AI transparency laws require organizations to disclose when artificial intelligence is being used, what data is collected, how decisions are made, and what rights consumers have. These laws are foundational to the broader AI accountability movement.
Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act
Illinois' SB 315, the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act, regulates developers of frontier AI models (foundation models trained with more than 10^26 operations). All frontier developers must publish a transparency report when deploying a new or substantially modified model and report critical safety incidents within 72 hours. Large frontier developers (over $500 million revenue with affiliates) need a state disclosure statement from January 1, 2027, and from January 1, 2028 a published frontier AI framework and annual independent audits. Large developers face Attorney General penalties up to $1 million, then $3 million. Signed July 6, 2026 (P.A. 104-0538); effective January 1, 2027.
An act relating to data brokers and personal information
Vermont's H.211 (Act 138 of 2026) overhauls Vermont's data broker law, with higher fees and fines, checks before brokers disclose data, and a data broker breach-notice law. Its AI-relevant provision is in the annual registration under 9 V.S.A. § 2446: a data broker must state whether, in the past year, it shared consumers' data with or sold it to a developer of a generative AI ("GenAI") system or model, alongside disclosures about sales to foreign actors, governments and law enforcement. The act defines a GenAI system as an AI system that can generate synthetic text, images, video and audio. These provisions take effect January 1, 2027.
Establishes criteria for the use of automated employment decision tools; provides for enforcement for violations of such criteria.
New York's S 4394-A would add Labor Law Article 20-D (§§ 750-757) for automated employment decision tools, AI systems specifically developed, marketed or modified to be the controlling factor in a decision to hire, promote or terminate. Deployers may not use them in a way that violates Executive Law Article 15; deployers and developers must perform impact assessments within one year and annually, keep governance programs and give notice to individuals. The Attorney General enforces after notice and a 45-day cure period. Referred to Labor January 7, 2026.
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.
Prohibit Surveillance Price & Wage Setting
Colorado's HB 26-1210 would have banned individualized price and wage setting: using an algorithm that applies statistical modeling, data analytics, AI or similar techniques to surveillance data about a person's characteristics, online behavior or biometrics, as more than a de minimis factor in the price offered to a consumer or the wage offered to a worker. Cost-based, supply-and-demand, public-discount, loyalty and need-based pricing, consumer-report credit refusals, and wages based solely on seniority or hired-for tasks and performance with plain-language disclosure, would have been allowed. Violations would have been deceptive trade practices. Vetoed by the Governor on June 2, 2026.
Requires certification of filings produced using generative artificial intelligence; requires the brief of an appellant to contain a disclosure of the use of generative artificial intelligence in the drafting of the brief and certification that the content therein was reviewed and verified by a…
New York's S 9640 (2023-2024) would have added CPLR rule 2107 requiring any paper served that was drafted with generative AI assistance to attach an affidavit disclosing the use and certifying that a human reviewed the source material and verified the content, and amended CPLR rule 5528 for appellate briefs. Referred to Judiciary May 16, 2024; it died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Requires third party verification of compliance with transparency and safety requirements for developers of artificial intelligence models; requires publication of such compliance reports.
New York's S 10373 would require a large frontier developer to retain a third party verifier each year to report on its compliance with its frontier AI framework, including any noncompliance and whether its public statements on catastrophic risk conflict with the findings. The verifier must publish a summary within sixty days of completing the report. The Attorney General could seek civil penalties of up to $1 million for a first violation and up to $3 million for each later one. Referred to the Senate Internet and Technology Committee May 15, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Consumer Protection and Labor and Employment - Surveillance-Based Price and Wage Setting - Prohibition
Maryland's HB 148 (2026) would have barred surveillance-based price setting (new Commercial Law section 14-1330) and surveillance-based wage setting (new Labor and Employment section 3-718): using surveillance data with an automated decision system to offer or inform a customized price or wage for an individual or group. It was pre-filed August 14, 2025, introduced January 14, 2026 and referred to Economic Matters, where the last recorded action was a February 10 hearing notice. It died when the 2026 session ended.
Consumer Protection - 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.
No Adversarial AI Act
The No Adversarial AI Act would have the Federal Acquisition Security Council list AI produced or developed by a foreign adversary within 60 days of enactment; OMB would publish the list within 180 days and the Council would update it at least every 180 days. Within 90 days, executive agencies would have to review and consider excluding and removing AI from listed foreign adversary entities, using their supply-chain authority under 41 U.S.C. 4713. Agency heads could approve exceptions, with notice to OMB and Congress, for research, testing, counterterrorism or counterintelligence, or mission-critical functions. Introduced June 25, 2025.
Relating To The Patients' Bill Of Rights.
Hawaii's HB 2537 (2026), the Patients' Bill of Rights, would have amended HRS chapter 432E for managed care plans. It would set prior authorization deadlines (one business day urgent, three non-urgent), require notice and independent board-certified clinician review before an adverse action to which an automated decision support tool materially contributed, and require governance and bias-testing records by June 30, 2027. It was referred to HLT and CPC February 2, 2026 and died.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's SB 2967 (2026) would have added a part to HRS chapter 480 regulating businesses ('deployers') that use AI systems or automated decision tools with consumers. They would have to disclose AI interactions, give notice and explanation, correction, appeal and human review for AI-influenced consequential decisions, keep risk programs, do annual impact assessments and report incidents within 90 days. A violation would be an unfair or deceptive act. The Senate committee on LBT deferred it February 11, 2026; it died.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's HB 2500 (2026) would have added a chapter on algorithmic decision systems. Developers would have to give deployers risk disclosures; deployers would have to give notice before use and post-decision information (including the 20 most influential characteristics) when a system affects education, employment, finance, government services, health care, housing, insurance or legal services; generative AI would have to be disclosed to users. Developers and deployers would be jointly and severally liable for violations facilitated by the deployer. House committee ECD deferred it February 6, 2026; it died.
Use of automated decision systems in employment settings regulated.
Minnesota's HF 4445 would have required employers to give workers written notice before using an automated decision system (ADS) for employment-related decisions, with consent, human review, post-decision notice, appeal and records rules, enforced by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry and by private suits. It would have banned using ADS for facial, gait or emotion recognition. Introduced March 18, 2026 and never left committee.
Online platforms required to provide information pertaining to algorithm use, design transparency and user choice required, civil penalties provided, and rulemaking authorized.
Minnesota's HF 3980 would have required online platforms doing business in Minnesota that use personal-data-based algorithmic recommender systems to publicly disclose each system's inputs and weights (grouped in quartiles), default to maximizing users' long-term value, give users controls over recommended and blocked item types, and keep a holdout group with an annual public disclosure and independent audit. Violations would have been an unfair and deceptive practice, with the attorney general able to enforce and users able to recover $5,000 per violation. It was introduced March 5, 2026 and never left committee.
Artificial intelligence chatbot technology requirements provided, and cause of action for harm created.
Not law. Minnesota's HF 4452 would have added Minn. Stat. 604.115 barring chatbot proprietors from letting chatbots give substantive medical, mental health or legal advice that would require a license, with a private right of action a notice could not waive, and requiring clear notice that users are talking to an AI. Companion chatbot operators would have had to suspend use for at least 72 hours and show crisis contacts on self-harm, and would be liable if they knew of it and failed to act. Introduced March 18, 2026.
Interactions with Artificial Intelligence
Not law: died in committee. Florida's HB 659 would have created s. 501.172, F.S., requiring operators of companion chatbots to display a notice that companion chatbots are AI-generated, not human and may not be suitable for some minors, maintain a protocol against suicide and self-harm content that refers users to the 988 lifeline, offer age verification and, for known minors, disclose the AI, show a break reminder at least every 3 hours and take reasonable measures against sexually explicit material. Annual reports to the Department of Legal Affairs would have started July 1, 2027. It died in subcommittee on March 13, 2026.
Public Records/Artificial Intelligence Transparency Violations
Not law: died in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Florida's SB 1682 (2024) would have made confidential and exempt from public records the information the Department of Legal Affairs receives from notices of violations of a proposed AI transparency section (s. 501.174) or from its investigations, until the investigation is completed or ceases to be active. Its linked bill CS/CS/SB 1680 became Chapter 2024-118, but as enacted it did not create s. 501.174 or this exemption, so none of SB 1682 became law.
Information Technology Act Amendments
Utah's SB 131 requires paid election communications that contain AI-generated synthetic media to carry set disclosures. Audio must say "Contains content generated by AI." at the beginning and end; visuals must show a set AI label throughout the synthetic portions; online versions must also carry embedded tamper-evident content provenance data. A court may impose a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation on the creator or sponsor. Judges and the parole board may treat committing or facilitating a crime with the intentional or knowing use and material assistance of AI as an aggravating factor. Signed March 13, 2024; effective May 1, 2024 (the sentencing provision July 1, 2024).
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.
Provides for the regulation of mental health chatbots that use artificial intelligence technology. (gov sig)
Louisiana's SB5 would have required operators of AI mental health chatbots to disclose clearly that the chatbot is AI and not a human, to maintain protocols for suicidal ideation, self-harm and harm to others, and not to sell or share users' identifiable health information. It would also have restricted advertising in chatbot conversations. The Attorney General could seek fines up to $10,000 per violation after a 45-day cure notice. It stayed in Senate Health and Welfare and died.
Relating to artificial intelligence companions.
Oregon requires operators of AI companion platforms to tell users clearly that they are interacting with artificial output when a reasonable person would believe they were talking to a human, to keep and publish protocols that detect suicidal or self-harm ideation and refer users to crisis resources such as 988, and to add safeguards when the operator knows or has reason to believe a user is a minor. Operators must publish annual reports on crisis referrals, and people harmed can sue. Signed March 31, 2026; takes effect January 1, 2027.
Prohibits the development of artificial intelligence systems with certain capabilities involving interactions with minors (OR SEE FISC NOTE GF EX)
Louisiana's HB295, the Guidelines for User Age-Verification and Responsible Dialogue Act, would have made it a crime to knowingly or recklessly design, develop or deploy an AI chatbot able to solicit sexual conduct from minors, send them sexual images, or encourage suicide, self-injury or violence (up to 1 year and $100,000). It would also have required age verification, AI-companion bans for minors and recurring AI disclosures. It was referred to House Commerce March 9, 2026 and died.
Relating to the unlawful dissemination of intimate images; declaring an emergency.
Not law. Oregon SB 414 (2025), sponsored by Senator Woods, would have extended the crime of unlawful dissemination of an intimate image to knowingly disclosing a computer-generated explicit likeness, made with software or AI and not reasonably distinguishable from a real image, with intent to harass, humiliate or injure. It would have been a Class A misdemeanor (Class C felony with a prior conviction), with an emergency clause. It was referred to Judiciary, then Information Management and Technology, and was in committee upon adjournment June 27, 2025.
Eavesdropping, Peeping, and Voyeurism
South Carolina's H. 5394 (2023-24) would have amended Code 16-17-470 (eavesdropping, peeping and voyeurism) to increase penalties and to cover knowingly creating or altering images, audio, video or digital files with a generative adversarial network or other digital technology to make a realistic but false depiction of another person without consent, for sexual arousal or gratification, and knowingly selling or distributing such material without consent. It would also have required destruction of evidence and notice to additional victims. Referred to House Judiciary April 10, 2024; it did not pass.
Deceptive and fraudulent deepfake media in elections
South Carolina's H. 4660 (2023-24) would have added Code 7-25-230 barring distribution, within ninety days of an election, of synthetic media the distributor knows or should know is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate on the ballot, unless it carries the disclosure 'This _____ (image, video, or audio) has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence.' A first violation would be a misdemeanor (up to 90 days, $500) and a second within five years a felony. Referred to House Judiciary January 9, 2024; it did not pass.
Public Safety Protections Artificial Intelligence
Not law. Colorado's HB 25-1212, as introduced, would have protected workers at developers that trained a foundation AI model costing at least $100 million in compute. Developers could not prevent or retaliate against workers who disclose information they have reasonable cause to believe shows a legal violation, a substantial public safety or security risk, or false or misleading statements about such risks, and would have had to notify workers and offer an anonymous internal disclosure process. Workers could sue for reinstatement, the greater of $10,000 or lost pay, and attorney fees. House Judiciary amended it; it never passed the House and its status is Lost.
Relating to prohibiting the use of certain political advertising manipulated by generative artificial intelligence technology; creating a criminal offense.
Texas SB 228 (2025), as introduced, would have added Election Code Sec. 255.009 making it a Class B misdemeanor to cause political advertising to be published, distributed or broadcast when it includes an image, audio or video of an officeholder's or candidate's appearance, speech or conduct intentionally manipulated using generative AI to create a realistic but false depiction. The bill has no pre-election window, disclosure safe harbor, exemptions or definitions. No enrolled version exists, so it died June 2, 2025.
AI Grand Challenges Act of 2026
The AI Grand Challenges Act would have the National Science Foundation set up an AI Grand Challenges Program within 12 months of enactment, awarding cash prizes of at least $1 million per winner for AI research that solves well-defined challenges in areas such as national security, cybersecurity, health, energy, agriculture, education, manufacturing and AI safety and transparency. At least one challenge must target AI-enabled cancer breakthroughs, with at least $10 million to each winner. Winners must be U.S.-based businesses or U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Introduced February 9, 2026.
VET Artificial Intelligence Act Validation and Evaluation for Trustworthy (VET) Artificial Intelligence Act
The VET AI Act would direct NIST to develop, within a year and update at least every 2 years, voluntary technical guidelines for internal and independent third-party assurance of AI systems: testing, evaluating, verifying and validating them. The guidelines would address consumer privacy, assessing and reducing harms, dataset quality, documentation and disclosure, and governance, and recommend how often and how deeply developers and deployers should be assessed based on risk. Commerce would convene an advisory committee on assessor qualifications and study the capacity of the AI assurance sector. Introduced July 31, 2025.
Relating to the disclosure of information with regard to artificial intelligence.
Texas SB 668 (2025), as engrossed, would have added Business & Commerce Code Chapter 2003 requiring a person that uses AI to provide services to individuals in Texas and generated, or is more than 25 percent owned by a person who generated, at least $100 billion in total revenue to disclose on its website each AI model used, its purpose, and any third-party input and resulting model changes. A violation would have been a deceptive trade practice. It passed the Senate, but no enrolled version exists, so it died June 2, 2025.
Enacting the Kansas age-appropriate design code act to require businesses to assess and mitigate risks of compulsive use in minors; enacting the Kansas stopping likeness abuse by nonconsensual digital replicas act to create a private right of action for the unauthorized digital replication and…
Not law. HB 2772 would have enacted three Kansas acts. An Age-Appropriate Design Code Act would have required online businesses likely to be used by minors to assess designs for the risk of compulsive use, use the lowest-risk design by default, give minors the highest privacy settings, and limit data collection. A digital-replica act would have let people sue over digital replicas of their likeness made without consent. A chatbot act would have required chatbots to say they are not human, limited the use of chat logs, and made providers liable for injuries their chatbots cause. It died in the House Federal and State Affairs Committee on April 10, 2026.
Enacting the Kansas age-appropriate design code act to require businesses to assess and mitigate risks of compulsive use in minors, enacting the Kansas stopping likeness abuse by nonconsensual digital replicas act to create a private right of action for the unauthorized digital replication and…
Not law. SB 499, the Senate twin of HB 2772, would have enacted three Kansas acts. An Age-Appropriate Design Code Act would have required online businesses likely to be used by minors to assess designs for the risk of compulsive use, use the lowest-risk design by default, give minors the highest privacy settings, and limit data collection. A digital-replica act would have let people sue over replicas of their likeness made without consent. A chatbot act would have required chatbots to say they are not human, limited the use of chat logs, and made providers liable for injuries their chatbots cause. It died in the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee on April 10, 2026.
Ban on employer use of automated decision systems.
Not law. HB 1421 would have barred Indiana employers with 11 or more workers, and state and local government employers, from relying solely on an automated decision system for hiring, firing, pay, scheduling or other job decisions. Using such a system's output would have required bias testing before use and independent testing every year, advance notice to workers and applicants, human review, plain-language documentation within 7 days, and a right to dispute and appeal to a person. Workers could opt out of algorithmic management. It was referred to committee on January 8, 2026 and got no further action before the 2026 session adjourned.
AN ACT relating to artificial intelligence and declaring an emergency.
Not law. As passed by the House 88-7 on February 23, 2026, HB 455 would have barred anyone from providing or advertising therapy or psychotherapy in Kentucky, including through internet-based AI, unless a licensed professional performs it. Licensed therapists could have used AI only for administrative and supplementary support such as scheduling, billing and notes, with written notice and consent before using AI on recorded sessions, and AI could not make therapeutic decisions or treatment plans without their approval. Fines up to $10,000 per violation. It reached the Senate but got no further action before the 2026 regular session ended.
Creates a consumer bill of rights regarding artificial intelligence
Not law. HB 734 would have created a Louisiana AI bill of rights. Companion chatbot platforms would have needed a parent's consent for minors' accounts, with parental controls and self-harm alerts, AI disclosures and hourly break reminders for minors, and safeguards against material harmful to minors. Any bot would have had to show an hourly pop-up saying the user is not talking to a human. It also would have barred AI companies from selling personal data unless deidentified, banned commercial use of AI-generated likenesses without consent, and limited state AI contracts with entities tied to foreign countries of concern. It was withdrawn on March 30, 2026.
Use Of Artificial Intelligence Transparency
New Mexico's HB 184 (2024), 'Use of Artificial Intelligence Transparency', would have required each executive agency to submit an annual inventory of its AI systems by October 1, 2024 and each October 1 after, with the General Services Department (changed to the department of information technology by committee amendment) reporting and assessing the systems for accuracy and bias. Procurement contracts for covered AI products would have had to require vendor transparency, with a $500,000 appropriation and a July 1, 2024 effective date. It received Do Pass reports from both House committees but was then postponed indefinitely (undated) and died.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2, Chapter 19, relative to the Transparency for Deepfakes in Political Advertising Act.
Tennessee's Transparency for Deepfakes in Political Advertising Act (Public Chapter 625) requires political ads that contain a deepfake of a candidate to say so. Audio impersonating a candidate must state at the start and end that it contains fake content; video must show a large notice for its full length. For non-incumbents, the rule covers ads distributed within 120 days before voting begins. Platforms, internet providers and paid broadcasters are not liable unless they created the deepfake. Depicted candidates can seek damages and equitable relief, and violations are a Class C misdemeanor. Effective July 1, 2026.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2, Chapter 19, relative to the Transparency for Deepfakes in Political Advertising Act.
SB 1624 is the Senate companion of HB 1513, which became Tennessee Public Chapter 625 after the Senate passed the House bill in its place on March 12, 2026. The law requires political ads that contain a deepfake of a candidate to say so: audio must state at the start and end that it contains fake content, and video must show a large notice for its full length. For non-incumbents, it covers ads within 120 days before voting begins. Platforms and paid broadcasters are not liable unless they created the deepfake; violations are a Class C misdemeanor. Effective July 1, 2026.
Updates certain crimes to include nonconsensual pornographic deepfake threats and disclosure.
New Jersey's S3551 would amend the criminal invasion of privacy law to cover deepfake images. Recording an actual or deepfake image of a person's exposed intimate parts or sexual activity without consent would be a third-degree crime, and disclosing a deepfake of another person created in that way, knowing or with reckless disregard of lacking a license or privilege, would be a fourth-degree crime. Threatening to disclose such an image would count as criminal coercion. Introduced September 12, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Artificial intelligence business; attorney general
Arizona's HB 4098 (2026) would have required an 'artificial intelligence business' using a frontier model from a large developer to assess each high-risk AI system for bias, child-safety, privacy and catastrophic risks, file a transparency report with the attorney general and post it publicly, and run quarterly audits. The attorney general could impose civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation. It was held in House committees with no action and died when the 2026 session ended June 13, 2026.
Autonomous vehicles; safety; data
Arizona's SB 1417 (2026) would have amended the autonomous vehicle chapter (A.R.S. 28-9701 et seq.) so that a fully autonomous vehicle could run without a human driver only if its operator submitted a law enforcement interaction plan, a written compliance statement, proof of at least $5,000,000 in liability coverage per occurrence, update notices and quarterly safety reports. It was held in Senate committees with no action and died when the 2026 session ended June 13, 2026.
Election communications; prohibition; deep fakes
Arizona's SB 1515 (2024) would have added A.R.S. 16-1023, barring distribution within ninety days before an election of a synthetic media message that the distributor knows or should know is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate or political party on the ballot, unless it carries the disclosure 'This [image/video/audio] has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence.' A depicted candidate could seek an injunction. It was held in Senate committees with no action and died with the 2023-24 (56th Legislature) session.
Crimes and offenses; obscenity; repeal and replace Code Section 16-12-80
Not law. HB 171 passed the Georgia House 160-0 in February 2025. Its final Senate Rules Committee substitute (March 27, 2026), the Ensuring Accountability for Illegal AI Activities Act, would have made it a felony (1 to 15 years) to knowingly create, distribute, solicit or possess for distribution AI-generated visual material harmful to minors, even if no real child is shown. It would also have added longer sentences when a defendant knowingly used AI to commit offenses such as stalking, elder exploitation, child enticement, theft, fraud or election interference. It never got a Senate floor vote before the 2025-2026 session ended.
Deceptive and fraudulent deepfake media in elections
Not law. H 3517 would have barred anyone from distributing, within 90 days of an election, synthetic media they knew or should have known was a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate on the ballot, unless it carried a disclosure that it was manipulated or generated by AI. Depicted candidates could have sought injunctions and damages; violations would have been a misdemeanor (up to 90 days or $500), and a felony for a repeat offense within five years. News coverage, paid broadcasters acting in good faith and satire were exempt. It never left the House Judiciary Committee before South Carolina's 2026 regular session ended.
Artificial intelligence; Responsible Deployment of AI Systems Act; AI Council; AI Regulatory Sandbox Program; Artificial Intelligence Workforce Development Program; effective date.
Oklahoma's HB 1916 (2025-26), as introduced, would have created the Responsible Deployment of AI Systems Act, covering public agencies and private entities that deploy AI systems affecting people in Oklahoma. Deployers would classify AI systems by risk (unacceptable, high, limited, minimal), assess them, and subject high-risk systems to oversight, notices and audits. It was referred to the Rules Committee on February 4, 2025 and died when the 2026 session ended May 14, 2026.
Technology; Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Predatory Pricing Act; personalized algorithmic pricing; consumer data; food retailers; effective date.
Oklahoma's HB 3959 (2026), as introduced, would have created the Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Predatory Pricing Act. Per its title, it would require disclosure of personalized algorithmic pricing by food retail establishments, bar electronic shelving labels for large food retailers and for personalized or surveillance pricing, and bar use of protected class data in pricing. It was referred to committee February 4, 2026 and died when the session ended May 14, 2026.
Mental health professionals: artificial intelligence.
Vetoed. SB 903, the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act, would have limited AI in California psychotherapy to administrative and supplementary support. Recording or transcribing sessions, or AI triage, would have needed the patient's informed consent, and AI could not make therapeutic decisions, produce diagnoses or treatment plans, detect emotions or screen patients without a licensed professional's review. Companion chatbots could not be marketed as therapy. Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 30, 2026, calling it overly broad and saying it would restrict useful clinical tools and reach general-purpose AI.
Artificial intelligence disclosure statements.
North Dakota requires a disclaimer on political content made with AI to impersonate a person. Any communication or advertising for a political purpose (supporting or opposing a candidate, political committee or party, or an initiated or referred measure or petition) that contains images, graphics, video, audio, text or other digital content created in whole or in part with AI to visually or audibly impersonate a human must prominently state: 'THIS CONTENT GENERATED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.' AI used only for text generation, grammar, spelling or editing that creates no new impersonation is exempt. Signed April 10, 2025; effective August 1, 2025.
Criminal Offenses - As introduced, prohibits a person or entity from distributing an electoral deepfake within 90 days of an election that the person or entity knows or should have known is a deceptive and fraudulent depiction of a candidate or political party; creates civil penalties and outlines…
Tennessee's HB 2214 (114th General Assembly) would have barred a person, corporation, committee or other entity, within 90 days of an election, from distributing an electoral deepfake that it knows or should have known deceptively or fraudulently depicts a candidate for state or local office or the candidate's party, unless the media carries a required AI disclosure. County election commissions could impose civil fines of up to $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000. Companion: SB 2321. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Taken off notice for cal in s/c Elections & Campaign Finance Subcommittee of State & Local Government Committee (March 10, 2026).
Companion chatbots: children’s safety.
California's SB 1119, "Adam's Law," sets child-safety rules for companion chatbots. Operators must determine users' ages under the Digital Age Assurance Act or give every user the child protections. From July 1, 2027, operators that allow children must assess risks before releasing new or substantially modified chatbots, publish a child safety policy, and provide crisis protocols, parent-only default settings, parental controls, AI notices and limits on ads and data use. Independent audits follow. Civil penalties reach $15,000 per affected child. Signed September 10, 2026 (Chapter 190); effective January 1, 2027, with most duties operative July 1, 2027.
State Bar of California: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 1651 (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6060.15) requires the State Bar of California to disclose when it uses AI-generated content in material it develops or explicitly directs. Use in developing or administering the general bar exam, the first-year law students' exam or the attorneys' exam, including questions, performance tests, answer keys and scoring rubrics, must be posted on its website 60 days before the exam; use in study materials it prepares, publishes, endorses or distributes for applicants must be disclosed on the cover page. Human review does not remove the duty. Signed August 22, 2026 (Chapter 116); operative January 1, 2028.
Employment: automated decision systems.
Vetoed. California's SB 7 would have regulated employers' use of automated decision systems (ADS) such as AI tools in employment decisions. Employers would have had to give workers written notice at least 30 days before deploying an ADS for decisions other than hiring (by April 1, 2026 for systems already in use), tell applicants when one is used in hiring, not rely solely on an ADS to discipline, fire or deactivate workers, use a human reviewer when relying primarily on one, and give a post-use notice, with a $500 civil penalty. Vetoed by Governor Newsom October 13, 2025; veto sustained March 2, 2026. A later bill, SB 947, was signed in 2026 (Chapter 859).
Companion chatbots.
California's SB 243 regulates companion chatbots, AI systems that give adaptive, human-like responses and can meet a user's social needs. Operators must disclose that the chatbot is AI if a reasonable person would be misled to think it is human, keep and publish a protocol against suicide and self-harm content with crisis referrals, and warn that companion chatbots may not suit some minors. Known minors get AI disclosures, break reminders at least every three hours and sexual-content safeguards (deleted January 1, 2027 by SB 1119). Annual reports to the Office of Suicide Prevention start July 1, 2027. Injured persons may sue. Signed October 13, 2025 (Chapter 677); effective January 1, 2026.
Enacts the New York artificial intelligence bill of rights to provide residents of the state with rights and protections to ensure that any system making decisions without human intervention impacting their lives do so lawfully, properly, and with meaningful oversight.
New York's A 3265 would enact the New York artificial intelligence bill of rights as new Article 5 of the State Technology Law, giving residents rights against persons developing automated systems that have the potential to meaningfully impact their civil rights, equal opportunities or access to critical resources: safe and effective systems, protection from algorithmic discrimination, data privacy, notice and explanation, and human alternatives. The Attorney General could seek penalties of at least three times the damages. Referred to the Science and Technology Committee January 27, 2025 and again January 7, 2026; it has not passed either house.
California AI Transparency Act.
California's AB 853 amended the California AI Transparency Act (SB 942 of 2024), moving its operative date from January 1, 2026 to August 2, 2026. From January 1, 2027, large online platforms (over 2,000,000 monthly users) must detect provenance data, show whether content was generated or substantially altered by GenAI or captured by a device, and, where feasible, not knowingly strip it; GenAI hosting sites may not knowingly offer noncompliant systems. From 2028, new capture devices must embed latent disclosures by default where feasible. $5,000 per violation. Amended by AB 2713 and SB 1000 (Chapters 856, 861 of 2026). Signed October 13, 2025 (Chapter 674); effective January 1, 2026.
Artificial intelligence models: large developers.
California's SB 53, the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, covers developers of frontier models (foundation models trained with more than 10^26 operations). Large frontier developers (over $500 million in prior-year revenue with affiliates) must publish and follow a frontier AI framework for catastrophic risks. All frontier developers must publish transparency reports at deployment, report critical safety incidents to the Office of Emergency Services within 15 days, and not retaliate against whistleblowers. Large developers face penalties up to $1 million per violation. Signed September 29, 2025 (Chapter 138); effective January 1, 2026.
