money or anything of value, punishable by a fine and up to 3 years in prison, with a parallel FTC-enforced ban. Introduced March 4, 2026 and referred to House committees; no further action.
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.
Relating To The Patients' Bill Of Rights.
Hawaii's Senate Bill 3027 (2026), which calls itself the Hawaii Patients' Bill of Rights of 2025, would have set prior authorization deadlines for health carriers (one business day urgent, three non-urgent) and required written disclosure of any automated decision support tool used in utilization review. A board-certified clinician would have had to independently approve any adverse action the tool materially contributed to. It was referred to committee January 30, 2026 and not enacted. It would have taken effect July 1, 2026.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To provide accountability in the use of biometric recognition technology and comprehensive enforcement
Massachusetts H96 would add G.L. Chapter 110I regulating biometric recognition technology: covered entities that collect or process biometric data owe duties of loyalty, care and confidentiality, may not sell it, and may not install biometric recognition equipment in places open to the public. Referred to the Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity Committee February 27, 2025; on November 17, 2025 it accompanied new draft H4746, which was referred to House Ways and Means that day.
Criminal Law - Identity Fraud - Artificial Intelligence and Deepfake Representations
Maryland's Chapter 445 of 2026 adds AI and deepfakes to the state's identity fraud law. Knowingly, willfully and with fraudulent intent using AI or a deepfake (a realistic image, video or audio of an actual, identifiable person) to impersonate, falsely depict or claim to represent someone to cause harm, or to create or distribute false records to cause harm, get personal identifying information or get something of value, is a felony: up to 5 years and $10,000 with one victim, 10 years and $15,000 with two or more. Victims can sue for an injunction and other relief. Effective October 1, 2026.
AI PLAN Act Artificial Intelligence Practices, Logistics, Actions, and Necessities Act
The federal H.R. 2152 (AI PLAN Act), as reported, would require the Treasury, Homeland Security and Commerce Secretaries to report to Congress, within 180 days of enactment and annually, on defending against adversaries' use of AI in financial crimes, then give legislative recommendations and business best practices. Ordered reported as amended 52-0 May 13, 2026; reported and placed on the Union Calendar June 24, 2026; it has not passed the House.
Insurers' Liabilities and Responsibilities
Florida's HB 1555 (Cassel) would require insurers' claim denials to be reviewed, approved and signed off by a qualified human professional, bar AI, machine learning algorithms and automated systems from serving as the basis for denying a claim, and require surplus lines insurers to comply with the valued policy law. Filed February 28, 2025; indefinitely postponed May 3, 2025; it died in the Insurance & Banking Subcommittee June 16, 2025.
Human services: medical services; use of artificial intelligence tools to make decisions regarding claims; prohibit. Amends 1939 PA 280 (MCL 400.1 - 400.119b) by adding sec. 107b.
Michigan's HB 4537 would add section 107b to the social welfare act (1939 PA 280) providing that the department or a contracted health plan shall not deny, modify, or delay a claim under the medical assistance program based on a review using artificial intelligence. Introduced June 3, 2025; re-referred to the House Committee on Communications and Technology March 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.
Health Insurance - Utilization Review - Use of Artificial Intelligence
Maryland HB 820 (2025) governs health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and private review agents that use AI, algorithms or other software tools in utilization review. Tools must base determinations on the enrollee's own medical or clinical history and circumstances rather than solely on group data, may not replace the provider's role or discriminate unfairly, must be open to audit by the Insurance Commissioner, described in written policies and reviewed quarterly, and may not deny, delay or modify health care services. Carriers' quarterly reports must say whether AI was used in each adverse decision. Effective October 1, 2025.
Provides disparate impact based on automated decision system as cause of action for certain consumers.
New Jersey's S 4279 (as introduced) would bar a covered entity (lender, housing provider, screening company, creditor, servicer, insurer or their agents) from using an automated decision system in housing or credit decisions in a way that results in a disparate impact on a protected class, a violation of the Law Against Discrimination. It would require impact assessments at least every two years, notice and human review on request, and would let the Division on Civil Rights or Attorney General impose fines of at least $5,000 for certain violations. Introduced May 14, 2026 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; not passed.
State-by-State Regulation of Insurance AI Regulation
Artificial intelligence regulation is advancing at the state level. This page lists the 280 published bills we track on Insurance AI Regulation. 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 Insurance AI Regulation 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.