Algorithmic bias legislation targets AI systems that produce discriminatory outcomes based on protected characteristics like race, gender, age, or disability. These laws require bias audits, impact assessments, and corrective measures when AI systems show disparate impact.
Enacts the New York privacy act to require companies to disclose their methods of de-identifying personal information, to place special safeguards around data sharing and to allow consumers to obtain the names of all entities with whom their information is shared.
New York's A 8158 (the "New York privacy act") would add General Business Law Article 42-A (§§ 1200-1207). Among other consumer rights, people could opt out of "profiling in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects" (such as lending, housing, insurance, employment and health care), and controllers would have to run data protection assessments for profiling that presents a reasonably foreseeable risk of unfair treatment or unlawful disparate impact. Only the Attorney General could enforce it, with penalties of up to $20,000 per violation. Introduced May 2, 2025 and referred to Consumer Affairs and Protection (again January 7, 2026); not passed.
Relates to the use of automated decision tools by landlords for making housing decisions; sets conditions and rules for use of such tools.
New York's S 7735-A (2023-2024) would have added Real Property Law § 227-g regulating landlords' automated decision tools for housing decisions. Landlords would need an independent auditor's disparate impact analysis at least annually, post a summary on their website, and notify applicants at least 24 hours before use, including reasons for a denial. The Attorney General could investigate and sue. Amended April 2, 2024 and left in committee; it died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Prohibit Surveillance Price & Wage Setting
Colorado's HB 26-1210 would have banned individualized price and wage setting: using an algorithm that applies statistical modeling, data analytics, AI or similar techniques to surveillance data about a person's characteristics, online behavior or biometrics, as more than a de minimis factor in the price offered to a consumer or the wage offered to a worker. Cost-based, supply-and-demand, public-discount, loyalty and need-based pricing, consumer-report credit refusals, and wages based solely on seniority or hired-for tasks and performance with plain-language disclosure, would have been allowed. Violations would have been deceptive trade practices. Vetoed by the Governor on June 2, 2026.
Consumer Protection - High-Risk Artificial Intelligence - Developer and Deployer Requirements
Maryland's SB 936 (2025) would have added Commercial Law sections 14-47A-01 to 14-47A-08 requiring developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used for consequential decisions to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination starting February 1, 2026, with impact assessments, consumer notices and appeals. The Attorney General would enforce, with fines up to $1,000 per violation ($1,000 to $10,000 if willful). A Senate Finance hearing was set for February 27, 2025; the bill went no further and died when the session ended.
Consumer Protection - Consumer Reporting Agencies - Use of Algorithmic Systems
Maryland's HB 1399 (2026, first reader text) would have added Commercial Law section 14-1228 requiring consumer reporting agencies that use algorithmic systems to assemble or evaluate consumer information to explain evaluations in plain language, keep a public registry of algorithms, meet error-rate targets, get quarterly independent bias audits, have humans review automated evaluations within 24 hours, and notify consumers when AI is used. It had a House Economic Matters hearing set for March 10, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.
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.
Surveillance-based price and wage discrimination prohibition
Minnesota's SF 4233 would have prohibited using an automated decision system to set individualized prices for consumers or wages for workers based on surveillance data about them, with listed exceptions, and required anyone using such a system for prices or wages to publish procedures to check and correct the data. The text names no enforcer or penalty. Introduced March 9, 2026 and never left committee.
AI for America Act
The AI for America Act (H.R. 6304) would require the Office of Science and Technology Policy to submit an AI action plan to Congress by July 31, 2027, identify regulatory barriers to AI adoption in healthcare, scientific research and transportation, and have NIST report on detecting security risks and ideological bias in AI. Referred to the House Science, Space, and Technology and Energy and Commerce Committees on November 25, 2025; it has not passed either house.
Providing consumer protections for artificial intelligence systems.
Washington's SB 6284 (1st substitute, 2026 session) would have required developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used to make, or be a substantial factor in, consequential decisions on employment, housing, insurance, health care, education, lending, legal services and similar matters to guard against algorithmic discrimination. Deployer duties would start July 1, 2027, consumer notice July 1, 2026, and only the Attorney General could enforce. It cleared Senate Environment, Energy & Technology on February 3, 2026, was heard in Ways & Means on February 6, and died at adjournment on March 12.
Regulating high-risk artificial intelligence system development, deployment, and use.