Public contracts: automated decision systems: procurement standards.
Vetoed. California's SB 892 (2024) would have required the Department of Technology to adopt regulations setting a procurement standard for automated decision systems (ADS), with risk assessments, risk controls, incident monitoring, prohibited uses, equity and human-oversight reviews and data minimization. From January 1, 2027, state agencies could not have bought ADS until those rules existed, and contracts would have needed risk-assessment and notice-and-appeal clauses. Governor Newsom vetoed it September 20, 2024, saying it would disrupt existing work and create unbudgeted General Fund costs.
Political Reform Act of 1974: political advertisements: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 2355 adds Government Code § 84514 to the Political Reform Act. A committee that creates, originally publishes or originally distributes a political ad containing images, audio or video generated or substantially altered using AI must include, clearly and conspicuously, "Ad generated or substantially altered using artificial intelligence." The statement goes where the Act's rules place ad disclosures for radio, video, print and online ads. The Fair Political Practices Commission may seek an injunction or use its administrative and civil remedies; a violation is not a misdemeanor. Signed September 17, 2024 (Chapter 260); effective January 1, 2025.
An Act To Amend Titles 10 And 11 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Deep Fakes.
Delaware's HB 353 (84 Del. Laws c. 479), the Amelia Kramer Act, extends Delaware's intimate-image laws to deep fakes, meaning realistic but false sexual images made with generative adversarial network techniques or other digital technology. An identifiable person harmed by the intentional disclosure or threatened disclosure of a deep fake without consent may sue for damages or statutory damages up to $10,000, the defendant's gains, punitive damages, fees and an injunction. The violation-of-privacy crime now covers deep fakes without proof of an expectation of privacy, and an adult creating a depiction of a minor is an aggravating factor. Signed and effective October 9, 2024.
Public employment: local public transit agencies: autonomous transit vehicle technology.
Vetoed. California's AB 2441 (2022) would have required local public transit employers to give the affected workforce's exclusive employee representative written notice at least 12 months before starting any procurement process or plan to acquire or deploy autonomous transit vehicle technology that eliminates job functions or jobs. On request, they would have had to provide an analysis of the effects on workers, skill gaps and training budgets, then bargain over the technology, a transition plan and retraining. Governor Newsom vetoed it September 29, 2022. A 10-month-notice version, AB 96, was enacted in 2023 (Chapter 419).
Elections: deceptive media in advertisements.
California's AB 502 rewrites Elections Code § 20012 on deceptive election deepfakes. No one may, with malice, knowingly distribute an ad or election communication with materially deceptive content (intentionally digitally created or altered media, such as deepfakes, that falsely appears authentic) of a California candidate or elected official, if material to voters or to election confidence, in the 30 days before an election, or of an elections official or voting equipment from 30 days before to 38 days after. Recognizable satire is exempt. Those depicted, candidates, committees and elections officials may sue. Urgency statute signed September 19, 2026 (Chapter 333); effective immediately.
Artificial intelligence: transparency and governance.
California's SB 1159 makes clear that AI systems, autonomous agents, robots and other nonhuman entities are not 'persons' or 'members of the public' who can engage with government under the Public Records Act, the open-meeting laws, the Legislative Open Records Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Coastal Act and CEQA. People may still use AI or assistive technology for their own participation at an ordinary volume. Agencies may use AI detection tools, and knowingly using AI to falsely represent that a natural person engaged with an agency is banned. Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 863); effective January 1, 2027.
SCH CD-ASL IMPLEMENTATION
Illinois' Public Act 104-0399 (SB 1920) amends the School Code. New Section 2-3.118a requires the State Board of Education, with stakeholders, to develop and publish statewide guidance on AI in K-12 education by July 1, 2026, covering AI concepts, uses that preserve human relationships, bias, privacy, transparency, student-data privacy laws, AI literacy and special populations; the State Superintendent may convene an AI council. It also adds AI-created false depictions, including sexually explicit images and videos, to the recommended internet-safety topic on cyber-bullying. Its sign-language and educator-test parts do not involve AI. Approved August 15, 2025; effective January 1, 2026.
THERAPY RESOURCES OVERSIGHT
Illinois' Public Act 104-0054 (HB 1806) creates the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act. No one may provide, advertise or offer therapy or psychotherapy services to the public in Illinois, including through Internet-based AI, unless a licensed professional conducts them. Licensed professionals may use AI only for administrative and supplementary support, need written notice and consent for supplementary-support AI on recorded or transcribed sessions, and may not let AI make independent therapeutic decisions, communicate therapeutically with clients or detect emotions or mental states. Civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. Approved and effective August 1, 2025.
LIMIT PREDICTIVE ANALYTICS USE
Illinois' Public Act 103-0804 (HB 3773) amends the Illinois Human Rights Act. It is a civil rights violation for an employer to use artificial intelligence that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes in recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, or the terms, privileges or conditions of employment, or to use zip codes as a proxy for protected classes. Failing to notify employees that the employer uses AI for these purposes is also a violation; the Department of Human Rights must adopt rules on notice. Approved August 9, 2024; effective January 1, 2026.
Relates to the training and use of artificial intelligence frontier models; defines terms; establishes remedies for violations.
New York's RAISE Act (S 6953-B, Chapter 699 of 2025) as signed covered "large developers" spending over $100 million on compute, required safety protocols and set penalties up to $10 million, then $30 million. Chapter 96 of 2026 (signed March 27, 2026) repealed and replaced Article 44-B and set the effective date at January 1, 2027. From then, developers of frontier models (over 10^26 training operations) must publish transparency reports when deploying and report critical safety incidents to a Department of Financial Services office within 72 hours; those with over $500 million in revenue must also publish a frontier AI framework and file disclosure statements. Signed December 19, 2025.
Regulates automated decision-making by government agencies; requires agencies to conduct impact assessments; requires disclosure of automated decision-making tools utilized by governmental agencies.
New York's S 7599-C (Chapter 711 of 2025) added State Technology Law Article 5, under which agencies would have listed automated decision-making tools and done bias-tested impact assessments from December 19, 2026. Chapter 86 of 2026 repealed Article 5, which had not yet taken effect, and the § 103-f state tool inventory. Now in force: public employers' use of AI systems may not displace employees or impair collective bargaining, and (added by Chapter 86) local governments, school districts, BOCES, SUNY, CUNY and community colleges must, where feasible, list automated employment decision tools yearly from December 30, 2026. Signed December 19, 2025; expires July 1, 2028.
"AI Image Disclosure Act"; concerns disclosure of certain AI-generated content.
New Jersey's A 5089, the AI Image Disclosure Act (as introduced), would require a covered provider of a publicly accessible generative AI system to put a manifest (clear and conspicuous) and a latent (not visible or audible) disclosure in AI-generated images, video and audio. Social media platforms with at least five million account holders worldwide would have to label detected provenance data and could not strip it. Civil penalties would be $5,000 per violation. Introduced May 14, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee; it has not passed either house.
Safety - As introduced, enacts the "Artificial Intelligence Public Safety and Child Protection Transparency Act." - Amends TCA Title 4; Title 10, Chapter 7; Title 47; Title 58 and Title 68.
Tennessee's HB 1898 (114th General Assembly), the "Artificial Intelligence Public Safety and Child Protection Transparency Act," as introduced would have barred a frontier model developer or a large chatbot provider (1 million monthly users, $25 million revenue) from making materially false or misleading statements about catastrophic risk, and defined child safety incidents involving covered chatbots. The House passed it as amended, 94-0, on April 16, 2026, and the Senate received it April 20, 2026, but it did not pass the Senate before the session ended. Companion: SB 2171.
Relating To Demographic Data.
Hawaii's House Bill 2499 (2026) would have had the Office of Enterprise Technology Services set statewide standards for how state and county agencies collect and report race and ethnicity data. If that data informs an automated or AI system, the Office would have had to test for bias before deployment, monitor fairness, publish plain-language descriptions and ensure privacy laws apply. ECD deferred it February 6, 2026 and it was not enacted. It would have taken effect July 1, 2026.
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.
A bill for an act establishing requirements and guidelines for conversational AI services, and providing civil penalties, and including applicability provisions.
Iowa's HF 2507 (formerly HSB 611) would have required operators of conversational AI services to protect minors (AI disclosures, no unpredictable rewards, limits on sexual and human-like content), adopt suicide and self-harm protocols, and not pose as licensed mental health providers. Attorney general penalties were the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation up to $500,000 per operator. After amendment H-8357, Senate File 2417 was substituted and HF 2507 was withdrawn April 15, 2026.
Adopt the Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Act
Not law. Nebraska LB642, introduced by Senator Bostar, would have enacted the Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Act. Developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems that make consequential decisions without human review would have had to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with impact assessments, consumer notices and appeals, and Attorney General enforcement after a 90-day cure period. Indefinitely postponed April 17, 2026.
AI Workforce PREPARE Act AI Workforce Projections, Research, and Evaluations to Promote AI Readiness and Employment Act
The federal S. 3339 (AI Workforce PREPARE Act) would have the Labor and Commerce departments gather data and forecasts on AI's effect on jobs, including an AI Workforce Research Hub, forecasts for at least 15 AI-sensitive occupations, AI questions in federal surveys and a voluntary program for AI developers and deployers to share adoption data. If AI was a substantial factor in a mass layoff, the WARN Act notice would have to say so, for notices issued from 1 year after enactment. Authorizations total $53,500,000 over FY2026-2030. Introduced December 3, 2025 and referred to the Senate HELP Committee; no further action.
Regards AI-generated products, AI-systems acting as humans
Ohio's HB 813 would add sections 1349.12 to 1349.16 requiring AI systems to be programmed to put a distinctive watermark on AI-generated products, barring public or commercial distribution of AI-generated products without one, and requiring anyone using an AI system to clearly inform users whenever it is acting as or emulating a human. The Attorney General could seek an injunction and a civil penalty of $2,500 to $10,000 per instance. Introduced April 13, 2026; referred to the House Technology and Innovation Committee May 13, 2026.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MEDICAL SERVICES – Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding artifical intelligence medical services.
Idaho's H 945 (2026) would have enacted the AI Medical Services Act (new Title 54, chapter 60), creating an 11-member Board of Autonomous Medical Practice to license 'artificial intelligence augmented and autonomous service providers' (AAASPs) that deliver certain clinical AI services. New licenses would have been provisional for up to two years. L2 and L3 licensees would have owed patient disclosures and a duty of loyalty, and the board could have fined violators up to $10,000 per count or offense. It was introduced March 25, 2026, and then reported printed and referred to the Business Committee (undated), with no later action.
Relating to the unlawful dissemination of intimate images.
Oregon's HB 2299 amends the crime of unlawful dissemination of an intimate image (ORS 163.472) so that "image" includes a digitally created, manipulated or altered depiction that is reasonably realistic, however stored. The crime applies when a person, intending to harass, humiliate or injure another, knowingly causes an image of that person's intimate parts or sexual conduct to be disclosed, knowing or having reason to know the person does not consent, and the person is harmed. It stays a Class A misdemeanor, or a Class C felony with a prior conviction. Signed May 22, 2025 (Chapter 116, Oregon Laws 2025); effective January 1, 2026.
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
Illinois's HB 5220 (104th General Assembly) would add an Autonomous Vehicles Article to the Illinois Vehicle Code. It would set requirements for testing autonomous vehicles on public roads by a properly licensed driver, let the Secretary of State adopt rules, set manufacturer requirements, and prohibit certain acts by dealers and manufacturers. Re-referred to Rules March 27, 2026.
Algorithmic pricing of essential consumer goods, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty.
Wisconsin's SB 1140 would restrict grocery retailers' use of personalized algorithmic pricing on essential consumer goods: required disclosure on each such price, no electronic display of those prices in grocery stores of 15,000+ square feet, no pricing that varies by protected traits, and no buying consumer data from data brokers for pricing. Introduced March 19, 2026 and referred to the Senate Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs Committee; failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 23, 2026, so it did not pass.
To Prohibit Deceptive And Fraudulent Deepfakes In Election Communications.
Arkansas HB 1041 (2025), as engrossed, would have added Ark. Code § 7-6-106 to bar distributing, within 90 days before an election, synthetic media the person knows or should know is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate or party on the ballot, unless it carries a disclosure such as 'This content has been manipulated or artificially generated.' Depicted candidates could seek injunctions, and the State Board of Election Commissioners could fine violators up to $10,000, $5,000 or $1,000 depending on the case. It died in the House committee at sine die adjournment on May 5, 2025.
DIGITAL FORGERIES ACT
Illinois's HB 4763 (103rd General Assembly) would have created the Digital Forgeries Act. A person depicted in AI-made audio or visual material (a "digital forgery") would have a cause of action against anyone who, without consent, knowingly distributes it, creates it with intent to distribute, or solicits its creation, to harass, extort, threaten or harm, with reckless disregard of harm, or to incite violence or interfere with an official proceeding. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).
CONSUMER FRAUD-AI DISCLOSURE
Illinois's HB 4869 (103rd General Assembly) would have added Section 2EEEE to the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. A person who, for a commercial purpose, makes, publishes or places an advertisement that the person knows or should have known contains synthetic media would have had to disclose that fact, and a violation would be an unlawful practice under the Act. Died at Session Sine Die on January 7, 2025.
Artificial intelligence; require disclosure when used in political advertisements.
Mississippi's SB 2423 (2024) would have amended Miss. Code 23-15-897 to require a clear and conspicuous disclosure on "qualified political advertisements" that contain an image, audio or video generated in whole or in part with artificial intelligence and are made by or on behalf of a candidate, committee or other person. It would also have required an AI disclaimer on prerecorded phone messages generated in whole or substantially by AI. It was referred to Elections and Technology on February 16, 2024, and died in committee on March 5, 2024.
AI USE IN GOVT CONTRACTS
Illinois's HB 5228 (103rd General Assembly) would have added Section 50-41 to the Illinois Procurement Code. A vendor contracting for government services, grants, or leases or purchases of software or hardware would have to disclose whether AI technology is, has been, or will be used in fulfilling the contract or in the goods or services purchased. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).
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).
ELEC CD-AI ADVERT DISCLOSURE
Illinois's SB 2762 (103rd General Assembly) would have added Section 9-9.6 to the Election Code. A person, committee or other entity that creates, originally publishes or originally distributes a qualified political advertisement would have to include a clear and conspicuous statement that it was generated in whole or substantially by AI. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).
Creates standards for independent bias auditing of automated employment decision tools.
New Jersey's A3855, as introduced, would bar an employer or employment agency from using an automated employment decision tool (AEDT) if more than one year has passed since its last independent bias audit, require audits by sex, race/ethnicity and intersectional categories, and require posted audit results and candidate notice at least 10 business days before use; it sets no penalties. Introduced February 22, 2024. The Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee reported an Assembly Committee Substitute on May 16, 2024, whose text is not described here. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Relating to digital replication rights in the voice and visual likeness of individuals; providing private causes of action; authorizing a fee.
Texas HB 3950 (2025), as introduced, would have created a digital replication right in an individual's voice and visual likeness, and barred producing a digital replica or making one available to the public without the right holder's written consent. The right would last the individual's life plus 10 years, extendable. Eligible plaintiffs could sue over knowing violations, with statutory damages of $5,000 or $25,000 per work depending on the violator, and online service providers would have had notice-and-removal duties. It died when the regular session adjourned June 2, 2025.
Aligning With the Blueprint for an Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights (Maryland Safe Artificial Intelligence Act)
Maryland's HJ 4 (2024) is a House joint resolution, the Maryland Safe Artificial Intelligence Act, that would have had the General Assembly affirm its commitment to President Biden's vision for safe AI and the principles of the Blueprint for an Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights, and to examining and implementing those principles in legislation and policies on AI. It does not amend any statute or create legal requirements. After a March 11 hearing notice in House Rules and Executive Nominations it was not adopted, and it died when the session ended.
Workplace surveillance tools.
California's AB 1221 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have regulated workplace surveillance tools and employer use of worker data. Employers would have had to give affected workers 30 days' written notice before introducing a tool, and could not use tools incorporating facial, gait or emotion recognition technology, except as specified. Civil penalty $500 per violation. It was held in Assembly Appropriations May 23, 2025 and died under Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution on January 31, 2026.
Department of Technology: Office of Artificial Intelligence: state agency public interface: use of AI.
California's SB 313 (2023-24 Regular Session), the California AI-ware Act, would create an Office of Artificial Intelligence in the Department of Technology to guide state agencies' design, use and deployment of automated systems consistent with privacy and civil liberties law and to minimize bias. A state agency using generative AI to directly communicate with a person would have to give notice and instructions for reaching a human. Held in Senate Appropriations May 18, 2023; not passed.
Artificial Intelligence Training Data Transparency Act; transparency and disclosure requirements.
Virginia's HB 2250 (2025 Regular Session) would have amended the Consumer Data Protection Act and added an Artificial Intelligence Training Data Transparency Act (new Title 59.1 chapter, §§ 59.1-607 through 59.1-611) with requirements for generative AI developers. It would also have allowed third-party opt-out of data processing and required consent to process adolescents' data. Left in committee on February 4, 2025; it failed.
Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act; established.
Virginia's SB 1161 (2025 Regular Session) would have created the Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act, requiring developers of generative AI systems that produce audio, images, text or video to include a clear and conspicuous disclosure on AI-generated content and to prevent downstream use without it. Passed by indefinitely in committee on January 24, 2025; it failed.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 10; Title 24 and Title 38, relative to historical location data.
Tennessee's HB2608 (114th General Assembly), the "Protecting Everyone from Excessive Police Surveillance (PEEPS) Act," would have barred government officials, including government contractors, from accessing a database (including license plate, facial recognition, biometric or cellular location data) that reveals a person's or vehicle's location more than 24 hours earlier, except with a felony search warrant, consent, exigent circumstances or other listed cases. Companion: SB 2215. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Taken off notice for cal in s/c Criminal Justice Subcommittee of Judiciary Committee (March 25, 2026).
Criminal Offenses - As introduced, prohibits a person or entity from distributing an electoral deepfake within 90 days of an election that the person or entity knows or should have known is a deceptive and fraudulent depiction of a candidate or political party; creates civil penalties and outlines…
Tennessee's SB 2321 (114th General Assembly) would have barred a person, corporation, committee or other entity, within 90 days of an election, from distributing an electoral deepfake that it knows or should have known deceptively or fraudulently depicts a candidate for state or local office or the candidate's party, unless the media carries a required AI disclosure. County election commissions could impose civil fines of up to $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000. Companion: HB 2214. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Passed on Second Consideration, refer to Senate State and Local Government Committee (February 5, 2026).
Safety - As introduced, enacts the "Artificial Intelligence Public Safety and Child Protection Transparency Act." - Amends TCA Title 4; Title 10, Chapter 7; Title 47; Title 58 and Title 68.
Tennessee's SB 2171 (114th General Assembly), the "Artificial Intelligence Public Safety and Child Protection Transparency Act," as introduced would have barred a frontier model developer or a large chatbot provider (1 million monthly users, $25 million revenue) from making materially false or misleading statements about catastrophic risk, and defined child safety incidents involving covered chatbots. Companion HB 1898 passed the House. SB 2171 was not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Re-refer to Senate Commerce & Labor Committee (April 15, 2026).
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2; Title 4; Title 8; Title 38; Title 39 and Title 47, Chapter 18, relative to synthetic media.
Tennessee's HB 2340 (113th General Assembly) would have let a person whose appearance, action, or speech is altered by synthetic media (made with AI or other digital technology), in a public communication knowingly distributed with intent to mislead the public and damage reputation, sue the publisher for an injunction and damages. Per the official summary, a disclosure that the media was manipulated would be an affirmative defense. Companion to SB 2460. Last action March 19, 2024; the bill never passed and died with the session.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2; Title 4; Title 8; Title 38; Title 39 and Title 47, Chapter 18, relative to synthetic media.
Tennessee's SB 2460 (113th General Assembly) would have let a person whose appearance, action, or speech is altered by synthetic media (made with AI or other digital technology), in a public communication knowingly distributed with intent to mislead the public and damage reputation, sue the publisher for an injunction and damages. Per the official summary, a disclosure that the media was manipulated would be an affirmative defense. Companion to HB 2340. Last action March 13, 2024; the bill never passed and died with the session.
Commerce and trade; require that AI generated content include a disclaimer indicating such content was generated using artificial intelligence
Georgia's HB 478 would add Code section 10-1-393.20 to the Fair Business Practices Act. On or after July 1, 2025, any individual disseminating AI-generated video, audio or still images to facilitate commerce or trade would have to ensure the content discloses that artificial intelligence made all or part of it, in a specified readable or audible form, and omitting the disclosure would be unlawful, each item being a separate violation. The bill reached House Second Readers on February 20, 2025 and died when the session ended.
Fair and Future Ready Housing Act; enact
Georgia's HB 715, the Fair and Future Ready Housing Act, would add Code section 8-3-224 to the fair housing law. Discriminatory housing practices resulting from AI or automated decision tools would be prohibited, reliance on such tools would not be a defense, and no person could use them to make sale, rental or financing determinations without individual review or without disclosing their use. After notice and hearing, the Attorney General could impose a penalty of up to $10,000 for violating subsection (c) or (d). The bill reached House Second Readers on March 6, 2025 and died when the session ended.
Creates regulations of artificially generated online content using artificial intelligence
Missouri's SB 1324 (Missouri Artificial Intelligence Transparency and Accountability Act) would require anyone creating AI-generated content for public consumption to label it "AI-generated", add a disclaimer and obtain consent for content depicting a real person (except parody or satire), and require developers and deployers to keep usage logs for seven years. The attorney general would enforce it with civil penalties. The Senate General Laws Committee voted do pass on March 25, 2026, but the bill died when the 2026 regular session ended in May 2026 without being truly agreed to and finally passed.
Creates provisions relating to synthetic media
Missouri's SB 1183 would add section 115.645 to bar a creator who uses AI or other digital technology from distributing, within eighteen weeks of an election, synthetic media the creator knows or should have known is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake, unless it carries the disclosure "This [image/video/audio] has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence." Violations would carry misdemeanor or felony penalties and civil penalties. Referred to the Senate General Laws Committee January 27, 2026; the bill died when the 2026 regular session ended in May 2026 without being truly agreed to and finally passed.
Artificial intelligence; prohibiting distribution of certain media and requiring certain disclosures. Effective date.
Oklahoma's SB 894 (Senate floor version) would bar any person or entity, within 90 days of an election, from creating or originally distributing synthetic media it has actual knowledge is a deepfake of a candidate or political party on the ballot, unless the media carries the disclosure "This ___ (image, audio, or video) has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence." The State Election Board could impose fines of up to $10,000, $5,000 or $1,000. The Senate committee reported it do pass as amended; it was placed on General Order and died when the 2026 legislative session ended on May 14, 2026 without passing.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7 and Title 65, relative to energy.
Tennessee's HB 2054 (Camper; companion SB 1999 by Lamar) is an electricity-rate bill, not a rule on AI systems. As introduced, the "Data Center, Artificial Intelligence, and Clean Transition Tariff Accountability Act" would let the Public Utility Commission approve clean transition tariffs for large energy-intensive users, including data processing and AI training facilities, and keep grid costs off residential and small-business customers. It was taken off notice in subcommittee March 4, 2026 and did not pass.
Relative to civil actions regarding the prohibited use of synthetic media.
New Hampshire's HB 1710-FN would have created a civil action over misleading synthetic media (media made or modified with AI algorithms): distributing it of an identifiable person without consent, without a conspicuous notice, and with intent to mislead. It would also have required political communications that include synthetic media to carry an AI-assistance disclosure. The House found it Inexpedient to Legislate February 1, 2024; it is dead.
Protecting kids from deepfakes and exploitative images.
Wyoming's AI deepfake and child-protection law (Chapter 91, Session Laws of 2026, effective July 1, 2026). It makes it a felony to knowingly distribute realistic AI-generated or digitally altered intimate images of an identifiable person without consent when it causes or is meant to cause harm, or to threaten to do so for gain (up to 10 years; 12 for a repeat offense). Using AI to create child sexual abuse material, or knowingly possessing AI-generated material, is sexual exploitation of a child. Building or distributing AI systems designed to produce such material or to promote self-harm is a felony, and using AI is no defense to any crime.
Modifies and establishes provisions relating to the protection of children and vulnerable persons
Missouri's 2026 HB 2273 (with HBs 1946, 1814 and 2551) creates RSMo 573.570, disclosure of an intimate digital depiction. Disclosing, or threatening to disclose, a realistic intimate image of an identifiable person that was created or altered by digital manipulation, with intent to harass or cause harm or with reckless disregard for harm, is a felony. A disclaimer that the image is unauthorized is not a defense. The same section was also enacted by HBs 2637 & 3155 and SB 999. It takes effect Aug. 28, 2026.
AN ACT RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES; ADDING DEFINITIONS TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE CODE; PROVIDING FOR AUTONOMOUS MOTOR VEHICLES; REQUIRING PERMITS; ALLOWING PLATOONING OF MOTOR VEHICLES.
New Mexico's HB 270 (Laws 2021, Chapter 114) sets rules for autonomous motor vehicles. It adds Motor Vehicle Code definitions for automated driving systems (SAE levels 3 to 5), autonomous and autonomous commercial motor vehicles and their operators, and allows platooning. Anyone testing an autonomous vehicle on a public highway must notify the Department of Transportation at least five calendar days in advance. Autonomous vehicles must meet federal safety standards and be able to obey state traffic laws, and local governments may not ban them solely for being automated. It took effect July 1, 2022.
Disclosures regarding content generated by artificial intelligence in political advertisements, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty.
2023 Wisconsin Act 123 requires AI disclosures in political communications. Audio or video containing express advocacy, issue advocacy or support for or opposition to a referendum that contains synthetic media (audio or video substantially produced by generative AI) must say so: audio states "Contains content generated by AI" at the beginning and end, and video displays a disclosure such as "This video content generated by AI." Violations carry a forfeiture of up to $1,000 each. It took effect the day after publication (published March 22, 2024).
AN ACT TO ESTABLISH SEXUAL EXTORTION OFFENSES, TO UPDATE OFFENSES RELATED TO SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF A MINOR, TO UPDATE SEX OFFENDER AND PUBLIC PROTECTION REGISTRATION PROGRAMS, AND TO CLARIFY THE OFFENSE OF DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE IMAGES.
North Carolina's S.L. 2024-37 (Modernize Sex Crimes) updates sex crime laws for AI. The definition of "material" for sexual exploitation of a minor now covers digital or computer-generated depictions created, adapted or modified by technological means such as algorithms or artificial intelligence, and a new offense covers obscene visual representations of sexual exploitation of a minor. New sexual extortion offenses and the disclosure of private images offense cover realistic images made with algorithms or AI. It applies to offenses on or after Dec. 1, 2024.
Autonomous Vehicle Testing Permit Requirement Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2025
Expired. This District of Columbia emergency act, in force from March 21 to June 19, 2025, amended the Autonomous Vehicle Act of 2012 to bar testing or operating an autonomous vehicle on District roads without an AV testing permit. Until DDOT made permit applications available, testing or operation was allowed only with a test operator in the vehicle ready to drive, compliance with other laws, and 10 business days' electronic notice to DDOT listing the vehicles, operator training and licenses, locations and dates. As a congressional review emergency act it lasted at most 90 days.
Memorializes the United States Congress to take action relative to the use of artificial intelligence in health care
Louisiana's HR 313 is a House resolution, adopted 94-0 on June 10, 2025, that memorializes the United States Congress to act immediately to keep physicians in full control of medical decisions with AI as a support tool rather than a replacement, set nationwide standards for AI in health care (patient safety, data privacy, the doctor-patient relationship), monitor AI's effects on care and outcomes, promote transparency in AI algorithms, and develop ethical guidelines. Copies go to Congress's presiding officers and Louisiana's congressional delegation. As a resolution of one chamber, it does not change the law.
AN ACT relating to mental health chatbots.
Kentucky's HB 641 (the Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health Act, as introduced) would add sections to KRS Chapter 367 regulating suppliers of mental health chatbots, AI systems that use generative AI to hold therapy-like conversations. Suppliers could not sell or share users' health information or input, would have to label and disclose any advertising, and would have to disclose every 30 minutes that the chatbot is AI. The Attorney General could fine up to $2,500 per violation. Introduced February 13, 2026 and referred to the House Small Business & Information Technology Committee; it died in committee when the session ended.
Establishes the artificial intelligence training data transparency act requiring developers of generative artificial intelligence models or services to post on the developer's website information regarding the data used by the developer to train the generative artificial intelligence model or…
New York's A 6578-B (the "artificial intelligence training data transparency act") would add General Business Law Art. 44-C, §§ 1430-1432. On or before January 1, 2027, and before each later release, a developer of a generative AI model or service (or substantial modification) released on or after January 1, 2022 and available to New Yorkers would have to post a high-level summary of its training datasets on its website. Would take effect immediately. Passed the Assembly and, on June 4, 2026, the Senate (substituted for S6955-A); the page shows no delivery to the Governor.
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.
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.
Generative artificial intelligence: training data transparency.
California's AB 2013 (Civil Code §§ 3110-3111) requires developers of generative AI systems or services made publicly available to Californians, free or paid, to post documentation of their training data on their websites: by January 1, 2026 for systems released since January 1, 2022, and before each later release or substantial modification. The documentation summarizes the datasets, including sources, size, data types, and whether they contain copyrighted material or personal information or were bought or licensed. Signed September 28, 2024 (Chapter 817); took effect January 1, 2025, with first postings due January 1, 2026.
Relating to the regulation and use of artificial intelligence systems and the management of data by governmental entities.
Texas's SB 1964 sets rules for AI used by state agencies and local governments. The Department of Information Resources (DIR) must adopt an AI code of ethics and minimum risk-management standards for "heightened scrutiny" AI (systems specifically intended to autonomously make, or be a controlling factor in, consequential decisions on access to government services), aligned with NIST's AI RMF 1.0, which agencies and local governments must adopt. State agencies and their vendors must assess such systems for risks of unlawful harm, agencies must give notice of public-facing AI, and vendors that do not cure violations can lose contracts. Signed June 20, 2025; effective September 1, 2025.
Relating to criminal and civil liability related to sexually explicit media and artificial intimate visual material; creating a criminal offense; increasing a criminal penalty.
Texas's SB 441 widens the Penal Code § 21.165 crime from deep fake videos to any deep fake media made or altered with AI or other technological means. Knowingly producing or distributing sexually explicit deep fake media of a person without signed written consent is a Class A misdemeanor, or a third-degree felony for a repeat offense or a depicted minor. Intentionally threatening to produce or distribute deep fake media to coerce, extort, harass or intimidate is a new offense. It adds civil liability for AI intimate images, including against nudification app owners, and requires websites and apps to honor removal requests within 72 hours. Signed June 20, 2025; effective September 1, 2025.
Relating to user reports of explicit deep fake material on social media platforms.
Texas's HB 3133 adds explicit deep fake material to the complaint system that large social media platforms (over 50 million monthly active U.S. users) must run under Business & Commerce Code Chapter 120. On notice of explicit deep fake material, a platform must immediately confirm to the user that it is aware of it, remove it and known identical copies, and update the user in writing within seven days; if it finds the content is explicit deep fake material, it must take measures to stop it being reposted. Platforms must post a plain-language notice of the process. Any Chapter 120 violation is now a deceptive trade practice. Signed June 20, 2025; effective September 1, 2025.
Increase Transparency for Algorithmic Systems
Colorado's SB 25B-004, passed in the August 2025 special session, replaced every February 1, 2026 start date in the Colorado AI Act (SB 24-205, C.R.S. 6-1-1702 to 6-1-1704) with June 30, 2026. That moved developers' and deployers' reasonable-care, documentation, risk-program, impact-assessment, notice and reporting duties and the AI-interaction disclosure. It adds no new duties. Signed August 28, 2025 (Chapter 3, 2025 First Extraordinary Session); effective November 25, 2025. SB 26-189 repeals and reenacts Part 17 effective January 1, 2027.
Conversational Artificial Intelligence Service Operator Requirements
Colorado's HB 26-1263 regulates operators of conversational AI services: public AI systems that mainly simulate human conversation (customer-service, business and other listed uses excluded). From January 1, 2027, operators must tell users the service is AI (daily, every three hours or persistently, and when asked), run a suicide and self-harm protocol with crisis referrals, and not claim outputs come from or are endorsed by licensed health, legal or mental health professionals. For known minors they must also guard against sexual content and simulated romance, avoid unpredictable engagement rewards and offer privacy tools. Signed May 29, 2026 (Chapter 208); act effective August 12, 2026.
Artificial Intelligence & Biometric Technologies
Colorado's HB 24-1468 repealed and reenacted the facial recognition task force created by SB 22-113 as the Artificial Intelligence Impact Task Force. Membership grew from 15 to 26, and the focus widened from government use of facial recognition to protections for consumers and workers from AI and automated decision systems: definitions, transparency and disclosure rules, algorithmic discrimination, best practices and metrics, and facial recognition and biometric technology. It had to meet by September 1, 2024 and report by February 1, 2025, and is set to be repealed September 1, 2027. Signed June 6, 2024 (Chapter 467); effective on signature.
Increasing transparency in artificial intelligence.
Washington's HB 1168 (substitute, 2025-26 biennium) would have required developers of generative AI systems released on or after January 1, 2022 and available to Washingtonians to post a high-level summary of their training data on their website by January 1, 2026 and before each later release. The Attorney General would have enforced it with a civil penalty of $5,000 per day and a 45-day cure notice. Its 1st substitute was recommended by House Technology in January 2025, was reintroduced January 12, 2026 and died at adjournment.
Relating To The Use Of Artificial Intelligence In Health Care.
Hawaii's Senate Bill 2281 (2026), as amended in SD 1, would have set rules for health care providers using artificial intelligence. Providers would have had to disclose AI in remote patient communications and, for AI-assisted decisions with a significant effect on a patient's health, give notice and a written statement of reasons, allow correction and appeal, keep human oversight and keep records. It passed Senate second reading but was not enacted. The text stated the Act would take effect January 30, 2050, with the new part taking effect July 1, 2028.
Artificial intelligence; disclosure of artificial intelligence-generated content required, enforcement provided
Alabama's SB 129 would require developers of generative AI systems that produce images, video or audiovisual content to include a clear, conspicuous and unavoidable disclosure that the content is AI-generated, plus metadata naming the tool and creation time, and to take reasonable steps to stop licensees and end users removing it. Violations would be unlawful trade practices with a private right of action. Referred to Senate Judiciary January 13, 2026; the bill died when the 2026 regular session ended without final passage.
Requires disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence in customer services at the point of interaction with the customer; defines terms.
New York's S 8874 would add General Business Law § 399-m-1 requiring any person, firm, partnership, association or corporation, or its agent or employee, to disclose its use of AI to influence customer interaction (such as automated customer support, ad targeting, eligibility decisions and AI hiring tools). The disclosure must appear at the point of interaction, be clear and conspicuous in bold type of at least twelve points, and describe the AI's role. Referred to the Internet and Technology Committee January 13, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Governmental Use of Facial Recognition Technology
Utah SB 34 (2021) enacts Utah Code Title 77, Chapter 23e on government use of facial recognition technology, defined as a computer system that uses an algorithm to compare facial biometric data of an unknown person with known individuals. Only the Department of Public Safety may run facial recognition comparisons against image databases it shares or maintains, and only under listed conditions and a set request process. Employees must be trained, the public must be notified when a government entity uses facial recognition on images it takes, and the law sets which comparison records are public or protected.
Ai, Deepfakes, Cybersecurity, Data Xfers
Alaska's SB 2 (2025-26) would have required a disclosure statement on election-related communications that include a deepfake, set rules for state agency use of generative AI in consequential decisions (inventory, impact assessments, notice, consent, appeal, and bans on some uses), and addressed transfers of data about individuals between state agencies. It was heard and held in Senate State Affairs on April 29, 2025 and died May 20, 2026.
Various mental health and insurance matters.
Indiana's HB 1201 (2026) would have barred using an AI system to impersonate or substitute for a licensed mental health professional in interactions that must be performed by one (discipline under IC 25-1-9; a board could impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation). It also covered insurance: downcoding limits, mental health reimbursement parity with medical providers relative to Medicare, a 180-day audit and recoupment window, and out-of-network balance-billing limits. Referred to the Insurance Committee January 5, 2026; it was not passed before the 2026 session ended.
Candidate Election Deepfake Disclosures
Colorado's HB 24-1147 bars anyone from distributing a communication about a candidate (including federal candidates and incumbents) with a deepfake to the candidate's electorate in the 60 days before a primary or 90 before a general election, if they know or recklessly disregard that the candidate did not say or do what is shown, unless it clearly states: "This (image/audio/video/multimedia) has been edited and depicts speech or conduct that falsely appears to be authentic or truthful." Secretary of State complaints bring civil penalties; candidates may sue for injunctions and damages. Qualifying news, satire and parody are exempt. Signed May 24, 2024 (Chapter 250); effective July 1, 2024.
Establishing an artificial intelligence task force.
Washington's Chapter 163, Laws of 2024 (E2SSB 5838) creates an artificial intelligence task force run by the Office of the Attorney General. A 19-member executive committee (four legislators and 15 members appointed by the Attorney General from government, industry, labor, advocacy and research) examines public and private AI development and use and recommends guidelines and possible legislation, covering topics such as high-risk uses, algorithmic discrimination, transparency, training data and civil liberties. Reports were due December 31, 2024, December 1, 2025 and July 1, 2026. The act took effect immediately (emergency clause) and the task force expires June 30, 2027.
Establishing minimum requirements for the testing of autonomous vehicles.
Washington's Chapter 182, Laws of 2020 (ESHB 2676) sets minimum rules for testing autonomous vehicles on public roads under the Department of Licensing self-certification pilot program. Testers must carry at least $5 million in umbrella liability insurance (RCW 46.30.050). From October 1, 2021 (RCW 46.92.010), they must give the department contact details, testing locations and vehicle IDs, report collisions and moving violations annually, and notify local police or the State Patrol 14 to 60 days before testing. The department publishes the information and reports to the Legislature.
Implementing recommendations of the autonomous vehicle work group.
Washington's Chapter 193, Laws of 2021 (SSB 5460) implements recommendations of the state autonomous vehicle work group by amending the self-certification testing pilot program in RCW 46.92.010. It defines "autonomous" as a level four or five driving automation system under SAE J3016, and requires testers to give the Department of Licensing contact details, testing jurisdictions, vehicle identification and proof of insurance, file annual collision and violation reports, and notify law enforcement 14 to 60 days before testing. No autonomous vehicle may be tested on public roads until the information is filed. Section 1 takes effect October 1, 2022.
Advanced Technology
Florida's CS/CS/SB 1680 (Chapter 2024-118) creates the Government Technology Modernization Council (s. 282.802, F.S.), chaired by the Lieutenant Governor, to study AI in government: a state code of ethics for AI systems, AI safety and security standards, how automated decision systems affect legal rights, how bad actors exploit AI, and provenance disclosure for AI-generated images and audio. It reports each December 31 from 2024. New s. 827.072 makes knowingly possessing or intentionally viewing, or intentionally creating, generated child pornography (computer-created or altered images of a fictitious minor) a third-degree felony. Effective July 1, 2024.
Artificial Intelligence Facial Recognition
Colorado's SB 22-113 sets rules for facial recognition used by state agencies, local governments and state colleges: a notice of intent and public accountability report before use, vendor bias disclosures, testing and meaningful human review for decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, training and records. Police need a warrant or another listed basis for ongoing surveillance, real-time identification or tracking. It barred schools from new facial recognition contracts until July 1, 2025; SB 25-143 (2025) removed that end date. Its task force became the AI Impact Task Force (HB 24-1468), ending September 1, 2027. Signed June 8, 2022 (Chapter 463); effective August 10, 2022.
Removal of Altered Sexual Depictions Posted without Consent
Florida's CS/CS/HB 1161 (Chapter 2025-133), Brooke's Law, amends s. 836.13, F.S. Covered platforms (sites, services or apps that mainly host user content, or regularly make nonconsensual altered sexual depictions available) had to set up by December 31, 2025 a process for people to request removal of sexual deepfakes of them posted without consent. Within 48 hours of a valid request the platform must remove the content and make reasonable efforts to remove identical copies, and it must post plain-language notice of the process. Good-faith removals are immune; unreasonable noncompliance is a FDUTPA violation. Effective June 10, 2025.
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 to amend and reenact subsection 13 of section 12.1-27.1-01 and section 12.1-27.1-03.3 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to sexually expressive images; and to provide a penalty.
North Dakota HB 1351 (2025) updates the law on sexually expressive images so it covers deepfakes. The definition in N.D.C.C. 12.1-27.1-01 now includes a "real, altered, or computer-generated" photograph or visual representation showing nudity or sexual conduct. Creating such an image surreptitiously, or distributing it to harm or humiliate or after notice that the subject does not consent, is a class A misdemeanor, and knowingly distributing an acquired image created without consent is a class B misdemeanor. A depicted person may sue for damages and attorney fees.
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 Concerning Broadband Internet, Gaming, Social Media, Online Services and Consumer Contracts
Public Act 25-113 overhauls the Connecticut Data Privacy Act's rules on automated decision-making. From July 1, 2026, consumers can opt out of profiling used for any automated decision with legal or similarly significant effects (housing, insurance, health care, employment, financial services and more), question the result and learn why the decision was made, and for housing decisions correct inaccurate data. Controllers that profile for such decisions must complete impact assessments (for processing created on or after Aug. 1, 2026), and privacy notices must state whether personal data is collected, used or sold to train large language models.
An Act to Ensure Transparency in Consumer Transactions Involving Artificial Intelligence
Maine's chatbot disclosure law adds a chapter on communications with consumers via artificial intelligence to Title 10. A person may not use an artificial intelligence chatbot or other computer technology to engage in trade and commerce with a consumer in a way that may mislead or deceive a reasonable consumer into believing they are talking with a human, unless the consumer is clearly and conspicuously notified that they are not dealing with a human. A violation is a violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Public postsecondary education: generative artificial intelligence systems: procurement standards: training.
California's community colleges and CSU must, and the University of California is asked to, form a working group that by January 1, 2028 recommends procurement standards and user training for generative AI systems bought for education. Standards must require a documented risk assessment, safeguards against harmful output, no engagement-driven sycophancy, self-harm monitoring with human escalation, incident reporting, data-minimization and retention policies, and disclosure of training data sources. Until standards exist, each systemwide GenAI contract triggers a report to the Legislature within 60 days. Effective January 1, 2027.
Employment: automated decision systems.
California's SB 947 limits how employers, including public employers and labor contractors, use automated decision systems (ADS) such as AI tools, starting July 1, 2027. Employers may not use an ADS to violate labor or civil-rights laws, infer a protected status, or predict and punish workers for exercising their rights, and may not rely solely on an ADS to discipline or fire. When they primarily rely on one, a human must corroborate the output, and the worker gets a written notice and can request a description of their data used. $500 per violation. Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 859).
Ai, Deepfakes, Cybersecurity, Data Xfers
Alaska's SB 177 (2023-24), as the Senate State Affairs committee substitute CSSB 177(STA), would have required a disclosure statement on election-related communications that include a deepfake, set rules for state agency use of generative AI for consequential decisions, and addressed transfers of data about individuals between state agencies. Senate State Affairs reported it April 23-24, 2024 and it was referred to Judiciary; it died when the 33rd Legislature's session ended.
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).
Digital Content Authenticity and Transparency Act; established, civil penalty.
Virginia's SB 1417 (2025 Regular Session) would have created the Digital Content Authenticity and Transparency Act, requiring generative AI developers to apply provenance data to synthetic content and offer a public provenance tool and reader, with Attorney General enforcement and civil penalties. Passed by indefinitely in committee on January 24, 2025; it failed.
CLEAR Act Copyright Labeling and Ethical AI Reporting Act
The federal S. 3813 (CLEAR Act, Copyright Labeling and Ethical AI Reporting Act) would require anyone who uses a training dataset to train or release a generative AI model to file a notice with the Register of Copyrights summarizing each copyrighted work in it, at least 30 days before commercial use or release. Copyright owners could sue, with civil penalties of not less than $5,000 per failure, capped at $2,500,000 per year. Introduced February 10, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee; no further action.
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.
An Act amending section 13-1425, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to sexual offenses.
Arizona's SB 1462 (Laws 2025, Ch. 106) amends A.R.S. 13-1425, unlawful disclosure of images depicting nudity or sexual activities, to cover fabricated images. A "realistic pictorial representation" is an image created or modified to reasonably appear to be an actual image of an identifiable person nude or engaged in sexual activity that did not actually occur. Disclosing such an image, or threatening to, is a class 1 misdemeanor. Images made in the public interest (scientific or educational activity) or about a newsworthy event are excluded, as are representations the depicted person made.
FY27 BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION
Article 40 of the FY2027 Budget Implementation Act supports Senate Bill 315, the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act. It lets the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security adopt emergency rules for that Act (5 ILCS 100/5-45.71), creates the AI Safety Measures Fund for its fees and civil penalties (30 ILCS 105/5.1038, 6z-149), and amends Sections 18 and 25 of the Act so large frontier developer disclosure and annual fees are set by rule. Article 40 takes effect when the Act becomes law or on SB 315's effective date, whichever is later.
Relates to requiring certain notice and disclosure regarding materially deceptive media in political communications
Chapter 169 of 2024 amends Election Law 14-106(5), the deceptive political media disclosure rule added weeks earlier by the FY2025 budget. Materially deceptive media is realistic content created or modified with software, machine learning or AI that depicts something that did not happen. The amendment limits the disclosure duty to distributors who know the media is deceptive, narrows the news exemption to outlets that flag doubts about authenticity, adds a safe harbor for paid broadcasters and streaming services with consistent disclaimer rules, and says labels are not required where they would conflict with federal law. Effective immediately.
Elections: deceptive audio or visual media.
AB 730 amended Elections Code 20010 and Code of Civil Procedure 35 to address election deepfakes. Until January 1, 2023 (later extended), no person or committee may distribute, with actual malice, materially deceptive audio or visual media of a candidate within 60 days of an election to injure the candidate's reputation or deceive voters. Such media is an image, audio or video intentionally manipulated so it would falsely appear authentic. Media disclosing that it has been manipulated is allowed, and the depicted candidate may seek an injunction and damages.
Vehicles: consumer notices.
SB 1398 added Vehicle Code Section 24011.5. A dealer or manufacturer that sells a new passenger vehicle equipped with a partial driving automation feature, or that adds such a feature by software update or upgrade, must give the buyer or owner a notice describing the functions and limitations of the feature. Manufacturers and dealers are prohibited from naming or marketing these features in a way that deceptively suggests the vehicle is autonomous or more capable than it is. Violations of the notice requirement are infractions.
Autonomous vehicles.
AB 1777 amended Vehicle Code Section 38750 and added Sections 38751 to 38753. Commencing July 1, 2026, manufacturers of autonomous vehicles that operate without a human operator in the vehicle must maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line and equip each vehicle with two-way voice communication so emergency officials near the vehicle can reach a remote human operator. Emergency officials may issue emergency geofencing messages, and manufacturers must direct fleets to leave or avoid the area within 2 minutes. Peace officers may issue notices of autonomous vehicle noncompliance for observed Vehicle Code violations, which manufacturers must report to the DMV.
State Bar of California.
SB 253 is a State Bar omnibus bill. Its AI provision, in amended Business and Professions Code Section 6046.6, requires the Committee of Bar Examiners to provide notice if artificial intelligence is used in creating questions for the bar examination or in grading the bar examination. The bill also adds notice periods before changing the exam's question vendor or authorizing remote administration.
Tenancy: digitally altered images: disclosure.
AB 2025 added Civil Code Section 1940.11 and amended Business and Professions Code Section 10140.8. A person who includes a digitally altered image (an image altered through photo editing software or artificial intelligence to add, remove, or change elements), in an advertisement or promotional material for rental of real property must include a disclosure and, in most cases, provide the unaltered image. The requirement does not apply to renderings not originally created with a capture device. Violations by real estate licensees are violations of the Real Estate Law. It extends the 2025 sale-listing rule (AB 723) to rentals.
Employment: technological displacement: notice.
SB 951 amended Labor Code Sections 1400.5 and 1401 and added Section 1402.7. An employer giving notice of a mass layoff, relocation, or termination caused in whole or in substantial part by an artificial intelligence system or other automated technology replacing or automating positions must include specified information, such as the job functions that will be automated. The Employment Development Department must publish summaries of these notices and a quarterly statewide summary of technological displacement, and must report to the Legislature by January 1, 2028 on AI's effects on hiring practices across industries and occupations.
Concerning preventing certain disclosures of intimate depictions, and, in connection therewith, creating a cause of action for nonconsensual disclosure of an intimate digital depiction and adding and amending related provisions in criminal law.
Colorado SB 25-288 enacts the Preventing Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Digital Depictions Act. A digital depiction is a highly realistic image falsely appearing authentic that was created, altered or produced by generative AI, image editing software or computer-generated means. A person who discloses or threatens to disclose an intimate digital depiction without signed consent can be sued for actual damages or $150,000, exemplary damages, fees and injunctions; a disclaimer is no defense. It also extends sexual exploitation of a child to realistic computer-generated depictions of an identifiable child and updates the private-image offenses.
Relating to Elections -- Deceptive and Fraudulent Synthetic Media in Election Communications
Rhode Island's 2025 election deepfake law (R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 17-30) bars candidates, campaign committees, PACs, party committees and independent spenders from distributing synthetic media they know or should know is deceptive and fraudulent within 90 days of an election. Synthetic media is an image, audio or video of a person intentionally manipulated with generative adversarial network techniques or other digital technology to look real but give a fundamentally different impression. A clear disclosure that the media 'has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence' is a safe harbor. Depicted candidates may seek injunctions and damages. Effective on passage.
Relating to Elections -- Deceptive and Fraudulent Synthetic Media in Election Communications
Rhode Island's 2025 election deepfake law (R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 17-30) bars candidates, campaign committees, PACs, party committees and independent spenders from distributing synthetic media they know or should know is deceptive and fraudulent within 90 days of an election. Synthetic media is an image, audio or video of a person intentionally manipulated with generative adversarial network techniques or other digital technology to look real but give a fundamentally different impression. A clear disclosure that the media 'has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence' is a safe harbor. Depicted candidates may seek injunctions and damages. Effective on passage.
Relating to Criminal Offenses -- Electronic Imaging Devices
Rhode Island's 2025 amendment to R.I. Gen. Laws 11-64-3 makes the crime of unauthorized dissemination of indecent material cover sexually explicit or intimate images of an identifiable adult, including any image created by a digital device or altered by digitization, when shared without consent and with knowledge or reckless disregard of harm or intent to harass. A first offense is a misdemeanor and later offenses are felonies; threatening disclosure to obtain a benefit or demanding payment for removal is a felony up to 5 years. Platforms and telecom services are not liable for third-party content. Effective on passage.
Relating to Criminal Offenses -- Electronic Imaging Devices
Rhode Island's 2025 amendment to R.I. Gen. Laws 11-64-3 makes the crime of unauthorized dissemination of indecent material cover sexually explicit or intimate images of an identifiable adult, including any image created by a digital device or altered by digitization, when shared without consent and with knowledge or reckless disregard of harm or intent to harass. A first offense is a misdemeanor and later offenses are felonies; threatening disclosure to obtain a benefit or demanding payment for removal is a felony up to 5 years. Platforms and telecom services are not liable for third-party content. Effective on passage.
ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS – Freedom From AI-Rigged (FAIR) Elections Act: relief and actions over synthetic media in electioneering communications
Idaho's H 664 (2024), the Freedom From AI-Rigged (FAIR) Elections Act, targets deepfakes in campaign ads. Synthetic media is audio or video of a person's speech or conduct created with generative adversarial network techniques or other digital technology so that it seems real but shows something that did not happen. A candidate deceptively shown in synthetic media in an electioneering communication may seek an injunction and sue the content creator for damages and attorney's fees. Including the disclosure 'This (video/audio) has been manipulated', shown or read as the law specifies, is an affirmative defense. It took effect March 25, 2024.
California AI Transparency Act.
California's SB 942, the California AI Transparency Act, as amended, requires anyone who produces a generative AI system publicly accessible in California to offer a free, public disclosure verification tool and, where technically feasible, embed hard-to-remove latent disclosures (provider, system and version, time and date, unique ID, whether AI created or altered it) in AI image, video and audio output. Penalty: $5,000 per violation, each day a separate violation. SB 1000 (Chapter 861), effective September 30, 2026, dropped the original 1,000,000-user threshold and the visible-label option. Signed September 19, 2024 (Chapter 291); duties operative August 2, 2026, as moved by AB 853.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Adds to existing law to provide certain requirements and restrictions for pretrial risk assessment tools.
Idaho's H 118 (2019) requires transparency for algorithmic pretrial risk assessment tools, which score factors to estimate a defendant's risk and recommend bail or release conditions. All such tools must be transparent: the documents, data, records and information used to build or validate them, and their ongoing usage and validation policies, are open to public inspection, auditing and testing. A criminal defendant whose case involved a tool may review all calculations and data behind their own risk score, and no builder or user may claim trade secret or other intellectual property protection to block that discovery. Effective July 1, 2019.
Criminalize use of real and digitally fabricated sexually explicit images
Montana's HB 514 (Chapter 686 of 2025) extends the offense of violating privacy in communications to digitally fabricated intimate images. Digitally fabricated means created with technical means, such as artificial intelligence, to realistically show an identifiable person doing something they did not do. It is a crime to publish, distribute or disclose real or fabricated nude or sexual images of an identifiable person without consent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, injure or get money, or to possess them and threaten disclosure for money. A first offense is a misdemeanor; a second or later is a felony with up to five years and a $25,000 fine. Effective October 1, 2025.
Generally revise laws related to privacy and facial recognition technology
Montana's SB 397 (Chapter 781 of 2023), the Facial Recognition for Government Use Act, bars state and local agencies, law enforcement, public employees and officials from using continuous facial surveillance and, with exceptions, from obtaining or using facial recognition technology or contracting vendors for it. The Department of Justice and local police may use it in criminal investigations under restrictions, including a warrant requirement, must tell defendants before trial, and must report use annually. Agencies may use facial verification only under a written use and privacy policy, with notice, vendor retention limits and human review training. People harmed may sue.
An Act Establishing a Civil Action for the Office of the Attorney General and a Private Right of Action for Victims of Unlawful Dissemination of a Synthetically Created Intimate Image
Connecticut's HB 5312 (Public Act 26-55) adds civil remedies for AI-made intimate images. A person harmed by unlawful dissemination of a synthetically created intimate image may sue whoever knowingly shared it with intent to harm, for an injunction, damages including punitive damages, and attorney's fees, within two years of discovery. Covered platforms must run a notice-and-removal process for victims and the Attorney General, post plain-language instructions, and remove reported images and reasonable efforts at copies within 48 hours. The Attorney General can seek penalties of up to $25,000 per day. Effective October 1, 2026.
An Act Concerning Motor Vehicle Registration Notice, the International Registration Plan, Carriers, School Buses, the Medical Advisory Board, Reserved Parking Spaces, Autonomous Vehicles and Other Motor Vehicle Statutes
Sections 17 and 18 of Connecticut's Public Act 19-119 revise the state's fully autonomous vehicle testing pilot program. The Office of Policy and Management runs the program in up to four municipalities, each of which signs an agreement with testers setting routes, vehicles and hours. Testing is allowed only if a trained, licensed operator is physically inside the vehicle (no longer necessarily in the driver's seat), monitoring it and able to take immediate manual control, and each vehicle is registered with the DMV. Testing on limited-access highways is barred, OPM may halt unsafe testing, and testers must share performance information. Both sections were effective on passage.
Criminalizing and creating a private right of action for the facilitation, encouragement, offer, solicitation, or recommendation of certain acts or actions through a responsive generative communication to a child
New Hampshire's HB 143 (Chapter 270 of 2025) targets chatbots that steer children toward harm. The owner or operator of an AI chat program, chatbot, character AI or similar service whose sole purpose is open-ended generative conversation commits endangering the welfare of a child if it knowingly directs communications to a child intended to encourage the child to imminently engage in sexually explicit conduct or its depiction, drug or alcohol use, self-harm or suicide, or violence. The same conduct creates civil liability for damages of at least $1,000 per violation, which the Attorney General, who has the sole right of action, enforces after a 90-day cure notice. Effective January 1, 2026.