Washington's SB 6120 (2026 session), the Senate companion to HB 2157, would have required developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems, those intended to make or be a substantial factor in consequential decisions such as employment, lending, housing, insurance, health care and education, to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination. It included developer documentation, deployer risk programs and impact assessments, consumer notices, and private lawsuits for injunctions. It had a first reading on January 14, 2026 and died at adjournment.
Prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination and surge pricing for retail goods.
Washington's SB 6312, the Senate companion to HB 2481 (2026 session), would have barred non-small businesses selling grocery products from surveillance-based price discrimination (prices set from monitoring or automated analysis of a consumer's personal data) and from surge pricing based on real-time or predicted demand; 'algorithm' is defined to include AI. It would also have barred electronic shelf labels in stores of 15,000 square feet or more until January 1, 2030; violations would be Consumer Protection Act violations. It got no committee action on February 4, 2026 and died at adjournment.
Provides relative to prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination
Louisiana's HB471 would have made 'surveillance-based price discrimination' an unfair or deceptive trade practice, so that no person could engage in it. It defines surveillance data, behaviors, biometrics and automated decision systems, and exempts cost-justified price differences, certain equal-terms discounts and refusals based on a Fair Credit Reporting Act consumer report. It was considered in House Commerce April 22, 2026 and died. A Senate bill on the same subject, SB362, also died.
China AI Threat Assessment Act
The federal H.R. 6909 (China AI Threat Assessment Act) would require the Director of National Intelligence, not later than 180 days after enactment, to submit to Congress a National Intelligence Estimate on AI systems developed or deployed by entities in the People's Republic of China, covering embedded algorithmic bias, training data and model architectures, use for influence operations or surveillance, and recommendations for monitoring and countering malign uses. Introduced December 18, 2025 and referred to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; no further action.
Relating to the use of artificial intelligence-based algorithms in utilization review conducted for certain health benefit plans.
Texas SB 1822 (2025), as engrossed, would have added Insurance Code Sec. 4201.156 requiring health benefit plan issuers and their utilization review agents to disclose whether they use AI-based algorithms in utilization review, ensure the algorithm and its training data minimize bias and follow evidence-based clinical guidelines, and file an annual compliance statement by December 31. It passed the Senate, but no enrolled version exists, so it died June 2, 2025.
Relating to the use of an automated employment decision tool by a state agency to assess a job applicant's fitness for a position.
Texas SB 2473 (2025), as introduced, would have added Government Code Subchapter E to Chapter 656 limiting how state agencies use automated employment decision tools to assess job applicants. An agency could not use a tool unless it notified the applicant and gave information on how it would be used and what characteristics may be evaluated, and it would have had to mitigate bias so the tool does not discriminate against protected classes. No penalties are stated. No enrolled version exists, so it died June 2, 2025.
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the use of artificial intelligence in the financial services and housing industries.
A nonbinding House resolution stating that the House Financial Services Committee should lead policymaking on AI in the financial services and housing industries. It says the committee should promote a pro-consumer, pro-investor and pro-innovation culture, ensure regulators enforce existing laws including anti-discrimination laws, avoid rules that disproportionately burden smaller firms, consider reforms to financial privacy laws, strengthen AI cybersecurity standards and study AI's effect on the workforce. Financial Services approved it 54-0 on January 22, 2026 and reported it, as amended, on March 19, 2026.
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.
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.
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.
Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding unbiased artificial intelligence in state government purchasing.
Did not pass. H 687 would have let Idaho executive-branch agencies, including public colleges, buy or use a large language model only if it is 'truth-seeking' and 'ideologically neutral.' Agencies could not use models designed to alter facts or history to advance diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) outcomes, restrict lawful content based on race or sex, embed DEI-based guardrails, or require users to affirm DEI concepts. Contracts would have given agencies access to system prompts, training directives and test results to check compliance. It passed the House 56-11 but died in the Senate State Affairs Committee.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Regulates automated decision-making by government agencies; requires agencies to conduct impact assessments; requires disclosure of automated decision-making tools utilized by governmental agencies.
New York's S 7599-C (Chapter 711 of 2025) added State Technology Law Article 5, under which agencies would have listed automated decision-making tools and done bias-tested impact assessments from December 19, 2026. Chapter 86 of 2026 repealed Article 5, which had not yet taken effect, and the § 103-f state tool inventory. Now in force: public employers' use of AI systems may not displace employees or impair collective bargaining, and (added by Chapter 86) local governments, school districts, BOCES, SUNY, CUNY and community colleges must, where feasible, list automated employment decision tools yearly from December 30, 2026. Signed December 19, 2025; expires July 1, 2028.