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.
Technology Transparency
South Carolina's H 3401, 'Technology Transparency', would add Chapter 31 to Title 37. It would bar government entities from working with social media platforms on content moderation, give consumers rights to opt out of profiling with significant effects, require search engines to publish plain-language ranking parameters, and require data protection assessments. Introduced January 14, 2025 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
Regulate artificial intelligence in media and political advertisements under the Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act
Not law. Nebraska LB1203 (2024), introduced by Senator John Cavanaugh, would have required a clear and conspicuous AI disclosure on paid political ads generated wholly or substantially by AI, and barred knowingly distributing materially deceptive AI media within 90 days before an election with intent to harm a candidate and deceive voters, unless it carried a disclaimer. Remedies were permanent injunctions only. Indefinitely postponed April 18, 2024.
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.
SCH CD-STUDENT BIOMETRIC INFO
Illinois's SB 1239 would amend the School Code to bar school districts from buying, acquiring, using or contracting for biometric systems, including facial recognition software, on students. Districts holding student biometric information would have to destroy it within 30 days after the Act takes effect. Filed January 24, 2025; re-referred to Assignments April 11, 2025; it has not passed either house.
Psychotherapy Artificial Intelligence Restrictions
Colorado's HB 26-1195 limits how licensed mental health professionals and others lawfully providing psychotherapy use AI. They may use it for administrative and supplementary support (e.g. scheduling, billing) if they stay responsible for reviewing its outputs, but may not let AI engage in therapeutic communication with clients without their synchronous, real-time participation or generate therapeutic recommendations or treatment plans without their approval. AI recording or transcription of sessions needs advance written notice and consent. No one may present AI as psychotherapy, therapist-equivalent or therapist-confidential. Signed June 3, 2026 (Chapter 358); effective August 12, 2026.
Updates certain crimes to include nonconsensual pornographic deepfake threats and disclosure.
New Jersey's A2736 would add deepfake images to New Jersey's invasion-of-privacy and criminal coercion offenses. Knowingly reproducing an actual or deepfake intimate image without consent would be third-degree; disclosing a deepfake image based on another person's image, knowingly or with reckless disregard of any license or privilege, would be fourth-degree; threatening disclosure would be criminal coercion.
AN ACT relating to protection of information and declaring an emergency.
Kentucky's HB 672 (2025 session) would have required state departments and agencies to route generative and high-risk AI through an Artificial Intelligence Governance Committee created by the Commonwealth Office of Technology. It would have required approval, a public registry, disclaimers on AI-generated decisions and outputs, risk management policies and impact assessments for high-risk systems, employee training, and regulations by July 1, 2025. It also would have let candidates and election officers sue over undisclosed synthetic media in election ads. Referred to House State Government; died. SB 4 (2025), with the same title, was enacted instead (Acts Ch. 66).
Prohibits and imposes criminal penalty on disclosure of certain intentionally deceptive audio or visual media within 90 days of election.
New Jersey's S2129 would make it a fourth-degree crime to knowingly or recklessly disclose, or to solicit, intentionally deceptive audio or visual media (deepfakes) within 90 days of an election with intent to deceive a voter with false information; a repeat offense would be third-degree. Voters and depicted candidates could sue, and media carrying a prescribed disclaimer would be excepted.
Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act; established.
Virginia's HB 2554 (2025 Regular Session) would have created the Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act, requiring developers of generative AI systems that produce audio, images, text or video to include a clear and conspicuous disclosure on AI-generated content and to prevent downstream use without it. Left in committee on February 4, 2025; it failed.
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.
Imposes liability for damages caused by a chatbot impersonating certain licensed professionals
New York's S 7263-A would add General Business Law § 390-f. A chatbot operator could not knowingly let its chatbot impersonate a licensed professional (a profession licensed under listed Education Law articles, or an attorney) in a way that would be a crime or unauthorized practice if done by a person, and could not disclaim liability with a not-human notice. Operators would also have to give clear notice that users are talking to an AI chatbot. The Attorney General could seek up to $15,000 per day. Reported by the Internet and Technology Committee and advanced to third reading, amended May 26, 2026 and committed to Rules June 5, 2026; no chamber has passed it.
In preliminary provisions, providing for algorithmic pricing transparency and fairness; and imposing duties on the Office of Attorney General and Bureau of Consumer Protection.
Pennsylvania's HB 1779 would require a clear disclosure, 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.', on advertised personalized algorithmic prices, and bar using protected class data to set prices differently. The Attorney General could seek injunctions and courts could impose up to $1,000 per violation. Referred to the House Consumer Protection, Technology and Utilities Committee August 4, 2025; it has not passed.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's HB 1734 (2024) would have required campaign advertisements containing an image, video or audio created wholly or partly with generative AI to include a clear and conspicuous disclosure, with format rules by media type (printed box for images, at least three seconds for audio, at least four seconds for video). Violators would face a fine under HRS 11-410. It was referred to JHA and FIN on January 24, 2024 and died when the 2024 session ended.
Establishes "Fair Pricing and Transparency Act."
New Jersey's A4742 (Wainstein, Rodriguez, Walker), the Fair Pricing and Transparency Act, would bar retail food stores from using surveillance-based price discrimination, dynamic pricing, or personalized pricing (personalized pricing means prices set using automated systems, AI, machine learning, or algorithms relying on consumer or inferred data) on groceries and other foodstuffs. Retail establishments with more than 50 employees would not be covered. Introduced March 19, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Consumer Affairs Committee; identical Senate bill S3952.
Election Law - Campaign Materials - Disclosure of Use of Synthetic Media
Maryland's HB 740 (2025) would have required candidates, campaign finance entities, certain registrants and their agents to include a disclosure when they distribute campaign material made with or containing synthetic media (an image, audio or video intentionally manipulated with generative AI or other digital technology to create a realistic but false depiction of a real individual's appearance, speech or conduct) to anyone in Maryland. Violations would have been a misdemeanor (fine up to $1,000, up to 1 year, or both). A hearing was set for February 11, 2025; it went no further and died when the session ended.
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.
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.
Relative to social media, algorithm accountability, and transparency
Massachusetts's S.51 (194th General Court) would create an Office of Social Media Transparency and Accountability under the Attorney General. Covered platforms (processing personal information of 100,000+ Massachusetts consumers, or 25,000+ with over 25% of gross revenue from selling personal data) would register annually, file transparency reports and pay for monthly third-party algorithm risk audits focused on harms to children. Penalties of up to $500,000 per violation. Reported favorably by the Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity Committee October 16, 2025 and sent to Senate Ways and Means; not passed.
Warehouse employers; required disclosures and recordkeeping, civil penalties.
Virginia's HB 1451 (Labor and Commerce Committee substitute) would require employers of 500 or more employees at warehouse distribution centers to give nonexempt employees written descriptions of each quota, related incentives and potential adverse action, and to state if an automated or algorithmic management system monitors performance against a quota. Employers would keep work-speed records and could not retaliate; adverse action within 90 days would be presumed retaliatory. Continued to 2027 in House Labor and Commerce on February 10, 2026; not passed.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's HB 1676 HD 1 (2026) would have created an AI in Education Task Force within the University of Hawaii to develop model statewide guidance, data privacy and vendor transparency standards and other recommendations on AI in education. It passed the House, but the Senate EDU and LBT committees deferred it March 23, 2026, and it was not enacted.
Trade: business regulation; requirements and safety standards for developers of certain artificial intelligence models; provide for. Creates new act.
Michigan's HB 4668 (as introduced) would create the Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security Transparency Act. Large developers of foundation models (compute costing at least $5 million for one model and $100 million over 12 months) would have to publish a safety and security protocol for critical risks, publish transparency reports at least every 90 days, and get an annual third-party audit, with whistleblower protection. The attorney general could seek fines up to $1,000,000 per violation. Re-referred to the House Communications and Technology Committee March 19, 2026; it has not passed either house.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SAFETY
Illinois's SB 3261, the Artificial Intelligence Public Safety and Child Protection Transparency Act, would require large frontier developers (models trained with over 10^26 operations; $500 million revenue) and large chatbot providers ($25 million revenue; 1,000,000+ monthly users, likely accessed by minors) to publish safety plans, and frontier developers and large chatbot providers to report safety incidents to the Attorney General. Civil penalties up to $1,000,000 (large developers) or $50,000 (chatbot providers) per violation. Introduced February 3, 2026; re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026 under Rule 3-9(a); not passed. Would take effect January 1, 2027.
Providing for consumer protection and for artificial intelligence and chatbots; imposing duties on the Bureau of Consumer Protection in the Office of Attorney General; and imposing penalties.
Pennsylvania's HB 2175 (Printer's No. 2831) would add Chapter 71 to Title 12 on AI chatbots that use generative AI to converse with consumers and are represented as helping manage a situation or treat a condition, including mental health. Suppliers could not sell or share health information or consumer input except as allowed, could not advertise in chatbot conversations, and would have to adopt, file and follow a written disclosure policy. Fines up to $2,500 per violation. Introduced January 30, 2026; re-referred to Consumer Protection, Technology & Utilities March 19, 2026; not passed.
Establishes certain requirements for social media websites concerning content moderation practices; establishes cause of action against social media websites for violation of content moderation practices.
New Jersey's S861 would make it an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act for a social media website to fail to publish and consistently apply its censorship, suspension and "anonymous" ban standards, to notify users of such actions, and to let users opt out of post-prioritization and banning algorithms. It would bar those algorithms for known candidates, with Attorney General fines of $100,000 per day (statewide candidates) or $10,000 per day (others), and let users sue over inconsistent standards or censoring without notice. Referred to the Senate Commerce Committee January 13, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Enacts the New York privacy act to require companies to disclose their methods of de-identifying personal information, to place special safeguards around data sharing and to allow consumers to obtain the names of all entities with whom their information is shared.
New York's S 8524 (the "New York data protection act") would add General Business Law article 42-A, a consumer privacy framework. Controllers would have to give notice, honor access, correction and deletion requests, let consumers opt out of targeted ads, data sales and profiling for decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, and run data protection assessments for risky profiling and other high-risk processing. Data brokers would register annually with the attorney general, who could enforce the act with civil penalties up to $20,000 per violation. Introduced October 8, 2025; referred to the Internet and Technology Committee January 7, 2026. It has not passed either chamber.
AN ACT RELATING TO LABOR AND LABOR RELATIONS -- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USE AND FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
Rhode Island's H 7767 would add a chapter to Title 28 limiting how employers use electronic monitoring and automated decision systems on workers. Employers could monitor only for listed purposes, with written notice, an independent impact assessment, and human review of decisions based on monitoring data; monitoring tools using facial recognition or gait, voice analysis or emotion recognition would be barred. Introduced February 12, 2026; House Labor recommended it be held for further study April 15, 2026. It has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits the use of biometric surveillance system or biometric surveillance information in places of public accommodation; prohibits entering into any agreement that authorizes any third party to use any biometric surveillance system or biometric surveillance information; provides penalties for…
New York's A 6211 (same as S 8004) would add Civil Rights Law § 40-h, making it unlawful for an owner, manager, employee or other agent of a place or provider of public accommodation to use a biometric surveillance system or biometric surveillance information, or to let a third party do so on its behalf. It would also require written notice and consent before collecting biometric information. Referred to the Assembly Governmental Operations Committee in February 2025 and again January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Artificial Intelligence
Not law: died in subcommittee. Florida's HB 1395 (2026) would have created an "Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights" (new part IX of ch. 501): parental consent and controls for minors on companion chatbot platforms, an hourly not-human pop-up for bots, a ban on selling users' personal information unless deidentified, and consent for commercial use of generative-AI likenesses. It would also have barred government AI contracts with foreign-country-of-concern entities. It died on March 13, 2026.
Certain online platforms requirement to provide information pertaining to algorithm use
Minnesota's SF 4380 would have required online platforms doing business in Minnesota that use personal-data-based algorithmic recommender systems to publicly disclose each system's inputs and weights (grouped in quartiles), default to maximizing users' long-term value, give users controls over recommended and blocked item types, and keep a holdout group with an annual public disclosure and independent audit. Violations would have been an unfair and deceptive practice, with the attorney general able to enforce and users able to recover $5,000 per violation. It was introduced March 11, 2026 and never left committee.
Artificial intelligence; requiring certain disclosure for certain media. Effective date.
Oklahoma's SB 746 (2025), by Sen. Seifried, would have required political advertisements, electioneering communications and other candidate or election media from a candidate, candidate committee, PAC or party committee to carry the disclosure "Created in whole or in part with the use of generative artificial intelligence" when generative AI content appears to show a real person doing something that did not occur. A depicted candidate could have sued. The bill was referred to the Technology and Telecommunications Committee February 4, 2025 and died when the session ended in 2026 (adjourned May 14, 2026).
Use of artificial intelligence-based tools; covered artificial intelligence, disclosure of use.
Virginia's HB 1294 (2026 Regular Session) would amend Code 19.2-11.14 to require police reports to disclose any use of covered artificial intelligence in a criminal investigation, and to require that AI-assisted report drafts be retained. Continued to 2027 in the House Communications, Technology and Innovation Committee on February 2, 2026.
SCH CD-ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Illinois's HB 2503 (104th General Assembly) would amend the School Code to require the State Board of Education to establish a State Instructional Technology Advisory Board that guides and evaluates education technologies, including AI. With that board, the State Board would develop standards on safety, transparency, data privacy and educational quality for AI used in schools, plus guidance on AI use and AI literacy. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee on April 11, 2025.
An Act to prohibit the use of a deepfake to influence an election and to provide a penalty therefor.
South Dakota's 2025 SB 164 targets election deepfakes. A deepfake is an image, audio or video created or manipulated with AI or other digital technology so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it shows a real person's speech or conduct that did not happen. Disseminating one, or contracting to, with intent to injure a candidate within 90 days of an election, without the disclosure "This (image/video/audio) has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence," is a Class 1 misdemeanor. The AG, candidates and depicted people can sue. The act states no effective date.
Relating To Elections.
Hawaii's HB 1766 (2024, H.D. 1) would have barred distributing, within ninety days before a primary or general election, an advertisement containing a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate that the person knew or should have known was one, unless it carries a 'has been manipulated' disclosure. It passed the House March 5, 2024, was referred to Senate JDC March 7 and died when the 2024 session ended. The text set a July 1, 3000 effective date.
Law enforcement; artificial intelligence inventory, civil action.
Virginia's HB 1295 (2026 Regular Session) would add Code 9.1-116.11, requiring every state and local law-enforcement agency and sheriff's department to inventory the covered AI systems it uses and publish the inventory by November 1 each year. Continued to 2027 in the House committee on February 2, 2026.
AI PRINCIPLES
Illinois's HB 3529 (104th General Assembly) would create the Illinois High-Impact AI Governance Principles and Disclosure Act. The Department of Innovation and Technology would adopt rules to make businesses using AI systems comply with 5 principles of AI governance and publish a report on their websites. It would apply to businesses with 10 or more employees. Re-referred to Rules March 21, 2025.
Relating To Algorithmic Discrimination.
Hawaii's HB 1607 (2024) would have added an Algorithmic Discrimination chapter. Covered entities (those holding data on more than 25,000 residents, over $15,000,000 in receipts, data brokers, or service providers) could not use algorithmic processes using machine learning, AI or similar techniques to decide eligibility for credit, insurance, education, employment, housing or public accommodations in a discriminatory way, and would owe notices, annual audits and reports. Penalties up to $10,000 per violation, plus private suits. It was referred to HET and JHA January 24, 2024. It died.
Enacts the "utility billing integrity act" to establish utility billing integrity and consumer protections through anomaly detection, advanced data analytics and the usage of artificial intelligence; requires every utility to implement and maintain a billing integrity program utilizing anomaly…
New York's A 10764, the “utility billing integrity act,” would add Public Service Law § 65-c requiring every electric, gas or combination utility to maintain a program using anomaly detection systems (including advanced analytics, machine learning or AI) to review all residential bills before issuance. A flagged bill could not be issued as a final charge until qualified personnel review it and correct errors. Referred to the Energy Committee April 1, 2026; it has not passed either chamber. Would take effect one year after it becomes law.
PD365/ISBE-ARTIFICIAL INTEL
Illinois's SR 610 (104th General Assembly) is a Senate resolution that would support Illinois ASCD/PD365 principles on ethical and effective AI use in K-12 classrooms and urge the State Board of Education to develop statewide guidelines on student data, algorithmic transparency, bias monitoring and AI literacy. It does not change the law. Referred to Assignments February 5, 2026.
ALGORITHMIC PRICING DISCLOSURE
Illinois's HB 5323 (104th General Assembly) would require an entity that sets prices with personalized algorithmic pricing (dynamic pricing set by an algorithm using personal data) and advertises or offers it using the consumer's personal data to include the disclosure 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA'. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee March 27, 2026.
TRANSPARENCY IN DOWNCODING ACT
Illinois's HB 4735 (104th General Assembly) would create the Transparency in Downcoding Act for certain health insurance policies. A health insurance issuer could not use an automated process, system or tool to downcode a claim, or downcode based solely on reported diagnosis codes, and downcoding decisions would have to be made by a licensed physician. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee March 27, 2026.
AI Safety Measures Act
Illinois's SB 3312 (104th General Assembly) would create the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act. Large frontier developers would have to adopt and publish a frontier AI framework covering catastrophic risk management, transparency and cybersecurity, and report critical safety incidents to the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security. Re-referred to Senate Assignments on May 22, 2026.
Digital Content Authenticity and Transparency Act; established, civil penalty.
Virginia's HB 2121 (2025 Regular Session) would have created the Digital Content Authenticity and Transparency Act, requiring generative AI developers to apply provenance data to synthetic content and offer a public provenance tool and reader, with Attorney General enforcement and civil penalties. Left in committee on February 4, 2025; it failed.
Registered Nurse Use of AI
Illinois's HB 4804 (104th General Assembly) would amend the Nurse Practice Act to set rules for registered nurses' use of AI, including a bar on substituting AI for nursing services, patient notice and confidentiality protections, and discipline for violations. Health care entities deploying AI in direct patient care would have to keep validation and bias monitoring records. Re-referred to Rules Committee on March 27, 2026.
Elec CD-AI Advert Disclosure
Illinois's SB 2996 (104th General Assembly) would amend the Election Code so that a qualified political advertisement generated in whole or substantially by AI must carry a clear and conspicuous statement saying so. It would provide exemptions and civil penalties, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs. Re-referred to Senate Assignments on May 22, 2026, with Senate Committee Amendment No. 1.
Unauthorized use of name, portrait, etc.; digital replica, civil liability, statute of limitations.
Virginia's HB 2462 (2025 Regular Session) would have amended Code § 8.01-40 to extend the suit for unauthorized use of a person's name, portrait or picture to voice and likeness, and created civil liability for unauthorized digital replicas in expressive audiovisual works or sound recordings made without written consent. The Senate version also made platforms liable for failing to promptly remove a replica after notice. The chambers passed different versions and the bill failed in conference on February 22, 2025.
AI SAFETY MEASURES ACT
Illinois's HB 4799 (104th General Assembly) would create the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act. Large frontier AI developers would have to adopt and publish a frontier AI framework covering catastrophic risk management, transparency and cybersecurity, and report critical safety incidents to the Attorney General, with civil penalties for noncompliance. It would also create a consortium to develop ILCompute, a public cloud computing resource. Referred to Rules February 6, 2026.
CONSUMER DATA PRIVACY ACT
Illinois's SB 3548 (104th General Assembly) would create the Consumer Data Privacy Act, giving consumers rights to confirm whether personal data is processed, correct and delete it, obtain a copy, and opt out of targeted advertising, data sales or profiling. It would apply to persons controlling or processing data of at least 100,000 consumers, with Attorney General enforcement. Last action: re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026.
An Act enhancing disclosure requirements for synthetic media in political advertising
Massachusetts' H 5094, as reported by House Ways and Means, would require paid audio or video political communications that contain AI-generated synthetic media to say "contains content generated by AI" at the beginning and end and to carry an AI-generated label throughout each synthetic portion. A violation would be punished by a fine of up to $1,000. The House adopted Amendment 4 (not reviewed here) and passed the bill to be engrossed 157-0 on February 11, 2026. The Senate referred it to Senate Ways and Means on February 12, 2026; it is not law.
PRIVACY RIGHTS ACT
Illinois' SB 52 is a general consumer privacy bill. As introduced, the Privacy Rights Act would give consumers rights over their personal information and create a Privacy Protection Agency. Its AI-related parts are narrow: it defines profiling as automated processing of personal information, and directs the Attorney General to adopt rules on access and opt-out rights for automated decision-making technology and on risk assessments. Introduced January 13, 2025; re-referred to Assignments April 11, 2025 and still pending.
Relating to disclosures and penalties associated with use of synthetic media and artificial intelligence
West Virginia's SB 484 (2025 regular session, committee substitute) would have added W. Va. Code 3-8-12a barring anyone from distributing, or agreeing to distribute, AI-manipulated synthetic media of a person within 90 days before an election, knowing it is false, without consent and intending to injure a candidate or influence the result, unless it carries a clear disclaimer. It would be a misdemeanor with a fine up to $1,000 per violation, plus civil actions. It passed no chamber: it was laid over on first reading and referred to Rules on March 4, 2025.
Relating To Algorithmic Discrimination.
Hawaii's SB 2524 (2024) would have added an Algorithmic Discrimination chapter. Covered entities (those holding data on more than 25,000 residents, over $15,000,000 in receipts, data brokers, or service providers) could not use algorithmic processes using machine learning, AI or similar techniques to decide eligibility for credit, insurance, education, employment, housing or public accommodations in a discriminatory way, and would owe notices, annual audits and reports. Penalties up to $10,000 per violation, plus private suits. It was referred to committees January 24, 2024. It died.
Artificial intelligence.
California's Senate Concurrent Resolution 17 affirms the Legislature's commitment to President Biden's vision for safe AI and to the five principles of the White House "Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights": safe and effective systems; algorithmic discrimination protections; data privacy; notice and explanation; and human alternatives, consideration and fallback. The Legislature commits to examining and implementing them in its legislation and policies on automated systems. Adopted by the Senate February 17, 2023 and the Assembly August 14, 2023; filed August 23, 2023 (Res. Chapter 135). A concurrent resolution does not change the law.
Relating To Elections.
Hawaii's Senate Bill 2396 (2024) would have barred anyone from distributing, within 90 days before a primary or general election, a synthetic media message in an electioneering communication that the person knows or should have known is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate or party, unless it carries a disclosure that it was manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence. JDC deferred it February 9, 2024 and it died at the end of the 2023-2024 biennium.
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.
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.
Establishes Artificial Intelligence Ethics Board in DOLWD.
A 2478 would create a seven-member Artificial Intelligence Ethics Board in New Jersey's Department of Labor and Workforce Development to oversee the sale and use of AI technology, with a focus on bias prevention, privacy, transparency and accountability. Anyone selling or offering an AI product or service in the state would first need an independent AI impact assessment, done within the prior year and meeting the board's standards on privacy and job displacement. The board would also recommend protections for workers displaced by AI, such as a month's notice, retraining and severance. Pending in the Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Higher educational institutions; JLARC to study artificial intelligence use policies.
House Joint Resolution 32 directs the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) to study AI use policies at Virginia's institutions of higher education. JLARC surveys policies adopted or under consideration and evaluates how they address academic integrity, data privacy, equity and access, transparency, and faculty autonomy; develops a model AI policy; and recommends tools, curricula and resources for a statewide clearinghouse. Agreed to by the House February 11 and the Senate March 3, 2026. A joint resolution needs no Governor's signature and does not change the law.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's SB 3001 (Artificial Intelligence Disclosure and Safety Act) regulates AI companions, AI built to simulate a sustained human-like relationship. Operators must disclose it is AI if a reasonable person would think it human, adopt a suicide/self-harm crisis-referral protocol and not program it to claim to give professional mental or behavioral health care. For known or reasonably certain minors they must flag AI use, avoid unpredictable engagement rewards, guard against sexual content and offer screen-time tools. Annual Department of Health reports begin January 1, 2028. Violations are unfair or deceptive acts (HRS § 480-2); no private right of action. Act 248; effective July 14, 2026.
Artificial Intelligence Amendments
Utah's SB 149 created the Artificial Intelligence Policy Act: an Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy in the Department of Commerce and an AI Learning Laboratory in which the office may grant temporary regulatory mitigation agreements. It also made generative AI no defense to consumer-protection violations and required generative AI disclosures, which SB 226 replaced on May 7, 2025. The Act was set to be repealed May 1, 2025; SB 332 and SB 226 moved that to July 1, 2027, and HB 320 revised the lab from May 6, 2026. Signed March 13, 2024; effective May 1, 2024.
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.
Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy Amendments
Utah's HB 320 revises the existing Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy and its AI Learning Laboratory (Title 13, Chapter 72). Besides regulatory mitigation agreements, which let a participant use AI despite a law or rule that might impede it, the office may sign joint interpretation agreements clarifying how a state law or rule applies to an AI technology. Agreements must set consumer disclosures and audit reporting; the office must audit participants regularly and may end an agreement at any time. Terms run up to 12 months with up to two extensions. Signed March 18, 2026; effective May 6, 2026.
Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act TAKE IT DOWN Act
The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146) makes it a crime to knowingly publish online, in specified circumstances, nonconsensual intimate images of an identifiable person, including 'digital forgeries' made with software, machine learning or AI that look authentic, and to threaten to do so; prison terms reach 2 years (adult victims) or 3 years (minors). Covered platforms that host user-generated content had until May 19, 2026, one year after enactment, to set up a notice-and-removal process, and must remove reported images within 48 hours; the FTC enforces. Signed May 19, 2025 (Public Law 119-12); the criminal provisions applied from enactment.
Requires the owner, licensee or operator of a generative artificial intelligence system to conspicuously display a notice on the system's user interface that is reasonably calculated to consistently apprise the user that the outputs of the generative artificial intelligence system may be inaccurate.
New York's A 3411-B would add General Business Law § 399-zzzzzz requiring the owner, licensee or operator of a generative artificial intelligence system to clearly and conspicuously display a notice on the system's user interface that its outputs may be inaccurate. Failure carries a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation, with each user not given the notice a separate violation. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after it becomes law. Passed the Assembly January 28, 2026 and the Senate March 9, 2026 (58-2, substituted for S934A); no delivery to or action by the Governor appears in the record.
Establishes disclosure requirements for AI-generated or materially AI-altered media depicting historically recognized human disasters when such media is publicly distributed; requires platform operators to allow the use of labelling; provides for enforcement by the attorney general.
New York's A 10047 would add General Business Law Article 47-A (§§ 1710-1716) requiring a person who distributes AI-generated content depicting a “historically recognized human disaster” that the person knows is materially deceptive media to label it “THIS (IMAGE, VIDEO, OR AUDIO) HAS BEEN MANIPULATED.” Platforms would have to allow labeling tools. The Attorney General could seek civil penalties up to $15,000 per day per violation. Referred to Consumer Affairs and Protection January 30, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
STATE GOVT-GENERAL MANDATES
Illinois' Public Act 103-0101 (HB 3902), the Drones as First Responders Act, amends the Freedom from Drone Surveillance Act to let police use drones for search and rescue, infrastructure inspections, demonstrations, dispatched emergency calls and some government-hosted events. Police may not use onboard facial recognition in flight and may run drone data through facial recognition only to counter a terrorist risk found by the Homeland Security Secretary or on reasonable suspicion that swift action is needed to prevent imminent harm, escape or evidence destruction. Drones may not be armed. It revises data retention and adds Attorney General enforcement. Approved and effective June 16, 2023.
Restricts the use by an employer or an employment agency of electronic monitoring or an automated employment decision tool to screen a candidate or employee for an employment decision unless such tool has been the subject of an impact assessment within the last year; requires notice to employment…
New York's A 3779-A (the "boundaries on technology act") would add Labor Law Article 35-A: employers with 100 or more employees could not use an automated employment decision tool without an impact assessment by an impartial party within the prior year and yearly after; all employers using such tools would owe notice, meaningful human oversight and data access rights. The Labor Commissioner could assess penalties under Labor Law § 218 and the Attorney General could sue. Would take effect on the 180th day after becoming law. On the Assembly floor calendar since May 29, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Relates to the use of automated decision tools by landlords for making housing decisions; sets conditions and rules for use of such tools.
New York's A 3125-A would add Real Property Law § 227-g making it unlawful for a landlord to use an automated housing decision making tool to screen applicants unless a disparate impact analysis by an independent auditor is done at least annually and a summary is posted on the landlord's website before use. Applicants would have to get notice at least 24 hours before use and may request an alternative process. The Attorney General could investigate and sue. Would take effect immediately. Ordered to third reading (calendar 103) in the Assembly January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Relating To Privacy.
Hawaii's SB 309 (Act 59 of 2021) adds sexual deep fakes to the felony of violation of privacy in the first degree (HRS § 711-1110.9). A person commits it by intentionally creating, disclosing or threatening to disclose an image or video of a composite fictitious person shown nude or engaged in sexual conduct that includes a known person's recognizable physical characteristics, so it appears to depict that person, with intent to substantially harm them or as revenge or retribution. The public-nudity and commercial-transaction exemptions do not apply to it. It is a class C felony. Became Act 59 June 23, 2021; effective on approval.
Criminalize disclosure of certain explicit AI-generated media
Montana's SB 413 (Chapter 606, 2025) creates the crime of disclosing explicit synthetic media (sexual deepfakes): knowingly or purposely disclosing it when the person knows or should know the identifiable person shown did not consent and would suffer substantial emotional distress; disclosing it to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass or injure that person; or threatening disclosure to obtain money or other valuable consideration. Penalties: up to $1,000 and 1 year in jail; repeat convictions up to $10,000 and 5 years; up to $10,000 and 10 years if the person shown is under 18. Signed and effective May 13, 2025.
Limits the use of automatic data systems in connection with employment; requires an employer shall provide a written notice that an automatic data system is being used; provides remedies.
New York's A 10251 would add Labor Law Article 38, “Automated Decision Systems” (§§ 1075-1081). Employers would have to give workers written notice at least 30 days before first deploying an automated decision system for employment-related decisions (other than hiring), could not rely solely on one for discipline, termination or deactivation, and would owe a post-use notice. A civil penalty of $500 per violation would apply. Referred to Labor February 12, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Enacts the "food delivery worker safety and fair algorithms act" to prohibit food delivery platforms from utilizing or deploying any algorithmic management system that requires or incentivizes delivery workers to complete deliveries within a fixed or rigid time window that cannot reasonably be met…
New York's A 10118, the “food delivery worker safety and fair algorithms act,” would add Labor Law Article 21-D (§§ 796 to 796-e) barring food delivery platforms from using an algorithmic management system that requires or incentivizes deliveries within a “fixed or rigid time window that cannot reasonably be met” or that penalizes missed delivery estimates without accounting for traffic, weather or restaurant delays. Platforms would have to give workers written notice of the factors used. Referred to Labor February 2, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 55, Chapter 30 and Title 55, Chapter 8, relative to autonomous vehicles.
Tennessee's HB 2302 was enacted as its Senate companion, SB 2253 (Public Chapter 726), which the House substituted for it on March 23, 2026. The law amends Tenn. Code § 55-8-202 so a state or local law enforcement agency may adopt a policy for enforcing traffic offenses committed by an automated driving system (ADS). Under such a policy, when a POST-certified or state-commissioned officer finds an ADS committed an offense, the notice or citation goes by first-class mail to the vehicle's registered owner within 20 business days, allows 30 days to pay, and no added costs may be charged without a second notice. Signed April 13, 2026 (Public Chapter 726); effective on signing.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 2-7-112 and Title 55, Chapter 50, relative to licenses.
Tennessee's HB 1316 (Public Chapter 297) renames the electronic driver license system the digital driver license system and limits its data use. A vendor providing the license app may not capture or retain biometric identifiers (retina or iris scans, fingerprints, voiceprints, hand or face geometry) except a photograph used solely to compare with the license photo on file, and neither the vendor nor the Department of Safety may collect geolocation data. Data from using a digital license may be kept no more than three days and not sold. Digital licenses cannot be used as voter ID. Signed April 24, 2025 (Public Chapter 297); effective on signing.
STATE AGENCIES-AI SYSTEMS
Illinois's HB 4836 (103rd General Assembly) would have added Section 5-735 to the Civil Administrative Code so that State agency and State-funded AI systems must follow the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. Agencies and entities deploying State-funded AI would have to submit NIST-based algorithmic impact assessments to the General Assembly, the Auditor General and the Department of Innovation and Technology. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).
PUBLICITY ACT-USE OF AI
Illinois' Public Act 103-0836 (HB 4875) amends the Right of Publicity Act. A person may not knowingly distribute, transmit or make available to the general public a sound recording or audiovisual work with actual knowledge that it contains an unauthorized digital replica: an imitation of a real person's voice, image or likeness made with AI or other technology and used without consent. Facilitators with actual knowledge may also be liable, subject to a notice-and-takedown safe harbor for hosts and cloud providers. Artists' exclusive labels and exclusive distribution licensees may also enforce. News, commentary and parody uses are exempt. Approved August 9, 2024; effective January 1, 2025.
AI USE IN GOVT CONTRACTS
Illinois's HB 5099 (103rd General Assembly) would have added Section 50-41 to the Illinois Procurement Code. A vendor contracting for government services, grants, or leases or purchases of software or hardware would have to disclose whether AI technology is, has been, or will be used in fulfilling the contract or in the goods or services purchased. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).
Enacts the preventing algorithmic pricing discrimination act; requires the disclosure of algorithmically set prices.
New York's A 6765-A (the "Preventing Algorithmic Pricing Discrimination Act") would add General Business Law § 349-a, requiring anyone who knowingly advertises personalized algorithmic pricing based on an individual's consumer data to state "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA", and § 396 would bar using protected class data in setting prices. Attorney General penalties up to $1,000 per violation. Would take effect on the 60th day after it becomes law. On the Assembly floor calendar (Cal. 173, January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Campaign finance: other; artificial intelligence; define. Amends sec. 2 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.202). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5141'23
Michigan's HB 5143 (Public Act 264 of 2023) adds a definition of 'artificial intelligence' to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (MCL 169.202): a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations or decisions influencing real or virtual environments, using machine and human-based inputs to perceive environments, abstract them into models through automated analysis, and use model inference to formulate options. It is tie-barred to HB 5141 (Public Act 263), the AI political-ad disclosure law. Approved November 30, 2023; effective February 13, 2024.
Election communications; deepfakes; prohibition
Arizona's SB 1359 adds A.R.S. § 16-1023. Within 90 days before an election in which a candidate is on the ballot, a creator may not create and distribute synthetic media that the person knows is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of that candidate unless it includes a clear and conspicuous disclosure conveying to a reasonable person that the media includes content generated by artificial intelligence. A person who fails to disclose is liable for the civil penalty in § 16-937(B) for each day the deepfake is distributed. Satire, parody and interactive computer services are exempt. Signed May 29, 2024 (Chapter 199).
An Act to Regulate the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Providing Certain Mental Health Services
Maine's LD 2082 (Public Law chapter 687) bars any person from providing, advertising or offering therapy or psychotherapy services to the public, including through Internet-based AI, unless a licensed professional provides them; violations fall under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. Licensed therapists may use AI for administrative or supplementary support (such as therapy notes) only if they keep full responsibility; supplementary use requires a recorded or transcribed session, written notice and client consent, and AI may not make independent therapeutic decisions or interact with clients therapeutically. Signed April 13, 2026.
Imposes liability for misleading, incorrect, contradictory or harmful information to a user by a chatbot that results in financial loss or other demonstrable harm.
New York's A 222-A would add General Business Law § 390-f on chatbot liability. A proprietor whose chatbot acts in place of a human representative could not disclaim liability for materially misleading, incorrect, contradictory or harmful information that causes a covered user financial loss or other demonstrable harm (no liability if cured within thirty days of notice), and would have to tell users they are talking to an AI chatbot. Further duties would apply to companion chatbots (self-harm and minors). Reference changed to Science and Technology March 5, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
TRAIN Act Transparency and Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Networks Act
The federal H.R. 7209 (TRAIN Act, Transparency and Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Networks Act) would let copyright owners ask a federal court clerk for a subpoena requiring a generative AI model developer to disclose copies of, or records identifying, the owner's works used in training. The developer shall expeditiously disclose, and failure to comply creates a rebuttable presumption that it copied the work. Introduced January 22, 2026 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee; no further action.
Relation to the regulation of the use of artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology in criminal investigations
New York's A 7172-B would add subdivision 25 to Executive Law § 837, requiring the division of criminal justice services to promulgate a written protocol for law enforcement agencies using AI and facial recognition technology in criminal investigations. The protocol would cover transparency measures (records of AI outputs, subject to audit), regular independent audits of facial recognition systems with public results, and officer training. Would take effect on the 90th day after it becomes law. On the Assembly floor calendar (Cal. 396, June 3, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Real estate: digitally altered images: disclosure.
California's AB 723 (Bus. & Prof. Code § 10140.8) requires real estate brokers and salespersons, and people acting for them, who use a digitally altered image in advertising or promotional material for selling real property to include a reasonably conspicuous statement on or next to the image that it was altered, with a link, URL or QR code to the original. Postings on websites they control must include the unaltered images or a link to them. Altered means edited with photo software or AI to add, remove or change elements; routine lighting, color, cropping and similar adjustments are excluded. Signed October 10, 2025 (Chapter 497); effective January 1, 2026.
False advertising: synthetic performers.
California's SB 1050 (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17610) makes it unlawful to create and cause to be published an ad that prominently includes a synthetic performer without a clear and conspicuous disclosure, worded like "this performance features a synthetic performer" or "no human performer is depicted." A synthetic performer is a generative-AI figure or voice that realistically appears to be a human performer but is not any identifiable person. Ads for expressive works and translation or accessibility uses are exempt. Ad outlets served with a court order must pull a violating ad. Signed September 16, 2026 (Chapter 246); effective January 1, 2027.
relative to the regulation of artificial intelligence technologies.
New Hampshire's HB 1725 (2026) would have created RSA chapter 359-V, "Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance": a 7-member AI council, AI interaction disclosures, bans on AI developed with intent to unlawfully discriminate or for social scoring, limits on government biometric identification, a regulatory sandbox, and attorney general enforcement with civil penalties. The House voted it Inexpedient to Legislate on February 19, 2026, and it died.
Urges generative artificial intelligence companies to make voluntary commitments regarding employee whistleblower protections.
New Jersey Assembly Resolution 158 urges generative AI companies to commit to principles that protect employees who raise risk-related concerns: no non-disparagement agreements over such concerns or retaliation through vested economic benefits, a verifiably anonymous process to reach the board, regulators and an independent organization, no retaliation for public disclosure after other processes fail, and legal and technical safe harbor for good-faith safety evaluation. The Assembly adopted it 74-0 on January 30, 2025. It is a resolution of one chamber that does not change the law.
BIPA-SECURITY PURPOSES
Illinois's HB 5635 (103rd General Assembly) would have amended the Biometric Information Privacy Act to waive certain requirements for collecting biometric identifiers or information in circumstances relating to security purposes, exclude information captured by a biometric time clock or lock that converts it to a mathematical representation, and add a one-year filing period and a 30-day cure notice. Died at Session Sine Die on January 7, 2025.
Provides for notice requirements where an insurer authorized to write accident and health insurance in this state, a corporation organized pursuant to article forty-three of this chapter, or a health maintenance organization certified pursuant to article forty-four of the public health law uses…
New York's A 1456 would add Insurance Law § 338 requiring accident and health insurers, Article 43 corporations and Article 44 HMOs to tell insureds on their public websites about their use or lack of use of AI-based algorithms in utilization review, to submit those algorithms and training data to the Department for certification that bias risk is minimized, and to have clinical peer reviewers document review of individual records before an adverse determination. Fines would be up to $5,000 per violation or $10,000 per willful violation. Referred to Insurance January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Relating to the crime of corrupt political advertising; regulating the use; of generative artificial intelligence; requiring disclosure that an image or speech has been manipulated ; making it a crime to create false representations of candidates in campaign media or of state officials; providing…
Not law. Kansas HB 2559, as amended by the House Elections Committee, would have barred using synthetic media (realistic but false media intentionally manipulated with generative AI) to alter a candidate's appearance, action or speech in election campaign communications and a state official's in any communication. Violations would have been class C misdemeanors, with an affirmative defense if the communication states 'This (image/video/audio) has been manipulated.' Liability for disclosures would have rested solely with the advertiser, not broadcasters or media platforms. The committee recommended it as amended February 12, 2024; it was stricken from the House calendar February 23, 2024.
Regulates the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of therapy or psychotherapy services by prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence to assist in providing supplementary support where the session is recorded or transcribed unless the patient is informed of the specific purpose of…
New York's A 9106, the "oversight of technology in mental health care act," would add Education Law § 6517. Only a licensed professional could provide or offer therapy to the public in New York, including through internet-based AI. Professionals could use AI only for administrative or supplementary support (with written notice and consent where sessions are recorded or transcribed), not for independent therapeutic decisions, direct therapeutic communication, unreviewed treatment plans or emotion detection. Civil penalty up to $50,000 per violation. Would take effect immediately. Referred to Higher Education September 26, 2025 (and January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Relates to the development and use of certain artificial intelligence systems
New York's A 8884-A, the "New York AI act," would add Civil Rights Law §§ 105 to 115. Developers and deployers of high-risk AI used in consequential decisions (e.g. jobs, education, housing, health care, finance) would have to take reasonable care to prevent algorithmic discrimination, give notice and appeal with human review, get audits, report to the Department of Financial Services and keep risk programs; social scoring would be banned. AG civil penalties: up to $25,000 (developers) or $10,000 (deployers) per violation. Would take effect one year after becoming law (audits, two years). Amended June 1, 2026 and recommitted to Science and Technology; not passed by either chamber.
Relates to the use of artificial intelligence by insurers and clinical peer reviewers for utilization review; establishes additional notice requirements for adverse determinations.
New York's A 11048 would add Insurance Law § 338 on AI-based algorithms in utilization review. Insurers would have to notify insureds, enrollees and providers of AI use, submit their algorithms and training data to the Superintendent with a certification, and could not use AI as the sole basis to deny, delay or modify care. Fines of up to $5,000 per violation ($10,000 if willful) would apply. Introduced April 24, 2026 and referred to the Insurance Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
SCH CD-ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Illinois's SB 1556 (104th General Assembly) would amend the School Code to require the State Board of Education to establish a State Instructional Technology Advisory Board to provide guidance, integration, oversight and evaluation of education technologies, including AI. The State Board and Advisory Board would develop standards for safety, transparency, data privacy and educational quality for AI in schools. Effective immediately. Re-referred to Assignments April 11, 2025.
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.
Enacts the "New York artificial intelligence transparency for journalism act"; requires developers of generative artificial intelligence systems or services to post certain information on the developer's website regarding video, audio, text and data from a covered publication used to train the…
New York's S 8331-A, the New York artificial intelligence transparency for journalism act, would add General Business Law Article 21-A (§§ 338 to 338-D). On or before January 1, 2027, and before each later release or substantial modification, AI developers would have to post the URLs, provenance, any removal of source identifiers or copyright notices, and collection timeframe for training data taken from a covered publication, and disclose their crawlers. A journalism provider could sue for injunctive relief and statutory damages up to $10,000 per violation. Referred to committee January 7, 2026.
Requires certification of filings produced using generative artificial intelligence; requires the brief of an appellant to contain a disclosure of the use of generative artificial intelligence in the drafting of the brief and certification that the content therein was reviewed and verified by a…
New York's S 2698 would add CPLR rule 2107 requiring any paper served that was drafted with the assistance of generative AI to attach a separate affidavit disclosing the use and certifying that a human reviewed the source material and verified the content. It would also amend CPLR rule 5528 to require a disclosure and human-review certification in appellant briefs. Committed to Rules June 13, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Requires covered employers to provide notice to certain affected employees prior to any technological displacement; requires reporting; requires a workforce transition period; makes related provisions.
New York's S 8589-C, the Automation Displacement Protection Act, would add Labor Law Article 25-D. Employers with 50 or more full-time employees in the state would have to give at least 90 days' written notice before a technological displacement affecting 25 employees or 25% of the workforce, whichever is less, and give affected employees a 90-day transition period. Penalties include up to $10,000 per day for willful violations. Amended May 14, 2026 (print number 8589c) and in the Labor Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
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.
Restricts the use by an employer or an employment agency of electronic monitoring or an automated employment decision tool to screen a candidate or employee for an employment decision unless such tool has been the subject of an impact assessment within the last year; requires notice to employment…
New York's S 185-A would add Labor Law Article 37 (sections 1050 to 1057) limiting employer electronic monitoring and automated employment decision tools (AEDTs). Employers could not use an AEDT for an employment decision without an independent impact assessment within the prior year, repeated annually, or without 10 business days' notice; they may not rely primarily on tool output and must stop use if disparate impact is found. Monitoring must be strictly necessary and noticed in advance. It adds an employee private action with liquidated damages. Amended April 17, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Relates to the use of automated decision tools by landlords for making housing decisions; sets conditions and rules for use of such tools.
New York's S 6471-A would add Real Property Law § 227-g making it unlawful for a landlord to use an automated housing decision making tool to screen applicants unless an independent disparate impact analysis is done at least annually. A summary of the latest analysis must be posted on the landlord's website and on listings, and applicants must get notice at least 24 hours before use. The Attorney General could sue to compel compliance. Referred to Investigations and Government Operations January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Enacts the "food delivery worker safety and fair algorithms act" to prohibit food delivery platforms from utilizing or deploying any algorithmic management system that requires or incentivizes delivery workers to complete deliveries within a fixed or rigid time window that cannot reasonably be met…
New York's S 9089, the food delivery worker safety and fair algorithms act, would add Labor Law Article 21-D (sections 796 to 796-E). Food delivery platforms could not use an algorithmic management system that requires or incentivizes deliveries within a fixed or rigid time window that cannot reasonably be met, could not penalize workers for missing estimates that ignore traffic, weather or restaurant delays, and could not incentivize speeding or unsafe operation. Platforms must give workers written notice of the factors the algorithm considers. Referred to Labor January 30, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
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.
Imposes liability for misleading, incorrect, contradictory or harmful information to a user by a chatbot that results in financial loss or other demonstrable harm.
New York's S 5668 would add General Business Law § 390-f on chatbot liability. A proprietor whose chatbot acts in place of a human representative could not disclaim liability for materially misleading, incorrect, contradictory or harmful information causing financial loss or other demonstrable harm (no liability if cured within 30 days of notice), and would have to give clear notice that the user is talking to an AI chatbot. Companion chatbots face self-harm and minor safeguards. Committee vote March 12, 2025; committed to rules June 13, 2025; referred back January 7, 2026.
Prohibits the use of biometric surveillance system or biometric surveillance information in places of public accommodation; prohibits entering into any agreement that authorizes any third party to use any biometric surveillance system or biometric surveillance information; provides penalties for…
New York's S 8004 would add Civil Rights Law § 40-h making it unlawful for an owner, franchisor, franchisee or other operator of a place or provider of public accommodation to use any biometric surveillance system or its information, or let a third party do so on its behalf. Collecting biometric information would require written notice, a stated purpose and term, and a written release. Violators and those who aid or incite them would owe the aggrieved person at least the greater of $1,000 or actual damages per violation, plus attorneys' fees. Referred to Investigations and Government Operations January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Relates to requiring disclosure of use of generative artificial intelligence in a civil action
New York's S 9794 would add Civil Practice Law and Rules rule 2107 and amend rule 5528. A paper or file served that was drafted with generative AI assistance would need a separate affidavit disclosing the AI use and certifying that a human reviewed the source material and verified the AI-generated content's accuracy. An appellant's brief would carry the same disclosure and certification where rule 2107 requires it. Committed to Rules June 5, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits transcripts being made from video conference meetings by artificial intelligence without conspicuous disclosure during such meeting that such meeting may be transcribed by artificial intelligence.
New York's S 8459 would add Civil Rights Law section 50-h ("Right to Privacy; Transcription"). No person could permit a video conference meeting to be transcribed by artificial intelligence unless the meeting includes a conspicuous disclosure during the meeting that every attendee may have their words transcribed by AI. The text defines no terms and sets no penalty, enforcer or private right of action. Referred to Rules July 16, 2025 and to Internet and Technology January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Regulates the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of therapy or psychotherapy services by prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence to assist in providing supplementary support where the session is recorded or transcribed unless the patient is informed of the specific purpose of…
New York's S 8484 would add Education Law § 6517 on AI in therapy and psychotherapy. A licensed professional could use AI only for supplementary support in recorded or transcribed sessions after written notice and the patient's consent, and could not let AI make independent therapeutic decisions or interact directly in therapeutic communication. Civil penalties up to $50,000 per violation. Committed to Rules June 5, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
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.
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.
"New Jersey Disclosure and Accountability Transparency Act (NJ DaTA)"; establishes certain requirements for disclosure and processing of personally identifiable information; establishes Office of Data Protection and Responsible Use in Division of Consumer Affairs.
New Jersey's A1360 would create the New Jersey Disclosure and Accountability Transparency Act (NJ DaTA). Controllers could process personally identifiable information only on a listed basis, such as the consumer's affirmative opt-in consent, and consumers would get disclosure, correction, erasure, objection and automated-decision rights. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act, and an Office of Data Protection and Responsible Use would be created in the Division of Consumer Affairs. Pre-filed for introduction in the 2026 session.
Prohibits and imposes criminal penalty on disclosure of certain intentionally deceptive audio or visual media within 90 days of election.
New Jersey's A3585 would make it a fourth-degree crime to knowingly or recklessly disclose, or to solicit, intentionally deceptive audio or visual media (deepfakes) within 90 days of an election with intent to deceive a voter with false information; a repeat offense would be third-degree. Voters and depicted candidates could sue, and media carrying a prescribed disclaimer would be excepted.
A bill for an act relating to automated decision systems used by employers.
Iowa's SF 2414 would create Code chapter 91F requiring employers to give employees advance written notice of automated decision systems used for employment decisions, bar sole reliance on them for discipline, termination or deactivation, and give employees access to their data. The Department of Inspections, Appeals, and Licensing could enforce with a $500 civil penalty. Referred to Senate Workforce February 19, 2026; subcommittee named February 23, 2026.
Mississippi Medical Judgement Protection Act; create.
Mississippi's HB 1717 (2026), the Mississippi Medical Judgment Protection Act, would require a provider or facility whose clinical AI materially contributes to a diagnosis, treatment plan, order or clinical note to disclose that in the medical record and have a licensed clinician accept or reject it. It would bar payers from issuing automated denials or delays of coverage or payment, and require adverse determinations to be reviewed and signed by a physician. It died in committee on February 3, 2026.
Requires covered businesses to annually report to the department of labor regarding the impact of artificial intelligence on hiring and the nature of artificial intelligence use
New York's A 9581-B passed both houses in June 2026 but has not been delivered to the Governor, so it is not law. If enacted, each covered business (one doing business in New York that employs more than 50 people or is publicly traded) would have to report to the Department of Labor by March 1 each year on AI's impact on its hiring in the prior calendar year (estimated employees displaced or with hours cut, hired or with hours added, and previously filled positions left unfilled, due in full or in part to AI) and on its AI use. Failing to report: up to $500 a day, waived or reduced if the commissioner is satisfied it was cured within 90 days of notice. It would take effect immediately.
Requires disclosure of use of generative artificial intelligence to clients, criminal defendants, and the court.
New York's A 9097 would add CPLR Rule 2107 and Criminal Procedure Law § 10.50 on generative AI in legal drafting. No paper or file could be drafted using generative AI without the informed consent of the client (or defendant) after a warning of its dangers. A GenAI-assisted filing would need a separate affidavit disclosing the use and certifying human review, including case citations; other filings would need an affidavit saying none was used. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after it becomes law. Referred to Judiciary September 12, 2025 (and January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
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.
Concerning regulation of artificial intelligence companion chatbots.
Washington's AI companion chatbot law (Chapter 168, Laws of 2026, effective January 1, 2027). Operators must clearly disclose that the companion is AI and not human at the start of an interaction and at least every three hours, and stop it from claiming to be human. For known minors or minor-directed bots the notice is hourly, sexually explicit content is blocked and manipulative engagement (romantic bonding, guilt when leaving, isolation, secrecy, pay-to-stay) is prohibited. Every operator needs a published suicide and self-harm protocol with crisis referrals and yearly referral counts. Violations are unfair or deceptive acts under the Consumer Protection Act.
Establishes age verification measures for companion chatbots
Not law. The committee version of HB 2032, the GUARD Act, would have made it unlawful in Missouri to design or offer a companion chatbot knowing or recklessly disregarding that it risks soliciting minors into sexually explicit conduct, or that it encourages suicide, self-injury or violence (fines up to $100,000 per offense). Operators would have had to require accounts, verify every user's age, freeze existing accounts until verified and bar minors from companion chatbots, with AI disclosures and Attorney General enforcement. A House committee voted 9-3 for it (reported April 2, 2026), but it never got a floor vote before the May 15, 2026 deadline for passing bills.
Advanced Technology
Laid on the table; parts became law through its companion. Florida's CS/CS/CS/HB 1459 (2024) would have created the Government Technology Modernization Council, required safety and transparency disclosures for commercial AI-generated chatbot, image, audio and video output (s. 501.174), and made generated child pornography a third-degree felony. Companion CS/CS/SB 1680 (Chapter 2024-118, approved April 26, 2024, effective July 1, 2024) enacted the council and the generated child pornography crimes, but not the AI transparency and disclosure rules.
Providing consumer protections for artificial intelligence systems.
Washington's SB 6284 (1st substitute, 2026 session) would have required developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used to make, or be a substantial factor in, consequential decisions on employment, housing, insurance, health care, education, lending, legal services and similar matters to guard against algorithmic discrimination. Deployer duties would start July 1, 2027, consumer notice July 1, 2026, and only the Attorney General could enforce. It cleared Senate Environment, Energy & Technology on February 3, 2026, was heard in Ways & Means on February 6, and died at adjournment on March 12.
Platform Accountability and Transparency Act
The federal Platform Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 3292) would require large social media platforms to give vetted outside researchers access to data and to publish transparency reports, including on their recommender and ranking algorithms. Introduced by Senators Coons and Cassidy, it was read twice and referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on December 1, 2025; it has not passed either house.
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.
An act relating to artificial intelligence and elections
Vermont's H.846 (2026) is a short-form bill that, per its statement of purpose, would have addressed artificial intelligence and elections. High-traffic online platforms would have had to block materially deceptive election content and label inauthentic or synthetic content around elections. Distributing an election communication with materially deceptive content 'with malice' within 120 days before a Vermont election would have been barred, and political advertisements generated or substantially altered with AI would have needed a disclosure. Referred to committee January 30, 2026; died with the biennium.
AN ACT relating to privacy protection.
Kentucky's HB 21 (2025 session) would have created a civil cause of action and a felony for disseminating a 'deep fake': realistic media appearing to show a person saying or doing something they did not, lacking adequate labeling and produced substantially by technical means. A natural person who willfully and knowingly disseminated one without the depicted person's express written consent would have been liable for damages, and certain disclosures with intent to harm would have been a Class D felony. Referred to committee February 4, 2025; died when the session ended.
Requires certification of filings produced using generative artificial intelligence; requires the brief of an appellant to contain a disclosure of the use of generative artificial intelligence in the drafting of the brief and certification that the content therein was reviewed and verified by a…
New York's A 8546 would add CPLR Rule 2107, requiring any paper or file served that was drafted with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence to attach a separate affidavit disclosing that use and certifying that a human being has reviewed the source material and verified the content is accurate. CPLR 5528(a) would require the same disclosure in an appellant's brief. Would take effect on the 90th day after it becomes law. Introduced May 20, 2025 and referred to the Judiciary Committee (again January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Requires disclosure of social media posts that are paid for by a campaign; authorizes the state board of elections to promulgate certain regulations.
New York's A 3929-B would amend Election Law § 14-106 so campaign-paid social media posts would have to carry the "Paid for by" disclosure and are not exempt as small digital media, and would require anyone who distributes political communications containing materially deceptive media (content created or altered with software, machine learning, AI or other technological means), with actual knowledge, to disclose the manipulation. A candidate depicted without consent could seek an injunction, costs and fees. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after becoming law. Reported to Rules June 5, 2025, referred to Codes January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Mississippi Consumer Privacy Protection Act; create.