Provides for the use of automated employment decision-making tools and artificial intelligence systems by a county, city, town, village, school district, board of cooperative educational services, county vocational education and extension board, district corporation, the state university of New…
New York's S 8831 (Chapter 86 of 2026) is the chapter amendment to Chapter 711 of 2025. It repealed Chapter 711's State Technology Law Article 5 (impact assessments, bias testing and public lists of government automated decision-making tools, set to start December 19, 2026), its state tool inventory and its report to the Legislature. Instead, local governments, school districts, BOCES, SUNY, CUNY and community colleges must, to the extent feasible, post yearly lists of automated employment decision tools, first by December 30, 2026, and public employers may not use AI systems to displace employees. Signed February 13, 2026, with effect from December 19, 2025; the rules expire July 1, 2028.
Calling on the United States to champion a regional artificial intelligence strategy in the Americas to foster inclusive artificial intelligence systems that combat biases within marginalized groups and promote social justice, economic well-being, and democratic values.
The federal H.Res. 836 is a simple House resolution that would not change the law. It would applaud the White House's Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, declare inclusive and safe AI a priority of U.S. policy, urge a "safe and responsible Regional AI Strategy in the Americas", and call on the U.S. Government to fund AI education, training and infrastructure in the Western Hemisphere and support common ethical frameworks and standards. Introduced October 28, 2025 and referred to the House Foreign Affairs and Science, Space, and Technology committees; no further action.
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.
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.
ALGORITHMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
Illinois's HB 5322 (103rd General Assembly) would have created the Illinois Commercial Algorithmic Impact Assessments Act. By January 1, 2026, and annually after, deployers and developers of an automated decision tool would have to complete and document an impact assessment, and developers would have to give deployers documentation on intended uses and limitations. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).
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.
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.
Fostering Access, Innovation, and Responsibility in Artificial Intelligence Act; established.
Virginia's HB 713 (2026 Regular Session) would have created the FAIR AI Act, requiring developers of base AI models to disclose listed items in their terms of service and limiting defenses in harm actions. As introduced it would have taken effect July 1, 2027. It failed: left in House Appropriations Committee on February 18, 2026.
Virginia Human Rights Act; equal credit opportunities, Virginia Fair Housing Law, nondiscrimination.
Virginia's HB 999 (2026 Regular Session) would have made it an unlawful discriminatory practice to use an automated decision system in decisions under the Human Rights Act, equal credit law or Fair Housing Law that results in discrimination. The House General Laws substitute focused on credit. It failed: left in House Appropriations Committee on February 18, 2026.
Fair and Future Ready Housing Act; enact
Georgia's HB 715, the Fair and Future Ready Housing Act, would add Code section 8-3-224 to the fair housing law. Discriminatory housing practices resulting from AI or automated decision tools would be prohibited, reliance on such tools would not be a defense, and no person could use them to make sale, rental or financing determinations without individual review or without disclosing their use. After notice and hearing, the Attorney General could impose a penalty of up to $10,000 for violating subsection (c) or (d). The bill reached House Second Readers on March 6, 2025 and died when the session ended.
Trade Practices; surveillance based price discrimination and surveillance based wage discrimination; prohibit
Georgia's SB 164 would add Article 37 to Title 10, Chapter 1, prohibiting 'surveillance based price discrimination' and 'surveillance based wage discrimination', meaning use of an automated decision system to set individualized prices or wages based on surveillance data about a consumer or worker. Defined exceptions would apply, such as cost-based price differences. According to its title, it would provide civil penalties and enforcement. The bill was read and referred on February 13, 2025 and died when the session ended.
An Act relative to justice, equity and accountability in law enforcement in the Commonwealth
Massachusetts' 2020 police reform law (Chapter 253 of the Acts of 2020) regulates police use of facial recognition. Under new G.L. c.6 s.220, a law enforcement agency may perform or request a facial recognition search only through a written request to the Registry of Motor Vehicles, State Police or FBI, and only with a court order, except to identify a deceased person or in an emergency. Each search must be documented and reported quarterly to the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. Section 220 took effect July 1, 2021; a special commission was set up to study government use of facial recognition.
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.
Provides funding to nonprofit organizations to implement smart technology and artificial intelligence systems to enhance security infrastructure.