Mississippi's HB 1051 (2026) would have created the Mississippi Consumer Privacy Protection Act for businesses with over $25 million in revenue that handle personal information of 175,000+ consumers (or 25,000+ with over half of revenue from selling data). Consumers could opt out of profiling used for decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. It was referred to House Judiciary A on January 16, 2026 and died in committee on February 3, 2026.
Elections: deceptive media in advertisements.
California's AB 2839 (Elections Code 20012) bars knowingly distributing, with malice, an ad or election communication with materially deceptive content about candidates, elected or elections officials, or election equipment, from 120 days before an election (through 60 days after for elections officials and equipment). Signed September 17, 2024 (Chapter 262) as an urgency statute. In Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal.), the court preliminarily enjoined enforcement on October 2, 2024 (except the audio-only disclosure part) and on August 29, 2025 held it unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the Attorney General and Secretary of State from enforcing it against the named plaintiffs.
Requiring a disclosure of deceptive artificial intelligence usage in political advertising.
New Hampshire's HB 1596 adds RSA 664:14-c. Within 90 days of an election, no person or entity may distribute a message created with AI or generative AI that it knows or should have known is a deepfake of a candidate, election official or party on the ballot, unless the media carries the required AI disclosure. Candidates and election officials may seek an injunction or damages. Signed August 2, 2024 (Chapter 345); effective August 1, 2024.
Ai in education
South Carolina's H 5253 would add Section 59-28-195 limiting AI in public schools. Schools would need written opt-in parental consent before requiring or permitting student AI use, AI could not replace a licensed teacher in core instruction or final grading, and student data could not be sold or used for profiling. Introduced February 24, 2026 and referred to the House Education and Public Works Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
Generative artificial intelligence: training data: copyrighted materials.
California's AB 412 (2025-26 Regular Session) would add Civil Code Title 15.3 requiring a developer of a generative AI model to provide a website mechanism for rights owners to request information on use of their covered materials. Within 30 days of a request, subject to exceptions, the developer would assess whether the materials were used and give the owner a list. Passed the Assembly 45-16; held under submission in Senate Appropriations August 13, 2026; not passed.
Enhancing disclosure requirements for synthetic media in political advertising
Massachusetts H846 would require paid audio or video political communications that contain synthetic media (content substantially produced by generative AI) to carry AI disclosure labels at the beginning and end and throughout the synthetic portions, with fines up to $1,000. On February 11, 2026 new draft H5094 was substituted; H5094 passed the House 157-0 that day and was referred to Senate Ways and Means February 12, 2026.
Prohibits the use of surveillance pricing
New York's A 9349-B would amend General Business Law section 349-a to prohibit surveillance pricing, meaning prices set in whole or part by an algorithm using personal data to offer different prices to different customers for the same goods or services. It would replace the current disclosure requirement with a ban, and bar using personal data to enable it. The Assembly passed it June 4, 2026; the Senate substituted it for S 8623-B and passed it June 4, 2026; as of October 8, 2026 the records show no delivery to or action by the Governor.
Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025
The federal S 232 (Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025) would make it unlawful to use or distribute a pricing algorithm that uses or was trained with nonpublic competitor data, with federal civil penalties. It would also require audit reports on request and disclosures of algorithmic pricing by companies with $5 million or more in revenue. Read twice and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee January 23, 2025; it has not passed either house.
A bill for an act relating to artificial intelligence, including the use of artificial intelligence to create materials related to elections and protections in interactions with artificial intelligence systems, and making penalties applicable.
Iowa's HSB 294 would require a disclosure on AI-generated election material that advocates for or against a candidate or ballot issue, and would create Code chapter 554I requiring developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with attorney general enforcement. The House committee voted 18-3 for passage on March 6, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Promoting economic development with emerging artificial intelligence models and safety
Massachusetts S2630 would create an AI Innovation Trust Fund and the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (G.L. Chapter 93M). Large frontier developers (over $500,000,000 revenue, models trained with over 10^26 operations) would have to publish safety frameworks, and critical safety incidents would be reported to the Attorney General within 15 days. Reported favorably and referred to Senate Ways and Means October 16, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
An Act Concerning Artificial Intelligence.
Connecticut's SB 2, as passed by the Senate (File 603 as amended by Senate Amendments A and B, as described in the OLR bill analysis), would require anyone doing business in the state to tell consumers when they interact with an AI system, and deployers of high-risk AI systems used in consequential decisions to give notices, explain adverse decisions and allow correction and appeal, beginning October 1, 2026, with attorney general enforcement. It would also create AI studies, an AI Academy and a synthetic intimate image crime. Passed the Senate May 14, 2025; tabled on the House calendar May 16, 2025; it did not pass the House.
AN ACT relating to violations of privacy.
Kentucky's SB 180 would make it unlawful, without a court-approved warrant, for state and local agencies to obtain or use facial recognition technology or information derived from it, and would set consent, retention and disclosure rules for private entities holding biometric identifiers. Violations could be enforced by private suits or the Attorney General, and facial-recognition evidence would be inadmissible in Kentucky proceedings. Introduced February 6, 2024; sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee February 8, 2024. It died when the 2024 session ended.
Algorithmic pricing of essential consumer goods, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty.
Wisconsin's AB 1190 would restrict grocery retailers' use of personalized algorithmic pricing on essential consumer goods: required disclosure on each such price, no electronic display of those prices in grocery stores of 15,000+ square feet, no pricing that varies by protected traits, and no buying consumer data from data brokers for pricing. Introduced March 19, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Committee on Consumer Protection; failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 23, 2026, so it did not pass.
Virginia Fair Housing Law, et al.; personalized algorithmic pricing disclosures, prohibitions.
Virginia's SB 585 as introduced would require disclosure of personalized algorithmic pricing by residential property owners, landlords and multiple listing services, ban using protected class data to set housing prices, and bar landlords from using coordinating algorithmic software to set rents or facilitate agreements not to compete. Prefiled January 14, 2026; the Senate General Laws and Technology Committee passed it by indefinitely (15-0) February 4, 2026, so it did not pass.
Enacts the "artificial intelligence workforce impact transparency act"; requires that each notice include a statement as to whether the employment losses described are the result, in whole or in part, of the introduction, expansion, or adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, automation…
New York's S 8928, the "artificial intelligence workforce impact transparency act," would amend Labor Law section 860-b (the state WARN act) so each mass layoff, relocation or employment-loss notice must say whether the job losses result, in whole or in part, from AI, automation or machine-based processes, with the estimated percentage of positions affected and a brief description of the technology, to the extent known. Introduced January 16, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee; it has not passed either house.
Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act of 2025
The federal H.R. 4640, the Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act of 2025, would bar a person from surveillance-based price setting (using an automated decision system to set a customized price from surveillance data) and from surveillance-based wage setting, with limited exceptions, and would require data-accuracy, correction and disclosure procedures to be published 180 days before relying on a price exception or using a wage-setting system. The FTC, state attorneys general and, for wages, the EEOC could enforce it; private suits would seek the greater of actual damages or $3,000 per violation. Introduced July 23, 2025; it remains in committee and has not passed either chamber.
Consumer data protection and providing a penalty. (FE)
Wisconsin's SB 166 (as introduced March 27, 2025) would create a consumer data protection law (s. 100.80) for controllers handling the personal data of 100,000+ consumers, or 25,000+ consumers while deriving over 50 percent of revenue from selling data. Consumers could access, correct, delete and obtain their data and opt out of targeted advertising, sale and certain forms of automated processing. Controllers would owe privacy notices and data protection assessments, including for profiling. Violators would face forfeitures up to $10,000 per violation. It failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 23, 2026 and did not become law.
A bill for an act relating to the use of synthetic media in campaign materials, and making penalties applicable.
Iowa's SSB 3039 (proposed by the Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board) would require published campaign material containing synthetic media (realistic but false manipulated images, audio or video) to prominently include the words "THIS CONTENT GENERATED USING SYNTHETIC MEDIA." Senate subcommittee recommended amendment and passage January 21, 2026. The House counterpart HF 2609 has passed the House.
A bill for an act relating to provider requirements concerning the mental health of users of an artificial intelligence chatbot, and providing civil penalties.
Iowa's SF 2415 would bar AI chatbot providers from offering or simulating professional mental health advice or claiming to be a licensed professional, require crisis-referral protocols and repeated AI disclosures, and make violations unfair practices enforced by the attorney general. Referred to Senate Technology February 19, 2026; subcommittee named February 24, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
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.
Regulates how certain large social media platforms utilize algorithms.
Rhode Island H 7954 (2026), the Digital Platform Transparency and Democratic Integrity Act as introduced on February 27, 2026, would require covered platforms (more than one million monthly active users nationally that let users create profiles and share content) to disclose the main factors behind content ranking and to label AI-made synthetic media that appears to depict real people, statements or events. Knowing violations carry civil penalties up to $10,000 each. The text says it takes effect upon passage.
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.
"New Jersey Disclosure and Accountability Transparency Act (NJ DaTA)"; establishes certain requirements for disclosure and processing of personally identifiable information; establishes Office of Data Protection and Responsible Use in Division of Consumer Affairs.
New Jersey's S2602 would create the New Jersey Disclosure and Accountability Transparency Act (NJ DaTA). Controllers could process personally identifiable information only on a listed basis, such as the consumer's affirmative opt-in consent, and consumers would get disclosure, correction, erasure, objection and automated-decision rights. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act, and an Office of Data Protection and Responsible Use would be created in the Division of Consumer Affairs. Pre-filed for introduction in the 2026 session.
Establishes "Fair Pricing and Transparency Act."
New Jersey's S3952, the Fair Pricing and Transparency Act, would bar retail food stores with 50 or fewer employees from surveillance-based price discrimination, dynamic pricing and personalized pricing of groceries, and require them to post sale prices clearly. Stores of 15,000 square feet or more could not use electronic shelf labels until four years after the effective date. Introduced March 16, 2026.
Relative to prohibiting the unlawful distribution of misleading synthetic media.
New Hampshire's HB 1500-FN would have made it a class A misdemeanor to purposely distribute synthetic media (media created or modified with artificial intelligence algorithms) of an identifiable person without consent and without a conspicuous synthetic-media notice, intending to mislead others. An election-related offense would have covered the 90 days before an election. Referred for interim study March 14, 2024; the October 31, 2024 report was Not Recommended for Future Legislation, so it is dead.
Prohibits use of biometric surveillance system by business entity under certain circumstances.
New Jersey's S1464 would make it an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act for a business to use a biometric surveillance system (facial or other remote biometric recognition) on consumers at its premises unless it gives clear and conspicuous notice and has a lawful purpose. Businesses could not sell or profit from the data collected.
Prohibits collection of biometric identifier information by public or private entity under certain circumstances.
New Jersey's A3926 would bar public and private entities from collecting, retaining, converting, storing or sharing biometric identifier information unless they post clear, plain-language notice at every common entryway about their use of a biometric surveillance system. Penalties would be $5,000 for a first violation and $10,000 for later ones, with criminal grading for a pattern of violations.
Prohibits deepfake pornography and imposes criminal and civil penalties for non-consensual disclosure.
New Jersey's S1159 would add 'deceptive audio or visual media' (deepfakes) to the State's invasion-of-privacy law, making it a third-degree crime, with a fine of up to $30,000, to disclose such intimate media of a person without consent, knowing one is not licensed or privileged to do so. It would add such media to the child sexual exploitation offenses and let the person depicted sue.
Requires artificial intelligence companion operators to provide notifications that users are not communicating with human.
New Jersey's A4732 would require operators of AI companions, meaning generative AI systems designed to simulate a sustained human or human-like relationship, to tell users they are not talking to a human. The notice must come at the start of each interaction and repeat at least every three hours. The penalty would be $15,000 per violation. This describes the bill as introduced March 10, 2026; later committee amendments, if any, are not reflected.
Artificial intelligence safety and disclosure requirements established, and civil remedies provided.
Minnesota's HF 4532, the Responsible Artificial Intelligence Safety and Education (RAISE) Act, would require developers (anyone who has trained at least one AI model) to adopt, publish and send to the attorney general a safety and security protocol before deploying a model, report safety incidents within 72 hours, and not deploy a model that creates an unreasonable risk of critical harm. Introduced and referred to Commerce Finance and Policy March 23, 2026; it died when the 2026 session adjourned.
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.
Prohibits creation or disclosure of deceptive audio or visual media, known as "deepfakes," under certain circumstances.
New Jersey's S3305 would make it a fourth-degree crime to create deceptive audio or visual media (deepfakes) without license or privilege for an unlawful purpose, and a third-degree crime to disclose such media without clearly identifying it as deceptive, with a fine up to $30,000. The depicted person could sue for at least $1,000 liquidated damages per violation. Introduced February 2, 2026.
Provides civil penalties for campaign advertisements containing "deepfake" misrepresentations of candidates.
New Jersey's A4163 would make a covered person liable for fraudulent misrepresentation of a candidate if they knowingly and intentionally disseminate a campaign advertisement containing a deepfake of that candidate, unless it carries a prescribed disclosure and embedded content provenance. A candidate could sue for punitive damages and daily civil penalties of up to $15,000, $50,000 or $250,000 by office. Introduced February 19, 2026.
Prohibits deepfake pornography and imposes criminal and civil penalties for non-consensual disclosure.
New Jersey's A1359 would add 'deceptive audio or visual media' (deepfakes) to the State's invasion-of-privacy law, making it a third-degree crime, with a fine of up to $30,000, to disclose such intimate media of a person without consent, knowing one is not licensed or privileged to do so. It would add such media to the child sexual exploitation offenses and let the person depicted sue.
Updates certain crimes to include nonconsensual pornographic deepfake threats and disclosure.
New Jersey's S3303 would amend the invasion of privacy and criminal coercion laws to cover deepfakes. Knowingly reproducing, without license or privilege, an actual or deepfake image of another person's exposed intimate parts or sexual activity without consent would be a third-degree crime; disclosing such a deepfake image knowingly or with reckless disregard of license would be fourth degree with a fine of up to $30,000; threatening to disclose one would count as criminal coercion. Introduced February 2, 2026.
Requires disclosure to be made when generative artificial intelligence is used to operate chatbots that provide election related information.
New Jersey's A4729 would require a chatbot that uses generative AI to provide election-related information or information on a candidate's accomplishments, positions or qualifications to give a clear, conspicuous disclosure, before the content, that it is AI-generated. The person overseeing the chatbot would be liable for up to $6,000 for a first offense and up to $12,000 for each later one. This describes the bill as introduced March 10, 2026; later committee amendments, if any, are not reflected.
Prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination and surge pricing for retail goods.
Washington's HB 2481, the fair pricing and transparency act (2026 session), would have barred non-small businesses selling grocery products from surveillance-based price discrimination (prices set from monitoring or automated analysis of a consumer's personal data) and from surge pricing based on real-time or predicted demand; 'algorithm' is defined to include AI. It would also have barred electronic shelf labels in stores of 15,000 square feet or more until January 1, 2030; violations would be Consumer Protection Act violations. It was heard in House Appropriations on February 5, 2026 and died at adjournment.
Regulates use of artificial intelligence-enabled video interview in hiring process.
New Jersey's S3263 would require an employer that asks applicants to take a video interview analyzed by AI to give notice, explain how the AI works and obtain written consent beforehand. Applicant videos could be shared only with necessary service providers and deleted within 30 days on request. Violations would carry civil penalties of $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for each later one. Introduced February 2, 2026.
Providing for artificial intelligence in facilities, for artificial intelligence use by insurers and for artificial intelligence use by MA or CHIP managed care plans; imposing duties on the Department of Health, the Insurance Department and the Department of Human Services; and imposing penalties.
Pennsylvania's SB 1113 (2025-26) would add rules for AI in health care facilities, AI use by insurers and AI use by MA or CHIP managed care plans, with duties for the departments of Health, Insurance and Human Services and penalties. The captured text covers the facilities chapter: patient disclosure, responsible-use rules and annual AI compliance statements filed with the Department of Health. It was referred to the Senate Institutional Sustainability & Innovation Committee on January 9, 2026.
Providing for the use of artificial intelligence in mental health therapy and for enforcement.
Pennsylvania's HB 1993 (2025-26), the Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health Therapy Act, would bar mental health professionals from using AI to support recorded or transcribed therapy sessions without written notice and patient consent, bar AI providers from representing that an AI system can provide therapy or is a therapist, and bar AI from making independent therapeutic decisions. It was referred to the House Professional Licensure Committee on October 24, 2025.
Providing for disclosures and safeguards relating to the use of artificial intelligence; and imposing duties on the Attorney General.
Pennsylvania's SB 1090 (2025-26), the Safeguarding Adolescents from Exploitative Chatbots and Harmful AI Technology Act (Printer's No. 1423), would require operators of AI companion platforms to disclose nonhuman status, maintain suicide and self-harm protocols, and apply safeguards for minors. The Attorney General could seek civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. It passed the Senate 49-1 on March 17, 2026 and was referred to the House Communications & Technology Committee on March 18.
Providing for safety regarding artificial intelligence in companionship applications; and imposing a penalty.
Pennsylvania's HB 2006 (2025-26), the AI Companion Safety Act (Printer's No. 3747), would bar an operator from providing an AI companion unless it implements and maintains protocols that refer users to crisis services and block content that assists or encourages suicide or violence, and would require nonhuman-status disclosures. The bill also imposes a penalty (the penalty text was not captured). It passed the House 133-70 on September 28, 2026.
Enacts the "Shirley Myers White Right To Reconciliation and Digital Identity Repair Act"; establishes a right for individuals to have outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete public and digital narratives corrected once a legal matter is resolved; requires institutions to provide mechanisms for context…
New York's A 10909, the "Shirley Myers White Right To Reconciliation and Digital Identity Repair Act," would add Executive Law § 296-e giving individuals a right to have outdated, inaccurate or incomplete narratives corrected after a legal matter is resolved. Among its domains, entities using automated tools for screening, ranking or decision-making would have to give notice when adverse decisions rely on automated narrative sources, allow correction, and ensure human review when narrative harm is alleged. Referred to the Governmental Operations Committee April 8, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Protecting consumers in interactions with artificial intelligence systems
Massachusetts's H 97 would add Chapter 93M requiring developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems (those making or substantially influencing decisions on education, employment, finance, government services, health care, housing, insurance or legal services) to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with documentation, risk programs, impact assessments and consumer notices, and requiring disclosure when consumers interact with AI. Reported favorably and referred to House Ways and Means December 24, 2025; it has not passed either house.
Enacts the "digital fairness act"; requires any entity that conducts business in New York and maintains the personal information of 500 or more individuals to provide meaningful notice about their use of personal information; establishes unlawful discriminatory practices relating to targeted…
New York's S 4276 (the digital fairness act) would require businesses holding personal information of 500 or more people to give short-form privacy notices, get opt-in consent, and bar discriminatory targeted advertising. It would also set rules for government automated decision systems: use policies, notice, human review and impact assessments. Referred to the Senate Internet and Technology Committee February 3, 2025, and again January 7, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Updates certain crimes to include nonconsensual pornographic deepfake threats and disclosure.
New Jersey's A4435 would amend the criminal invasion of privacy law to cover deepfake images. Recording an actual or deepfake image of a person's exposed intimate parts or sexual activity without consent would be a third-degree crime, and disclosing a nonconsensual deepfake based on another person's image, knowingly or with reckless disregard of lacking a license or privilege, would be a fourth-degree crime. Threatening to disclose such an image would count as criminal coercion. Introduced May 20, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Regulate the use of pricing algorithms
Ohio's SB 79 would bar using or distributing a pricing algorithm that uses or was trained with nonpublic competitor data, presume an unlawful agreement in certain cases, and require businesses with $5 million or more in gross receipts to disclose algorithmic pricing, with disclosure violations treated as unfair or deceptive acts. Introduced February 4, 2025; referred to the Senate Financial Institutions, Insurance and Technology Committee February 12, 2025; it has not passed.
Enacts the New York Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act establishing protections for individual rights with respect to computational algorithms; establishes protections against the use of algorithms involved in consequential decisions, such as those that impact people's rights, civil…
New York's A 9654 (the New York Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act) would bar developers and deployers from using covered algorithms in consequential actions (such as employment, housing, credit, health care, insurance, education, criminal justice and government services) in ways that discriminate or have a disparate impact on protected characteristics. It would require independent audits where harm is plausible. Referred to the Assembly Science and Technology Committee January 21, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Prohibits collection of biometric identifier information by public or private entity under certain circumstances.
New Jersey's S 1463 would bar public and private entities in the State from collecting, retaining, converting, storing or sharing biometric identifier information gathered through biometric surveillance systems (including facial, iris, retina, voice, fingerprint or palm recognition), but would let them collect it if they post clear notice at every common entryway. Violations would carry civil penalties of $5,000 and $10,000, and a pattern of violations would be a crime. Referred to the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee January 13, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Generative Artificial Intelligence - Training Data Transparency
Maryland's HB 823 (2025) would have required developers of generative AI systems released on or after January 1, 2022 for public use in Maryland to publish documentation on their website describing the training data, on or before January 1, 2026 and before each release or substantial modification (new State Finance and Procurement section 3.5-807). A House Economic Matters hearing was set for February 18, 2025; the bill went no further and died when the session ended.
Enacts the New York privacy act to require companies to disclose their methods of de-identifying personal information, to place special safeguards around data sharing and to allow consumers to obtain the names of all entities with whom their information is shared.
New York's S 3044 (the New York privacy act) would add a consumer data privacy article to the General Business Law. Covered businesses would have to give notice, honor opt-outs of targeted advertising, data sales and profiling used for decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, and run data protection assessments. Referred to Senate Internet and Technology Committee January 23, 2025; reported to Finance May 29, 2025; referred back to Internet and Technology January 7, 2026; it has not passed either house.
AI Model Safety
Illinois's SB 3444 (104th General Assembly) would create the Artificial Intelligence Safety Act. A frontier AI model developer would not be liable for critical harms it did not intentionally or recklessly cause, if it publishes a safety and security protocol and transparency report on its website. Re-referred to Senate Assignments on May 22, 2026.
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.
Workplace artificial intelligence tools.
California's AB 1898 (2025-26 Regular Session) would add Labor Code Part 5.9, Artificial Intelligence Transparency at Work. An employer would have to give a worker written notice that a workplace AI tool was used to assist in employment-related decisions or to surveil workers, and keep an updated list of such tools and their impact on jobs, provided to workers annually. Penalties could reach $500 per employee per violation. Held in Assembly Appropriations May 14, 2026; not passed.
OMA-AUTOMATED REQUEST
Illinois's HB 31 (104th General Assembly) would amend the Freedom of Information Act to define an "automated request" as one a public body reasonably believes was drafted with AI assistance or submitted without specific, affirmative human action. Public bodies would have to respond within 5 business days with notice, could charge for search and review costs, and the requester generally could not seek Public Access Counselor review. Re-referred to Rules March 21, 2025.
An Act Concerning Online Safety
Public Act 26-15 is Connecticut's main AI statute. AI companion operators must disclose that users are talking to AI, run suicide and self-harm protocols and protect minors (from Jan. 1, 2027). Developers and deployers of automated employment-related decision technology must give notices to workers and applicants, enforced by the Attorney General, and AI use is no defense to discrimination claims (Oct. 1, 2026). It also adds frontier-developer whistleblower protections, provenance duties for large generative AI providers, AI subscription disclosures, a statutory AI definition, the CT AI Academy, an AI working group and state-agency AI inventory and assessment rules.
An Act Concerning Consumer Privacy And Protection.
Connecticut's Public Act 26-64 (SB 4) targets data-driven pricing and surveillance. Businesses that use an automated price setting device fed by personal data (other than to set a discount) and advertise the price online must show "THIS PRICE WAS INCREASED BY A PRICE SETTING DEVICE USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA" or similar. Retailers and delivery apps may not use surveillance pricing. Data privacy act controllers using facial recognition on premises for security must match only against their own database and post entrance signs. It also requires data brokers to register, bans selling precise geolocation data, and adds genetic-testing consent rules. Signed May 27, 2026; effective October 1, 2026.
Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Act; established, prohibited practices, penalties.
Virginia's HB 635 (2026 Regular Session) would create the Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Act. As introduced, an operator could not offer a companion chatbot in Virginia unless it is incapable of certain specified actions, and would have to show non-human disclosures and have a suicide and self-harm protocol. Continued to 2027 on February 9, 2026.
ALGORITHMIC PRICING DISCLOSURE
Illinois's HB 4717 (104th General Assembly) would require an entity that sets prices with personalized algorithmic pricing (dynamic pricing set by an algorithm using personal data) and advertises or offers it using the consumer's personal data to include the disclosure 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA'. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. Referred to the House Rules Committee February 6, 2026.
Protecting Consumers from Deceptive AI Act
The federal H.R. 8479 (Protecting Consumers from Deceptive AI Act) would have NIST set up task forces on standards for identifying AI-generated content and require generative AI application providers to embed a machine-readable disclosure in audio or visual content they create or substantially modify, and large online platforms to show it to users. The FTC would write rules within 2 years and enforce them as unfair or deceptive practice rules. Introduced April 23, 2026 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce and Science, Space, and Technology committees; no further action.
Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act of 2025
The federal S. 3308 (Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act of 2025) would bar developers and deployers from offering or using a covered algorithm in a way that causes or contributes to disparate impact or otherwise discriminates based on a protected characteristic in consequential actions such as employment, education, housing, health care, credit, insurance and government benefits. It would require independent-auditor evaluations and annual assessments, public disclosures, human alternatives and appeals, with enforcement by the FTC, State attorneys general and private suits. Introduced December 2, 2025 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; no further action.
SANDBOX Act Strengthening Artificial intelligence Normalization and Diffusion By Oversight and eXperimentation Act
The federal S. 2750 (SANDBOX Act) would require the OSTP Director to establish, within one year after enactment, an AI regulatory sandbox where persons may apply for temporary waivers or modifications of federal agency rules to test AI products, services or development methods. Agencies would decide within 90 days; waivers last 2 years with up to four 2-year renewals. Participants must report harmful incidents within 72 hours and make consumer disclosures, and the program ends 12 years after it is established. Introduced September 10, 2025 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; no further action.
AI Impersonation Prevention Act of 2025
The federal H.R. 4628 (AI Impersonation Prevention Act of 2025) would amend 18 U.S.C. 912 to make it a crime to knowingly use AI to impersonate an officer or employee of the United States, including by mimicking a federal officer's voice or likeness without an explicit disclaimer, and thereby produce materially false or misleading content. The penalty is a fine or up to three years in prison, or both. Satire, parody and protected expression with a clear disclosure of inauthenticity are not limited. Introduced July 23, 2025 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee; no further action.
Ending FCC Meddling in Our Elections Act
The federal H.R. 9913 (Ending FCC Meddling in Our Elections Act) would have barred the FCC from finalizing or enforcing its proposed rule on disclosure of AI-generated content in political ads (FCC 24-74, MB Docket No. 24-211, adopted July 10, 2024), or any substantially similar rule. Introduced October 4, 2024 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee; it died when the 118th Congress ended on January 3, 2025.
REAL Political Advertisements Act Require the Exposure of AI–Led Political Advertisements Act
The federal H.R. 3044 (REAL Political Advertisements Act) would have required political ads covered by FECA section 318(a) that contain image or video footage generated in whole or in part with generative AI to carry a clear and conspicuous statement saying so, and extended electioneering communications to paid online ads. Introduced May 2, 2023 and referred to the House Administration Committee; it died when the 118th Congress ended on January 3, 2025.
Crimes and punishments; creating and disseminating a digitization or synthetic media; making certain acts unlawful; emergency.
Not law. The committee substitute for HB 3299 would have made it a misdemeanor in Oklahoma (up to 1 year and $1,000) to create and disseminate synthetic media of another person's name, image, voice or likeness without written consent and with intent to deceive and cause harm, and a felony (up to 5 years and $10,000) when it causes over $25,000 in financial harm or is used for extortion or blackmail. It would also have required disclosure of synthetic media in political ads and attestations from content creators. It cleared House committees in February 2026 but never received a House floor vote.
AN ACT relating to privacy protection.
Kentucky's HB 45 (2024 session) was a privacy bill covering automated license plate readers (data kept no more than 30 days with exceptions, no sale), drone surveillance, deep fakes, identification devices and tracking devices. The deep fake sections would have given a civil action against anyone who willfully and knowingly disseminated a deep fake without written consent and made certain harmful disclosures a Class D felony. The House passed it 96-0 with a committee substitute on February 28, 2024; in the Senate it was reassigned to Transportation March 7, 2024 and died.
Restricts the use by an employer or an employment agency of electronic monitoring or an automated employment decision tool to screen a candidate or employee for an employment decision unless such tool has been the subject of a bias audit within the last year and the results of such audit have been…
New York's A 8328 would have added Labor Law § 203-g restricting employer use of electronic monitoring and automated employment decision tools: bias audits before use and annually, ten business days' notice to employees and candidates, human oversight, a ban on facial, gait or emotion recognition, a private right of action and civil penalties. Introduced December 13, 2023 and referred to the Labor Committee; the enacting clause was stricken January 10, 2024, and it died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.
Enacts the "New York artificial intelligence transparency for journalism act"; requires developers of generative artificial intelligence systems or services to post certain information on the developer's website regarding video, audio, text and data from a covered publication used to train the…
New York's A 8595-B, the "New York artificial intelligence transparency for journalism act," would add General Business Law §§ 338 to 338-D. By January 1, 2027, generative AI developers serving New Yorkers would have to post the URLs crawled, a description of covered-publication content used, whether copyright notices were removed and the collection timeframe, and disclose crawler details. A journalism provider could sue for compliance and statutory damages of up to $10,000 per violation. Would take effect immediately. Amended June 9, 2025 and referred to Codes (again January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
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.
Requires policing agencies to conduct an inventory of, and develop a publicly-available policy for, any artificial intelligence used to aid criminal investigations.
New York's A 9253-A would add Executive Law § 837-ww requiring policing agencies to publish a public disclosure of each “covered AI” used to aid criminal investigations, at least ninety days before using a new product and within 180 days of the effective date for products already in use. Any use in an investigation would have to be noted in the police report, and the Attorney General would issue a model policy. Introduced November 21, 2025; amended and recommitted to the Codes Committee March 17, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Labor and Employment - Use of Facial Recognition Services - Prohibition
Maryland's HB 1202 bars employers from using a facial recognition service to create a facial template (the machine-interpretable pattern of facial features extracted from images) during a job applicant's interview unless the applicant consents by signing a waiver. The waiver must state in plain language the applicant's name, the interview date, that the applicant consents to facial recognition during the interview, and whether the applicant read the waiver. The act itself sets no penalty. Became law without the Governor's signature (Chapter 446, May 8, 2020); effective October 1, 2020.
Criminal offenses; enhance penalties for certain if artificial intelligence was used in the commission of.
Mississippi's HB 840 (2026) would have allowed enhanced penalties when a trier of fact finds beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant knowingly and intentionally used an artificial intelligence system in committing a designated offense. It would also have amended Section 97-5-33 to cover visual depictions of a child that would appear realistic to a reasonable observer engaging in sexually explicit conduct. It was referred to Judiciary B on January 16, 2026, and died in committee on February 3, 2026.
Condemning antisemitism in all its forms, including the proliferation and amplification of antisemitic content on artificial intelligence (AI) platforms, urging robust, transparent safeguards for AI, and recognizing stakeholders working to counter this threat.
The federal H.Res. 963 is a simple House resolution that would not change the law. It would condemn antisemitism in all its forms, including its amplification through AI and social media platforms, state that technology companies bear a responsibility to implement robust safeguards, encourage standards, data sharing for researchers and periodic public transparency reporting, and call on stakeholders to ensure the safety and dignity of Jewish communities and to support AI innovation that advances human rights, safety and democratic values. Introduced December 18, 2025 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee and, in addition, Energy and Commerce; no further action.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's SB 640 (2025) would have added a part to HRS chapter 481B making it unlawful in a commercial transaction to use an AI chatbot that may mislead a reasonable person into thinking they are talking to a natural person unless a clear and conspicuous disclosure is given. Violations would be unfair or deceptive acts, with private suits (greater of $1,000 or treble damages), attorney general action and civil penalties up to $5,000,000. The Senate committees CPN and LBT deferred it February 7, 2025; it was carried over to 2026 with no further action and died.
Ai, Deepfakes, Cybersecurity, Data Xfers
Alaska's HB 306 would have required a statement ('This communication has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence') on campaign communications containing a deepfake meant to injure a candidate or party or deceive voters. It would also have set rules for state agency AI used for consequential decisions: inventories, impact assessments, notice, consent, appeals and bans. It was heard and held in House State Affairs March 19, 2024 and died when the 33rd Legislature ended.
Election Law – Campaign Materials – Disclosure of Use of Synthetic Media
Maryland's HB 872 (2024) would have required candidates, campaign finance entities, certain registrants and their agents to include a disclosure when they distribute campaign material made with or containing synthetic media (an image, audio or video intentionally manipulated with generative AI or other digital technology to create a realistic but false version) to anyone in Maryland. Violations would have been a misdemeanor (up to $1,000, 1 year, or both). A hearing was set for February 27, 2024; it went no further and died when the session ended.
Algorithmic Transparency and Choice Act
The federal H.R. 6253 (Algorithmic Transparency and Choice Act) would require, beginning 1 year after enactment, providers of online platforms that use personalized recommendation systems to give minors under 18 a clear notice of the system, detailed terms-and-conditions disclosures, options to switch to an input-transparent algorithm or limit recommendation categories, and an input-transparent algorithm by default. The FTC would enforce it as a rule violation, and it would preempt State requirements covering the same ground. Introduced November 21, 2025; the Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee forwarded it to the full Energy and Commerce Committee on December 11, 2025.
Deepfake pornography.
California's AB 621 rewrites Civil Code § 1708.86, the civil claim over sexually explicit deepfakes. A depicted person can sue anyone who creates and intentionally discloses, or intentionally discloses, digitized sexually explicit material (including images) when they know or reasonably should know the person did not consent or was a minor, and anyone who knowingly facilitates or recklessly aids or abets it. Deepfake pornography services and providers that keep them running after 30 days' notice face presumptions of liability. Statutory damages reach $50,000, or $250,000 if malicious, and prosecutors may sue. Signed October 13, 2025 (Chapter 673); effective January 1, 2026.
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.
Online Internet Safety; certain disclosures related to conversational AI services; require
Georgia's AI companion chatbot law (Act 518, effective July 1, 2027). Operators must clearly disclose that users are talking to an AI, at the start and at least every three hours (hourly for minors or minor-directed bots). For known minors they must take reasonable measures to block sexual content, romantic role-play, encouraging secrecy or isolation, and manipulative engagement tactics. Every operator needs a self-harm crisis protocol with referrals such as 988, published in summary with yearly referral counts, plus parental tools and age assurance before any sexually explicit feature. The Attorney General enforces it, with penalties up to $10,000 per knowing violation.
Interim study to examine the dangers posed by artificial intelligence for elections
Not a law. Nebraska LR362 (2024), introduced by Senator Brewer, is an interim study resolution that designated the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee to examine the dangers posed by artificial intelligence for elections, with input from interested parties and other committees. The last official action was a hearing notice for September 19, 2024. A resolution does not change the law.
Interim study to examine changes to state law regarding the use of artificial intelligence in political campaigns
Not a law. Nebraska LR412 (2024), introduced by Senator John Cavanaugh, is an interim study resolution that designated the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee to study changes to state law on artificial intelligence in political campaigns, including First Amendment concerns, other states' laws, federal law, enforcement under the Political Accountability and Disclosure Act and civil remedies. The last official action was a hearing notice for September 19, 2024. A resolution does not change the law.
ELECTIONS/CAMPAIGNS: Requires disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence in telephone campaign communications
Louisiana's Act 559 requires a disclosure on campaign phone calls that use an AI-generated voice of a public figure. A telephone or automated call advocating for or against a candidate, elected official or ballot proposition that is created with AI using the voice of a public figure, including an elected official or limited public figure, must say clearly at the start that it was created using AI. Fines are up to $2,500, then $5,000 for later violations; the Board of Ethics enforces. Platforms, service providers and broadcasters aren't liable for others' content. Effective August 1, 2026.
AI/Ban Deceptive Ads
North Carolina's HB 375 would create the Artificial Intelligence and Synthetic Media Act (new Chapter 170). It would regulate deceptive deepfakes in elections, make generated child pornography and non-consensual fabricated intimate images crimes, and require disclosure of generative AI use by regulated occupations. Filed March 11, 2025 and referred to committees March 13, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
REGISTERED NURSE USE OF AI
Illinois's SB 3702 would amend the Nurse Practice Act to bar AI systems from providing nursing services in place of a registered professional nurse in direct patient care, require a nurse to get patient consent before AI records or analyzes an encounter, and require written notice that AI supports but does not replace the nurse. Health care entities employing nurses and deploying AI in direct patient care would have to keep validation and bias monitoring records, train nurses, and not rely solely on AI for staffing, triage, admission, discharge or transfer decisions. Introduced February 5, 2026; re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026 under Senate Rule 3-9(a); it has not passed either house.
Limit government use of AI systems
HB 178 (Chapter 427 of 2025) limits government AI use. State and local government entities and state officers may not use an AI system for cognitive behavioral manipulation, to classify people in ways that cause unlawful discrimination or disparate impact, for a malicious purpose, or to surveil public spaces except to find a missing, endangered or wanted person or as the facial surveillance law allows. AI-produced material published without review by a trained human must be labeled, and public-facing AI interfaces disclosed. Any AI recommendation or decision that could affect a person's rights must be reviewed by a responsible human who can reject or modify it. Effective October 1, 2025.
Prohibits deepfake pornography and imposes criminal and civil penalties for non-consensual disclosure.
New Jersey's S976 would make it a third-degree crime to disclose deceptive audio or visual media (deepfakes) depicting sexual activity or intimate parts without the person's consent, with a fine of up to $30,000. It would also treat such media depicting a child as child sexual exploitation material with the same penalties as other such items, and give the depicted person a civil action in Superior Court with at least $1,000 liquidated damages per violation. Pre-filed for the 2024 session. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Artificial intelligence; use of systems for student instruction.
Virginia's HB 1186 adds Code § 22.1-20.2:1. The Department of Education, consulting school divisions and stakeholders, must compile how public schools use AI for instruction and post guidance for its safe, ethical and equitable use. The guidance covers student data privacy (FERPA, COPPA), teacher training, transparency, data agreements that bar using student or division data to train outside AI models, and bias, and must ensure approved AI uses give teachers access to transcripts of students' AI interactions. School boards must adopt policies following it. If funded, the Department runs an AI pilot program; that authority expires July 1, 2030. Identical to SB 394; effective July 1, 2026.
Prohibits creation or disclosure of deceptive audio or visual media, known as "deepfakes," under certain circumstances.
New Jersey's S2483 would make it a fourth-degree crime to create deceptive audio or visual media (deepfakes) without license or privilege and for an unlawful purpose, and a third-degree crime to disclose such media, knowing or reasonably should know it was unlawfully created, without clearly labeling it. A fine of up to $30,000 may be imposed for disclosure. The person depicted could sue for at least $1,000 in liquidated damages per violation. Introduced February 5, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Use of automated decision systems in employment settings regulation
Not law. Minnesota's SF 4689 (1st engrossment) would have added Minn. Stat. 181.9921 to 181.9927 regulating employers' use of automated decision systems in employment. Employers would have owed workers advance and after-decision written notice, access and correction of data, human review and an appeal, and could not rely solely on such a system or use one to terminate a worker. Penalties would run up to $1,000 or $2,500 per violation, with a private right of action. Effective January 1, 2027 if enacted.
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.
Deepfake Political Advertising Regulation Amendment Act of 2024
The District of Columbia's B25-0832, the Deepfake Political Advertising Regulation Amendment Act of 2024, would have required campaign material containing AI-generated "artificial media" to carry a disclosure statement, barred knowingly distributing artificial media within 90 days of an election, and allowed injunctive relief and Campaign Finance Board civil fines. Introduced June 5, 2024 and referred to committee, it was not enacted and died when Council Period 25 ended.
Automated Employment Decision Tools (AEDT) Law
New York City's Local Law 144 of 2021 bars employers and employment agencies from using an automated employment decision tool (AEDT) to screen candidates or employees for hiring or promotion in the city unless an independent auditor did a bias audit of it no more than one year before use and a summary of the results and the tool's distribution date are on their website. City residents must get notice at least 10 business days before use. Fines: up to $500 for a first violation, $500 to $1,500 for each subsequent one. Became law without the Mayor's signature in December 2021; effective January 1, 2023; the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection began enforcing it July 5, 2023.
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.
Prohibits use of biometric surveillance system by business entity under certain circumstances.
New Jersey's A3929 would make it an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act for a business entity to use a biometric surveillance system, meaning facial or other remote biometric recognition software, on a consumer at its physical premises unless it gives clear notice and uses it for a lawful purpose. Businesses could not sell, share or profit from the information. This describes the bill as introduced (pre-filed text); later amendments, if any, are not reflected.
An Act Regarding Synthetic Media in Campaign Advertising
Maine requires campaign ads that contain 'synthetic media' of a candidate to carry the disclosure 'THIS COMMUNICATION CONTAINS AUDIO, VIDEO AND/OR IMAGES THAT HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED OR ALTERED.' Synthetic media is an image, audio or video of a candidate that deceptively shows them saying or doing something they did not, or is altered to give a materially different impression; clarity edits, captions, satire and parody are excluded. Violations can bring civil penalties of up to 500% of the expenditure, and the Attorney General can seek injunctions. Broadcasters and newspapers are liable only with actual knowledge. Effective July 29, 2026.
Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act
Colorado's SB 24-205 (the Colorado AI Act) covers high-risk AI that makes, or is a substantial factor in making, consequential decisions such as hiring, lending, housing, insurance and health care. Developers and deployers must use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination; deployers need risk programs, impact assessments and notices. Signed May 17, 2024 (Chapter 198). Duties run from June 30, 2026 (SB 25B-004) until SB 26-189 replaces Part 17 on January 1, 2027. Under a stipulated April 27, 2026 order in X. AI LLC v. Weiser (D. Colo.), the Attorney General may not start enforcement over violations through 14 days after a ruling on xAI's planned preliminary-injunction motion.
"Social Media Fairness and Transparency Act"; establishes requirements for social media companies concerning content moderation practices; establishes cause of action against social media companies for violation of content moderation practices.
New Jersey's A4768, the Social Media Fairness and Transparency Act, would require large social media companies to publish their content-moderation standards and the keywords used to censor or prioritize posts, let users opt out of algorithmic post prioritization, and notify users when their content is censored. Violations would be consumer fraud violations, with a private right of action (up to $100,000 in statutory damages per claim). Introduced and referred to the Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on March 19, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding generative artificial intelligence in public education.
Idaho's S 1227 (2026 Session Laws Chapter 71) adds Chapter 70, Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education, to Title 33. The State Department of Education must develop a statewide generative AI framework for K-12 schools, subject to State Board approval, that prioritizes human oversight, transparency, safety and data security and ensures no generative AI replaces a human teacher. Every school district and public charter school must adopt a generative AI policy aligned with it. Vendors of AI tools bought by schools must disclose whether products use machine learning, predictive analytics or generative AI. Signed March 19, 2026; effective July 1, 2026.
Public employees: notice: artificial intelligence performing service within scope of work.
Vetoed. AB 2656 would have required California public employers to give a recognized employee organization at least 45 days' written notice before taking action to develop, purchase or require the use of generative AI to perform a service within the scope of work of a job classification it represents. Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 30, 2026, saying it would add redundant administrative layers for public agencies, slow even harmless tools, and that the issue is best handled through collective bargaining.
Enacts the "New York fundamental artificial intelligence requirements in (FAIR) news act"; provides transparency requirements for news media content composed, authored, or otherwise created through generative AI.
New York's FAIR News Act (S 8451-B / A 8962-B) passed both houses in June 2026 but has not been delivered to the Governor, so it is not law. If enacted, news media content (news, weather, traffic, sports or entertainment) published, broadcast or accessible in New York that was substantially composed, authored or otherwise created through generative AI would have to say so conspicuously at the top of the page, image or video, or aloud at the start of audio. Content eligible for copyright registration would be exempt. The Attorney General could seek injunctions; courts could impose $1,000 for a first offense and $5,000 for each later offense. It would take effect 60 days after becoming law.
Concerning the use of facial recognition services.
Washington's Chapter 257, Laws of 2020 (ESSB 6280) governs state and local government use of facial recognition services (chapter 43.386 RCW). Before use, an agency must give notice to its legislative authority and publish an accountability report after public comment and community meetings. Decisions with legal or similarly significant effects require meaningful human review; services must be tested in operational conditions and vendors must allow independent accuracy and bias testing. Ongoing surveillance, real-time identification and persistent tracking need a warrant, exigent circumstances or a court order. The governor vetoed section 10 (a task force). Effective July 1, 2021.
Enacts the preventing algorithmic pricing discrimination act
New York's S 7033 would have enacted the Preventing Algorithmic Pricing Discrimination Act. Anyone who knowingly advertised or published personalized algorithmic pricing based on a person's consumer data would have had to disclose "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA" (new General Business Law § 349-a), and General Business Law § 396 would have barred using protected class data in pricing. The Attorney General could seek penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. The Senate struck the enacting clause on April 15, 2026.
Notice and a transitional employment period required for employees displaced by artificial intelligence, and penalties imposed
Not law. Minnesota's SF 4576 (1st engrossment) would have added Minn. Stat. 181.9937 requiring employers with the equivalent of 50 or more full-time Minnesota employees to give 90 days' written notice before technological displacement by AI or automation affecting 10 or more employees or 10 percent of a unit. Employees would get a 90-day transitional period with continued pay and retraining, with back pay and civil penalties up to $10,000 for willful violations.
Relates to transparency and safety requirements for developers of artificial intelligence models
New York's S 8828 (Chapter 96 of 2026) is the chapter amendment to the RAISE Act (Chapter 699 of 2025). It repealed and replaced General Business Law Article 44-B and set the effective date at January 1, 2027. Developers of frontier models (over 10^26 training operations) must publish transparency reports when deploying and report critical safety incidents to a Department of Financial Services office within 72 hours. Those with over $500 million in revenue must also publish and follow a frontier AI framework, report internal-use risk assessments, file disclosure statements and pay assessments, and face Attorney General penalties up to $1 million, then $3 million. Signed March 27, 2026.
Defining synthetic media in campaigns for elective office, and providing relief for candidates and campaigns.
Chapter 360, Laws of 2023 addresses election deepfakes. Synthetic media is an image, audio or video of a person's appearance, speech or conduct intentionally manipulated with generative adversarial network techniques or other digital technology to create a realistic but false depiction with a fundamentally different impression than the original. A candidate depicted in synthetic media in an electioneering communication can seek an injunction and sue the sponsor for damages. A set-format disclosure that the media "has been manipulated" is an affirmative defense. The sponsor, not the medium, is liable unless the medium removes the disclosure or alters the content. Now chapter 29B.35 RCW.
Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act of 2025
Federal S 1396, the Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act of 2025, would direct the NIST Under Secretary to set up a public-private partnership on content provenance and synthetic-content detection standards. Starting 2 years after enactment, makers of tools for creating synthetic or synthetically-modified content would have to let users attach provenance information; removing it would be unlawful in some cases. Introduced April 9, 2025 and referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
Relating to the use of artificial intelligence in campaign communications; declaring an emergency.
Oregon's SB 1571 requires any campaign communication (one supporting or opposing a clearly identified candidate or measure, at any spending level) that includes synthetic media to carry a disclosure that the image, audio or video has been manipulated. Synthetic media is an individual's image, audio or video intentionally manipulated with AI or similar digital technology into a realistic but false depiction that changes a reasonable person's understanding. The Secretary of State, or the Attorney General for Secretary of State races, may seek injunctions, and courts impose civil penalties up to $10,000. Signed March 27, 2024 (Chapter 62, Oregon Laws 2024); effective on signing.
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.
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.
Imposes liability for damages caused by a chatbot impersonating certain licensed professionals
New York's A 6545-C would add General Business Law section 390-f. Chatbot operators could not knowingly let a chatbot impersonate a practitioner of certain licensed professions or an attorney in a way that would be a crime or unauthorized practice if done by a person, and would have to give users clear notice that they are talking to an AI chatbot. Referred to the Rules Committee May 28, 2026, then reported and ordered to third reading on the Assembly floor calendar (Rules Report cal. 294) June 1, 2026; the Assembly never voted on it, and it has not passed either house.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SAFETY
Illinois's HB 4705, the Artificial Intelligence Public Safety and Child Protection Transparency Act (as introduced), would require large frontier developers (revenue of at least $500,000,000) and large chatbot providers (revenue of at least $25,000,000, covered chatbots with 1,000,000+ monthly users) to publish a public safety and child protection plan and report safety incidents to the Attorney General within 15 days. Civil penalties up to $1,000,000 or $50,000 per violation. Introduced January 29, 2026; re-referred to Rules March 27, 2026; not passed.
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.
Requires state units to purchase a product or service that is or contains an algorithmic decision system that adheres to responsible artificial intelligence standards; specifies content included in responsible artificial intelligence standards; requires the commissioner of taxation and finance to…
New York's A 5216 would add State Finance Law § 165(10) requiring state units buying a product or service that is or contains an algorithmic decision system to purchase one that adheres to responsible AI standards (harm avoidance, transparency, fairness, evaluation), with the tax commissioner adopting regulations, and would amend Executive Law § 292(4) so unlawful discriminatory practices include acts performed through an algorithmic decision system. Would take effect on January 1 next succeeding enactment. Referred to Governmental Operations February 12, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibit distributing deepfakes under the Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act
Not law. Nebraska LB615, introduced by Senator John Cavanaugh, would have barred distributing a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate or party within 90 days before an election, if the distributor knew or should have known what it was. A disclaimer saying the media was manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence would have made the ban inapplicable, and a depicted candidate could have sought an injunction. Indefinitely postponed April 17, 2026.
Adopt the Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Act, create a fund, and change provisions relating to records which may be withheld from the public
Not law. Nebraska LB1083, introduced by Senator Storer, would have enacted the Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Act. Large frontier developers (frontier models trained with more than 10^26 operations; revenue of $500 million or more) and large chatbot providers (revenue of $25 million or more) would have had to publish safety and child protection plans; frontier developers would have reported critical safety incidents and large chatbot providers child safety incidents to the Attorney General, with penalties up to $1,000,000 or $50,000 per violation. Placed on General File March 24, 2026; indefinitely postponed April 17, 2026.
AN ACT CONCERNING AUTOMATED DECISION SYSTEMS PROTECTIONS FOR EMPLOYEES.
Connecticut's SB 435 (2026) would have set rules for employers that use automated employment-related decision processes. Deployers would have had to give applicants and employees notices, a statement of reasons for adverse decisions with a chance to correct data and appeal to human review, and an annual independent bias audit; violations of sections 3 to 8 would have been unfair trade practices enforced solely by the Attorney General; aggrieved workers could also have sued. It also covered state-agency AI use. After a Judiciary Committee favorable report, it was tabled for the Senate calendar April 20, 2026 and never voted on; it died when the session adjourned May 6, 2026.
Requires disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence in political communications; directs the state board of elections to create criteria for determining whether a political communication contains an image or video footage created through generative artificial intelligence and to create a…
This bill mandates disclosure of AI use in political communications and directs the state board of elections to define AI-generated content.
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.
Restricts the use by an employer or an employment agency of electronic monitoring or an automated employment decision tool to screen a candidate or employee for an employment decision unless such tool has been the subject of an impact assessment within the last year; requires notice to employment…
New York's A 9315-B (the "Boundaries on Technology Act") would add Labor Law Article 36 (§§ 1010-1016). An employer with one hundred or more employees could not use an automated employment decision tool unless it had an impact assessment by an impartial auditor within the prior year, repeated annually, with results sent to the Department of Labor for a public registry within 60 days. Employers would have to notify employees and candidates of the tool. Civil penalties would run up to $1,000, $2,000 and $3,000. Amended and recommitted to Ways and Means May 31, 2024; it never passed either chamber and died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.
Imposes liability for misleading, incorrect, contradictory or harmful information to a user by a chatbot that results in financial loss or other demonstrable harm.
New York's A 10494 would have added General Business Law § 390-f barring a chatbot proprietor (an entity with more than twenty employees) whose chatbot serves as an alternative to a human representative from disclaiming liability when the chatbot gives “materially misleading, incorrect, contradictory or harmful information” causing financial loss or other demonstrable harm, unless it cured the harm within thirty days of notice. Clear notice that users face an AI chatbot was also required. Referred to Consumer Affairs and Protection May 29, 2024; it died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.
An act relating to regulating developers and deployers of certain automated decision systems
Vermont's H.340 (2025-2026 biennium) would have regulated developers and deployers of automated decision systems used for consequential decisions in areas such as education, employment, housing, health care, financial services and government services. It would have made algorithmic discrimination unlawful, required independent audits and reports to the Attorney General, notices, explanations and human-review appeals for consumers, and a risk management program. It was referred to House Commerce on February 25, 2025 and died when the biennium ended.
Establishes criteria for the use of automated employment decision tools; provides for enforcement for violations of such criteria.
New York's S 5641-A (2023-24 session, Sen. Comrie) would have added Labor Law article 20-D on automated employment decision tools (AI that is the controlling factor in a decision to hire, promote or terminate). Deployers and developers would have had to perform annual impact assessments and keep an AI governance program, and deployers to notify affected individuals; the Attorney General could investigate and would give 45 days' notice to cure. Referred to Labor March 10, 2023 and amended and recommitted to Labor January 8, 2024; it died when the session ended.
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.
ELEC CD-AI ADVERT DISCLOSURE
Illinois's SB 150 (104th General Assembly) would add Section 9-9.6 to the Election Code. A person, committee or other entity that creates, originally publishes or originally distributes a qualified political advertisement, meaning a paid ad about a candidate, election or ballot question containing an image, audio or video generated in whole or substantially by AI, would have to include a clear and conspicuous statement that it was AI-generated. Re-referred to Assignments April 11, 2025.
Requires disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence in political communications; directs the state board of elections to create criteria for determining whether a political communication contains an image or video footage created through generative artificial intelligence and to create a…
New York's S 7592-A (2023-2024) would have amended Election Law section 14-106 to require any political communication that uses an image or video generated wholly or partly with artificial intelligence to carry the statement "THIS COMMUNICATION WAS GENERATED USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE", with a fine equal to the amount spent on the communication for failure to disclose. The State Board of Elections would set criteria and a definition. Amended February 26, 2024, it died in Elections when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Consumer Protection - Workgroup on Artificial Intelligence Implementation
Maryland's HB 956 creates the Workgroup on Artificial Intelligence Implementation: legislators, the Attorney General, the Maryland Technology Development Corporation CEO and appointed industry, academic, labor, civil rights, privacy, consumer and cybersecurity representatives. It monitors and makes recommendations on AI, including regulating AI used in decisions that significantly impact people's livelihood and life opportunities, developer and deployer obligations, consumer rights and disclosures, Attorney General enforcement and AI in government benefit decisions, and reports yearly from July 1, 2026. Approved April 22, 2025 (Chapter 105); effective July 1, 2025; ends June 30, 2029.
Enacts the New York artificial intelligence bill of rights to provide residents of the state with rights and protections to ensure that any system making decisions without human intervention impacting their lives do so lawfully, properly, and with meaningful oversight.
New York's S 8209 (2023-2024) would have added State Technology Law Article IV (§§ 401-409), the New York artificial intelligence bill of rights. New York residents would have rights to safe and effective automated systems, protection from algorithmic discrimination, data privacy, notice and explanation, and a human alternative. Operators violating the rights would be liable for a penalty of not less than three times the damages caused, enforced by the Attorney General; there is no private right of action. Referred to Internet and Technology January 12, 2024; it died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Provides relative to the use of artificial intelligence in political campaigns
Louisiana's HB 459 (Act 806) bars making an electioneering communication portraying a candidate or an elected official subject to recall that AI was used to create, alter or digitally manipulate so it would falsely appear to a reasonable observer to be an authentic record of their actual speech or conduct and to replace an individual's likeness with theirs, without a clear, understandable disclosure that it was made using AI. A violation intended to injure their reputation or deceive a voter carries a fine up to $2,000, up to two years in prison, or both. Media entities that broadcast paid ads they had no input in or control over are exempt. Signed June 9, 2026; effective August 1, 2026.
Imposes liability for misleading, incorrect, contradictory or harmful information to a user by a chatbot that results in financial loss or other demonstrable harm.
New York's S 9381 (2023-2024) would have added General Business Law section 390-f on chatbots. A proprietor with more than twenty employees that uses a chatbot in place of a human representative could not disclaim liability for materially misleading, incorrect, contradictory or harmful information causing financial loss or other demonstrable harm, with no liability if cured within 30 days of notice, and must give clear notice users are talking to an AI chatbot. Referred to Internet and Technology May 14, 2024; it died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
LABOR: Provides relative to the use of automated decision systems with respect to employment decisions (OR INCREASE GF EX See Note)
Louisiana's HB 421 would have regulated employers' use of automated decision systems in employment decisions: written notice to workers at least 30 days before first use, bans on facial, gait and emotion recognition, no sole reliance on an automated system for discipline, termination or deactivation, human review, and worker appeals. Louisiana Works could cite violators ($500 civil penalty) and workers could sue. It was referred to committee March 9, 2026 and died.
California AI Transparency Act.
California's SB 1000 amends the California AI Transparency Act, operative since August 2, 2026. Any producer of a generative AI system publicly accessible in California is now covered (no 1,000,000-user threshold). Providers must offer a free disclosure verification tool (formerly the AI detection tool) and, where technically feasible, embed latent disclosures, now including whether the system created or altered the content, in AI image, video and audio. The manifest-disclosure option is dropped. Assistive-technology systems are exempt until 2029; falsely claiming that status costs $50,000 per violation. Urgency statute signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 861); effective immediately.
Provides relative to the regulation of artificial intelligence (OR +$256,243 GF EX See Note)
Louisiana's HB791, the People's A.I. Act, would have regulated AI chatbot providers: consent before processing personal data or training on chat logs, no selling chat logs, a ban on using chat logs for ads, notices that the user is talking to a chatbot, monthly risk assessments, and treating chatbots as products for liability. The Attorney General or a district attorney could enforce and users could sue. It was referred to House Commerce March 9, 2026 and died.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Creates the Protecting Louisiana's Infrastructure from Artificial Intelligence Risk Act. (1/1/27)
Louisiana's SB 474, the Protecting Louisiana's Infrastructure from Artificial Intelligence Risk Act, would have required developers of frontier AI models (trained with more than 10^26 operations) to publish transparency reports and report critical safety incidents, and would have required large frontier developers (over $500 million annual revenue) to publish a safety framework, obtain audits and certify compliance. The Attorney General could seek up to $1,000,000 per first violation. It passed no chamber: it was returned to the Senate calendar subject to call on April 21, 2026 and died.
Prohibits deepfake pornography and imposes criminal and civil penalties for non-consensual disclosure.
Not law. A 1892 would have made it a crime in New Jersey to disclose sexually explicit deepfakes of a person without consent, with the same penalty as nonconsensual 'revenge porn' (a third-degree crime: 3 to 5 years and up to $15,000), and would have punished deepfakes depicting the sexual abuse of a child like child sexual abuse material. People depicted could also sue for invasion of privacy. The Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee approved it 7-0 on March 4, 2024, but it got no further action before the 2024-2025 session ended. Its Senate twin was S 976.
Fostering artificial intelligence responsibility
Massachusetts H77 would add G.L. Chapter 149B limiting employers' electronic monitoring and use of automated decision systems (independent impact assessments, 10 business days' notice, human oversight, no primary reliance for hiring, discipline or pay), and bar state agencies from using such systems for benefits or rights decisions unless authorized by law. Reported favorably and referred to House Ways and Means December 24, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Artificial Intelligence Transparency Amendments
Utah's HB 286 (2026), Artificial Intelligence Transparency Amendments (first substitute), would have enacted the AI Transparency Act: a large frontier AI developer would have to write, implement and publish a public safety plan for catastrophic risks; per the bill's highlighted provisions, developers would also publish child protection plans and risk assessment summaries and report safety incidents to the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy, with civil penalties and whistleblower protections. It never passed the House; the enacting clause was struck and the bill filed on March 6, 2026.
Artificial Intelligence Modifications
Utah's HB 276 enacts two AI laws. The Digital Voyeurism Prevention Act bars AI image generation services from distributing counterfeit intimate images of a real person without verified consent, requires covered platforms to remove reported images within 48 hours, and lets victims sue, subject to safe harbors. The Digital Content Provenance Standards Act requires large online platforms to show content provenance data and generative AI providers with over 1,000,000 monthly users and capture-device makers (devices made for sale from 2028) to embed latent disclosures; fines up to $2,500 per violation. Signed March 24, 2026; effective January 1, 2027.
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.
To promote transparency of facial recognition and driver's license photos
Massachusetts S1731 would add G.L. c. 90, s. 8N requiring the Registry of Motor Vehicles to post notices at licensing offices, give applicants written information and publish website information on how officers use and access targeted face recognition on driver's license and ID photos in criminal investigations. It did not advance as its own bill: on December 4, 2025 it accompanied study order S2798.
Revise election laws regarding disclosure requirements for the use of AI in elections
Montana bars people and groups working in an official election capacity from paying for or sponsoring an election or electioneering communication they know, or should know, is a deepfake of a candidate or party on the ballot, within 60 days before voting begins, unless it carries the disclosure 'This (image/audio/video/multimedia) has been significantly edited by artificial intelligence and depicts speech or conduct that falsely appears to be authentic or truthful.' Aggrieved candidates can sue; repeat violations become crimes. News coverage, satire, paid broadcasters and online platforms are exempt. Effective October 1, 2025.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE – Adds to existing law to establish the Conversational AI Safety Act.
Idaho's Conversational AI Safety Act (Idaho Code Title 48, ch. 21) regulates public-facing AI chatbots that simulate human conversation. Operators must disclose that the service is AI when a reasonable person could be misled, adopt a suicide-ideation protocol that refers users to crisis services, and not claim the service provides professional mental health care. For users they know or reasonably believe are minors, operators must show AI disclosures, avoid engagement rewards, block sexually explicit content, and prevent claims of sentience, emotional dependence and romantic role-play. The Attorney General enforces it. Effective July 1, 2027.
CHATBOT RESPONSE LIABILITY ACT
Illinois's SB 3368 (104th General Assembly) would create the Chatbot Response Liability Act. A chatbot proprietor could not disclaim liability when its chatbot gives materially misleading, incorrect, contradictory or harmful information resulting in financial loss, other demonstrable harm or bodily harm to the user or a third party, would have to give clear notice that users are talking to AI, and would face companion chatbot rules including parental consent for minors. Re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026.
CONSUMER FRAUD-AI DISCLOSURE
Illinois's SB 2995 (104th General Assembly) would add Section 2MMMM to the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. A person could not use AI in trade and commerce to communicate with a consumer in a way that may mislead or deceive a reasonable consumer into thinking they are dealing with a human, unless clearly and conspicuously told otherwise; using AI to sell would require clear notice and an option to request more information; and a business using AI to communicate with consumers would have to offer the option to communicate with a human during ordinary business hours. Last action: re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026.
State contracts: report: modern foundation models and associated artificial intelligence systems.
California's AB 2653 (2025-26 Regular Session) would add Public Contract Code Chapter 6.5 requiring the Department of Industrial Relations, in consultation with the Department of Technology, to convene a nine-member Foundation Model Labor and Procurement Working Group. It would assess labor practices behind modern foundation models and recommend whether and how the state should include labor standards in procurement, reporting by December 31, 2027. Held in Assembly Appropriations May 14, 2026; not passed.
Relating To Algorithmic Discrimination.
Hawaii's SB 59 (2025) would have added an Algorithmic Discrimination chapter. Covered entities (those holding data on more than 25,000 residents, over $15,000,000 in receipts, data brokers, or service providers) could not use algorithmic processes using machine learning, AI or similar techniques to decide eligibility for credit, insurance, education, employment, housing or public accommodations in a discriminatory way, and would owe notices, annual audits and reports. Penalties up to $10,000 per violation, plus private suits. Referred January 16, 2025 and carried over to 2026, it died.
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.
Artificial intelligence; definitions; requiring operators make certain disclosure; preventative measures for minor account holders; prohibitions; enforcement authority to Attorney General; civil penalty. Effective date.
Not law. SB 1521 would have required operators of public conversational AI services to tell minor users they are talking to AI, through a constantly visible disclaimer or at the start and every 30 minutes, prevent statements suggesting a human for minor accounts, offer minors no engagement rewards, never present the AI as providing professional mental health care, and refer users expressing suicidal ideation to crisis services. The Attorney General could seek $1,000 per violation, capped at $500,000 per company. The Senate (43-0) and House (90-0) passed different versions, but the Senate never voted on the House amendments, so it died with the session.
Artificial intelligence chatbot technology requirements provision
Not law. SF 4997 would have barred chatbot operators in Minnesota from letting chatbots give substantive medical, mental health or legal advice that would require a license, with a private right of action that a disclaimer could not waive, and required clear notice that users are talking to AI. Companion chatbot operators would have had to use industry-standard methods to prevent self-harm content and detect minors, suspend use for at least 72 hours and show crisis contacts when self-harm appears, and would have been liable, strictly so for minors, for resulting self-harm. It was introduced April 7, 2026 and never left committee.
Campaign finance: advertising; using artificial intelligence in certain political advertisements; require disclosure. Amends sec. 47 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.247) & adds sec. 59. TIE BAR WITH: HB 5143'23
Michigan's HB 5141 (Public Act 263 of 2023) requires whoever creates, originally publishes or originally distributes a qualified political advertisement (a paid ad about a Michigan candidate, election or ballot question with image, audio or video generated in whole or substantially with AI) to state clearly and conspicuously that it was generated in whole or substantially by AI, with size, timing and language rules for print, audio and video. Fines: up to $250 for a first violation, up to $1,000 for each later one. AI-generated political robocalls need a disclaimer. Approved November 30, 2023; effective February 13, 2024.
Restricts the use by an employer or an employment agency of electronic monitoring or an automated employment decision tool to screen a candidate or employee for an employment decision unless such tool has been the subject of an impact assessment within the last year; requires notice to employment…
New York's S 7623-C (2023-2024) would have added Labor Law Article 36, the "Boundaries on Technology Act" (sections 1010 to 1016). Employers with one hundred or more employees could not use an automated employment decision tool unless an impartial party completed an impact assessment no more than one year before use, repeated annually, with results sent to the Department of Labor for a public registry; employers could not rely solely on tool output. Version C dropped the electronic monitoring rules of earlier versions. Amended May 31, 2024, it never passed either chamber and died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Enacts into law major components of legislation necessary to implement the state transportation, economic development and environmental conservation budget for the 2025-2026 state fiscal year; relates to the waterfront commission act; makes amendments to change "applicant" to "licensee or…
New York's 2025-26 budget bill (Chapter 58 of 2025) includes two AI laws. Part U requires operators of AI companions (AI that simulates a sustained human-like relationship) to make reasonable efforts to detect and address suicidal ideation or self-harm and refer users to crisis services such as 988, and to tell users at the start of an interaction and every three hours that they are not talking to a human; the Attorney General can seek up to $15,000 a day (in effect since November 5, 2025). Part X requires businesses using personalized algorithmic pricing to show 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA' (since July 8, 2025).
Preventing the dissemination of deepfake materials of political candidates before an election.
New Hampshire's HB 630 (2025) would have amended RSA 664:14-c, which bars distributing a deepfake of a candidate, election official or party within 90 days of an election unless it carries a prescribed disclosure, so that it covers deepfakes created using any "synthetic media technology" rather than only "artificial intelligence or generative AI", and so the disclosure refers to "digital technology" instead of "artificial intelligence technology". The House adopted the committee's Inexpedient to Legislate report 201-169 on March 20, 2025, and the bill died.
"Prohibition of Exploitation by Deepfakes Act"; enact.
Mississippi's SB 2437 (2025), the "Prohibition of Exploitation by Deepfakes Act," would have made it unlawful to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish intimate visual depictions, including AI-made "morphed images," of identifiable individuals in certain circumstances. Per its title it would also have required covered platforms to run a notice-and-removal process. It was referred to Judiciary, Division B on January 20, 2025, and died in committee on February 4, 2025.
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.
Classroom Technology Amendments
Utah HB 273 (2026) sets a framework for AI in K-12 classrooms. The State Board of Education must publish a model AI use policy under which educators use only approved student-facing AI tools and may not use generative AI to independently grade student work or make high-stakes decisions such as placement, discipline or program eligibility. Students may use generative AI for academic work only when an educator authorizes it for a specific purpose, and parents get written notice when generative AI is used in instruction or assessment. High schools may offer AI sandbox courses within CTE. Effective July 1, 2026.
Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights
Not law: passed the Senate but died in the House when the session ended. Florida's CS/SB 482 (2026), the "Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights," would have required parental consent and controls for minors on companion chatbot platforms, an hourly not-human notice from bot operators, deidentified data for any sale of user data by AI companies, consent for generative-AI likenesses, and rules for AI tools in schools. The Senate passed it 35-2 on March 4, 2026; it died in House Messages on March 13, 2026.
Impersonation of certain licensed professionals by chatbot; definitions, notice, civil liability.
Virginia's HB 669 (2026 Regular Session) would have barred chatbots from acting as licensed professionals. As introduced, a chatbot proprietor could not let a chatbot give responses or take actions that would be the unlicensed practice of fields such as medicine, nursing, dentistry, psychology or law. It failed: left in House Appropriations Committee on February 18, 2026.
Consumer Protection - Artificial Intelligence - Behavioral Health Care Prohibitions
Maryland's HB 883 (2026, third reader text) would have barred developers of AI offered to Maryland consumers from representing that the AI is a behavioral health care provider or can provide behavioral health care, and from offering AI specifically programmed or designed to provide a service that would be behavioral health care if a provider delivered it. A violation would be an unfair, abusive or deceptive trade practice under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. It passed the House 110-23 and was referred to Senate Finance, with a hearing set for April 1, 2026, but no further action is recorded and it died when the 2026 session ended.
TRAIN Act Transparency and Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Networks Act
The federal S. 2455 (TRAIN Act) would add 17 U.S.C. 514, letting a copyright owner ask a federal district court clerk to issue a subpoena to the developer of a generative AI model for copies of, or records identifying, the owner's works used to train it, on a sworn declaration of good-faith belief. The developer "shall expeditiously" disclose; failure creates a rebuttable presumption that it copied the work. Bad-faith requests can be sanctioned. Introduced July 24, 2025 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee; no further action.
GUARD Act Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue Act of 2026
The federal S. 3062 (GUARD Act) would require AI chatbot providers to verify that users of AI companions are adults and bar minors from them, require AI and non-professional disclosures, and make it a crime to knowingly or recklessly make publicly available a chatbot that engages minors in sexually explicit conduct or solicits them to suicide, self-injury, violence or homicide (fines up to $250,000 per offense). Reported by the Judiciary Committee with a substitute May 11, 2026 and placed on the Senate calendar (Calendar No. 406); it has not passed either chamber.
An act relating to regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of mental health services
Vermont's H.644 (2026) would have barred anyone from offering, providing or advertising mental health services in Vermont that use AI in whole or in part, and barred mental health professionals from using AI for therapeutic decisions or communications, treatment plans, or detecting emotions. AI could be used for administrative support and, with written notice and consent, transcription. Violations of the ban would have been Consumer Protection Act violations carrying a $10,000 civil penalty each. Referred to House Health Care January 13, 2026; died. Senate companion S.241 also died.
An act relating to regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of mental health services
Vermont's S.241 (2026) would have barred anyone from offering, providing or advertising mental health services in Vermont that use AI in whole or in part, and barred mental health professionals from using AI for therapeutic decisions or communications, treatment plans, or detecting emotions. AI could be used for administrative support and, with written notice and consent, transcription. Violations of the ban would have been Consumer Protection Act violations carrying a $10,000 civil penalty each. Referred to Senate Health and Welfare January 13, 2026; died. A House companion, H.644, also died.
Artificial intelligence safety and disclosure requirements establishment (RAISE Act)
Not law. Minnesota's SF 4509, the Responsible Artificial Intelligence Safety and Education (RAISE) Act, would have added Minn. Stat. 325M.40 to 325M.42. AI model developers would have had to adopt, publish in redacted form and send to the attorney general a safety and security protocol, not deploy a model creating an unreasonable risk of critical harm, and report safety incidents within 72 hours. Civil penalties would reach $10,000,000, then $30,000,000.
Artificial intelligence; use of systems for student instruction.
Virginia's SB 394 adds Code § 22.1-20.2:1. The Department of Education, consulting school divisions and stakeholders, must compile how public schools use AI for instruction and post guidance for its safe, ethical and equitable use. The guidance covers student data privacy (FERPA, COPPA), teacher training, transparency, data agreements that bar using student or division data to train outside AI models, and bias, and must ensure approved AI uses give teachers access to transcripts of students' AI interactions. School boards must adopt policies following it. If funded, the Department runs an AI pilot program; that authority expires July 1, 2030. Identical to HB 1186; effective July 1, 2026.
Fostering Access, Innovation, and Responsibility in Artificial Intelligence Act; established.
Virginia's SB 365 (2026 Regular Session) would create the FAIR AI Act. A developer of a base AI model would have to disclose in its terms of service the model's name, developer, incorporation location, release date and other listed items; the disclosure would not be a defense to liability. Continued to 2027 in committee on February 4, 2026.
Identity Protection Modifications
Utah SB 256 (2026) applies defamation law to deepfakes and strengthens likeness rights. It is not a defense to libel or slander that content was created with generative AI, computer animation or digital manipulation. Before suing over digitally created content, a plaintiff must give the publisher written notice, and removal within 10 days limits recovery to actual damages. It establishes an exclusive right to consent to use of one's identity and extends the Abuse of Personal Identity Act, as amended by 2025 SB 271, to distributing or trafficking in identity-replication tools, with exemptions. Effective May 6, 2026.
Employment decisions; automated decision systems, civil penalty.
Virginia's HB 1514 (2026 Regular Session) would have regulated automated decision systems used in employment decisions. State agencies using one as a substantial factor would have had to ensure legal compliance, disclose its use, offer an opt-out, test it annually and train staff, and no employer could make a final employment decision without a human decision maker. It failed: left in House Appropriations Committee on February 18, 2026.
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.
Disclosure of Intimate Images
South Carolina's H. 3058 (Act No. 37 of 2025) creates the crime of unauthorized disclosure of intimate images (S.C. Code §§ 16-15-330, 16-15-332), covering real images and "digitally forged intimate images" made or substantially modified with machine learning or other computer means, even if labeled as fake. Intentionally sharing one without the person's effective consent is a felony if meant to cause harm or for profit (first offense up to $5,000 and/or 5 years; later offenses up to $10,000 and/or 1 to 10 years) and otherwise a misdemeanor for a first offense. Signed May 12, 2025; effective on approval.
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.
To establish a commission to investigate AI in education
Not law. S 429 would have created a commission in the Massachusetts Executive Office of Education to study AI in schools and recommend regulations, limits, standards and safeguards. It would have surveyed how public and private school systems use generative AI and automated decision systems (for grading, scheduling, lesson planning and budgeting), examined bias, transparency, data protection, plagiarism and a possible watermark requirement, and produced guidelines for ethical use. On December 4, 2025 it was sent to a study order (S 2792), ending it for the 2025-2026 session.
Relates to the disclosure of automated employment decision-making tools; requires the office of information technology services to maintain an artificial intelligence inventory; provides that the use of artificial intelligence systems shall not affect the existing rights of employees pursuant to an…
New York's S 822 (Chapter 96 of 2025) is the chapter amendment to the LOADinG Act (Chapter 674 of 2024). It dropped that act's human-review and impact-assessment rules for state agency automated decision-making. Instead, each state agency using automated employment decision-making tools must post a list of them on its website by December 30, 2025 and yearly; the Office of Information Technology Services must keep an inventory of state agency AI systems that may directly impact the public, posted on the state's open data site each December 30; and, until July 1, 2028, AI use may not displace state employees or impair collective bargaining. Signed February 14, 2025; effective July 1, 2025.
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).
State government; require state agencies to provide a notice to employees when using artificial intelligence in personnel matters
Georgia's HB 1351 would add Code section 50-1-15 requiring a governmental agency that uses AI, or contracts with a third party to use it, in hiring to state in the job description that AI may be used to evaluate applications. If AI is used to evaluate an employee's performance in a way that leads to termination, the agency would have to provide a disclaimer documenting all decision pathways, including human review. The bill reached House Second Readers on February 19, 2026 and died when the session ended.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's SB 2585 (2026) would have required the Department of Health, with other agencies, to establish an AI-enhanced online clearinghouse of evidence-based treatment and prevention programs, use AI to classify programs by evidence level and cultural responsiveness, and have any AI model regularly audited for transparency, fairness and bias mitigation. The appropriation amount was blank. It was referred to committees January 28, 2026 and died.
An act relating to restricting electronic monitoring of employees and the use of employment-related automated decision systems
Vermont's H.262 (2025-2026 biennium) would have limited employers' electronic monitoring of employees and use of automated decision systems (ADS) in employment decisions (new 21 V.S.A. sec. 495q). Employers would have had to give 15 days' notice before monitoring and could use an ADS only with human corroboration, an impact assessment and notice, never relying on its output alone. Facial, gait, voice and emotion recognition would be banned. It was referred to House General and Housing on February 19, 2025 and died.
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.
AI Foundation Model Transparency Act of 2026
The federal H.R. 8094 (AI Foundation Model Transparency Act of 2026) would direct the FTC to issue regulations within 1 year of enactment requiring covered foundation model providers to submit information to the FTC and publish details on training data, testing and operations. Fully open-source models would be exempt. Referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee March 26, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act
The federal H.R. 1941 (Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act) would let the subject of a digitally manipulated intimate depiction sue anyone who discloses it without consent, with $150,000 in liquidated damages, and make it a federal crime to disclose or threaten to disclose one with intent to harass or to cause harm: up to 2 years in prison, or up to 10 in certain cases. Introduced March 6, 2025 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee; no further action.
To force any media/internet creator providing artificial intelligence created videos to have an identifying marker that allows viewers to know that the video is not real.
West Virginia's HB 4496 (2026 regular session) would have added an Artificial Intelligence Media Disclosure article (W. Va. Code 46A-9) requiring any entity that creates or distributes AI-generated media for public consumption to include a clear and conspicuous disclosure, such as a watermark or on-screen or spoken statement, with video disclosures of at least 3 seconds. Civil penalties would reach $100,000 per day for organizations. It was sent to House Judiciary on January 19, 2026 and died when the session ended March 14, 2026.
California AI Transparency Act: system provenance data.
California's AB 2713 rewrites the large-online-platform duties of the California AI Transparency Act (Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.3.1). From January 1, 2027, large online platforms must detect provenance data on content they distribute, show in their interface whether system provenance data or a digital signature identifies content as generated or substantially altered by a generative AI system or captured by a camera or other capture device, and let users inspect that data. They may not, to the extent technically feasible, knowingly strip it. Only data compliant or interoperable with widely adopted standards is covered. Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 856); effective January 1, 2027.
QUIET Act Quashing Unwanted and Interruptive Electronic Telecommunications Act
The QUIET Act (H.R. 1027) would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require anyone making a robocall or sending a robotext who uses AI to emulate a human being to disclose at the start that AI is being used. It would also double the maximum forfeiture and criminal fine when AI is used to impersonate an individual or entity with intent to defraud, cause harm or wrongfully obtain anything of value. Referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on February 5, 2025; it has not passed either house.
QUIET Act Quashing Unwanted and Interruptive Electronic Telecommunications Act
The federal S. 3354 (QUIET Act) would amend Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 to require anyone making a robocall or robotext who uses AI to emulate a human to disclose at the beginning that AI is being used, and would double the maximum forfeiture and criminal fine for violations in which AI is used to impersonate a person or entity to defraud, cause harm or wrongfully obtain something of value. Referred to the Senate Commerce Committee December 4, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
23 Asilomar AI Principles.
California's Assembly Concurrent Resolution 215 expresses the Legislature's support for the 23 Asilomar AI Principles as guiding values for the development of artificial intelligence and of related public policy. The principles, drafted at a January 2017 meeting of AI researchers and others in Asilomar, California, cover research issues, ethics and values (such as safety, failure transparency, personal privacy and human control) and longer-term issues (such as catastrophic risks and recursive self-improvement). Adopted by the Assembly June 25, 2018 and the Senate August 30, 2018; filed September 7, 2018 (Res. Chapter 206). A concurrent resolution does not change the law.
An Act Prohibiting The Disclosure Of The Residential Address Of Public School Employees Under The Freedom Of Information Act And Establishing A Task Force Concerning Mass Requests Under The Act.
Connecticut's SB 325 (2026), in the committee substitute text (File No. 292), would add school employees to the list of public employees whose residential addresses a public agency may not disclose from personnel, medical or similar files under the Freedom of Information Act (effective October 1, 2026), and would establish a task force to study individuals using artificial intelligence to develop mass FOIA requests. It passed the Senate on April 22, 2026, and died when the 2026 session ended May 6, 2026.
A bill for an act relating to private entity requirements concerning biometric data, and providing civil penalties.
Iowa's SSB 3085 would create Code chapter 554J requiring private entities holding biometric data (such as facial geometry, fingerprints or voice) to have a public retention policy, give written notice before collecting, never sell it, and protect it. The Department of Inspections, Appeals, and Licensing would enforce with civil penalties of $1,000, $5,000 and $10,000; no private right of action. Senate subcommittee recommended passage February 4, 2026.
AN ACT relating to protection of information and declaring an emergency.
Kentucky's SB 4 (2025) governs state government's use of AI. The Commonwealth Office of Technology must create an Artificial Intelligence Governance Committee, set standards for agencies' use of generative and high-risk AI, keep a registry of those systems and report yearly. Agencies must disclose AI use to the public, explain AI-driven decisions and offer appeals of consequential decisions. A candidate whose appearance, action or speech is altered with synthetic media in an electioneering communication may sue the sponsor to require a clear disclosure. Signed March 24, 2025 (Acts Ch. 66); emergency act, effective on signing.
AN ACT relating to campaign practices; requiring certain communications relating to an election that include synthetic media to contain a disclosure; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Nevada AB 73 adds NRS 294A.3493. A campaign communication paid for by a person, candidate or committee that supports or opposes a candidate or party and includes synthetic media (an image, audio or video of a person intentionally manipulated with AI, generative AI or GAN techniques so it looks real but gives a fundamentally different impression) must clearly state "This (image/video/audio) has been manipulated." Video must show it throughout; audio must say it at the start, end and every 2 minutes. A depicted candidate can sue for an injunction. Broadcasters, platforms and satire/parody are exempt. Effective Jan. 1, 2026.
Requires policing agencies to conduct an inventory of, and develop a publicly-available policy for, any artificial intelligence used to aid criminal investigations.
New York's S 10425 would add Executive Law § 837-ww requiring policing agencies to publish a disclosure for any "covered AI" used to aid criminal investigations, including generative AI used to write police reports, at least 90 days before using a new product. Agencies would have to disclose AI use in filed reports, keep audit trails, and adopt an Attorney General model policy. Referred to Codes May 15, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Provides disparate impact based on automated decision system as cause of action for certain consumers.
New Jersey's S 4279 (as introduced) would bar a covered entity (lender, housing provider, screening company, creditor, servicer, insurer or their agents) from using an automated decision system in housing or credit decisions in a way that results in a disparate impact on a protected class, a violation of the Law Against Discrimination. It would require impact assessments at least every two years, notice and human review on request, and would let the Division on Civil Rights or Attorney General impose fines of at least $5,000 for certain violations. Introduced May 14, 2026 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; not passed.
State-by-State Regulation of AI Transparency & Disclosure
Artificial intelligence regulation is advancing at the state level. This page lists the 498 published bills we track on AI Transparency & Disclosure. State attorneys general, privacy regulators, and legislatures are developing a patchwork of laws that impose different obligations on businesses deploying AI systems related to this topic. Compliance teams and legal counsel must track both enacted laws and the pipeline of pending bills that could shift requirements at any time.
Obligations differ from bill to bill. Depending on the law, they can include consumer disclosure obligations, prohibition on specific high-risk uses, mandatory algorithmic impact assessments, bias audits, rights to explanation, and human override requirements. Penalties for non-compliance vary by state — use our Penalty Tracker to review enforcement provisions. For upcoming effective dates, see the Deadlines page.
To understand how AI Transparency & Disclosure 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.