A 2608 would create the New Jersey Equitable Nonprofit Security and Innovation Grant Program in the Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness. Nonprofits, including places of worship, could get up to $25,000 for smart technology that cuts operating costs and up to $100,000 for AI security systems such as AI-powered surveillance and threat detection. The office would favor groups serving at-risk communities and communities of color, request at least $14 million a year, and have to approve every AI system bought with grant money to make sure it is not unfairly discriminatory. 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.
Requesting The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission To Examine The Applicability Of Existing State Anti-discrimination Laws To Algorithmic And Automated Decision Systems.
Hawaii's Senate Concurrent Resolution 184 (2026) asks the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission to examine how existing state anti-discrimination laws apply to algorithmic and automated decision systems, including AI tools used in employment screening, tenant selection, credit and public benefits decisions: whether current law gives enough authority to investigate and remedy such discrimination, jurisdictional and evidentiary hurdles, whether guidance or rulemaking would help, a possible complaint pathway, and any legislation needed. Report due 20 days before the 2027 session. Adopted by the Senate April 9 and the House April 24, 2026; a concurrent resolution does not change the law.
Requires real estate brokers and online housing platforms using virtual agents and AI tools to conduct a disparate impact analysis to assess the actual impact of any such virtual agent; requires such individuals to submit a summary of the most recent disparate impact analysis to the attorney…
New York's A 9028 would amend Real Property Law § 440 and add § 442-m. At least once a year, brokers or online housing platforms using virtual agents for property searches, and platforms using AI tools, would have to have an independent auditor conduct a disparate impact analysis and submit a summary to the Attorney General's office, test for and correct discriminatory results, and (for AI tools) follow ad and captioning safeguards and report publicly. Would take effect immediately. Referred to Judiciary September 5, 2025 (and January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
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.
Prohibits discrimination through the use of clinical algorithms; provides exceptions for clinical algorithms that rely on variables to appropriately make decisions, including to identify, evaluate, and address health disparities.
New York's A 3993 would add Insurance Law § 3243-a providing that an insurer subject to the article shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability through the use of clinical algorithms in its decision-making, while permitting clinical algorithms that rely on variables to appropriately make decisions, including to identify, evaluate and address health disparities. Would take effect immediately. Referred to Insurance January 30, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Provides for notice requirements where an insurer authorized to write accident and health insurance in this state, a corporation organized pursuant to article forty-three of this chapter, or a health maintenance organization certified pursuant to article forty-four of the public health law uses…
New York's A 1456 would add Insurance Law § 338 requiring accident and health insurers, Article 43 corporations and Article 44 HMOs to tell insureds on their public websites about their use or lack of use of AI-based algorithms in utilization review, to submit those algorithms and training data to the Department for certification that bias risk is minimized, and to have clinical peer reviewers document review of individual records before an adverse determination. Fines would be up to $5,000 per violation or $10,000 per willful violation. Referred to Insurance January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Relates to the development and use of certain artificial intelligence systems
New York's A 8884-A, the "New York AI act," would add Civil Rights Law §§ 105 to 115. Developers and deployers of high-risk AI used in consequential decisions (e.g. jobs, education, housing, health care, finance) would have to take reasonable care to prevent algorithmic discrimination, give notice and appeal with human review, get audits, report to the Department of Financial Services and keep risk programs; social scoring would be banned. AG civil penalties: up to $25,000 (developers) or $10,000 (deployers) per violation. Would take effect one year after becoming law (audits, two years). Amended June 1, 2026 and recommitted to Science and Technology; not passed by either chamber.
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.
Relating to regulation of the use of artificial intelligence systems in this state; providing civil penalties.
Texas's HB 149, the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, bars developing or deploying AI intended to incite self-harm, harm to others or crime, with intent to unlawfully discriminate against a protected class (disparate impact alone is not enough), or solely to infringe U.S. constitutional rights, and making or distributing AI solely to produce or spread child pornography or unlawful sexual deep fakes. Government entities may not use AI for harmful social scoring or rights-infringing biometric ID. Agencies must tell consumers they are dealing with AI; health care providers must tell patients. AG enforcement; 60-day cure. Signed June 22, 2025; effective January 1, 2026.
Requires certain disclosures by automobile insurers relating to the use of telematics systems in determining insurance rates and/or discounts.
New York's S 5486 would add Insurance Law § 2304-a requiring insurers that use telematics systems, and third-party developers and vendors of them, to explain to the Superintendent how model or algorithm factors relate to risk, publicly disclose scoring methodologies, report discrimination testing and give consumers access to their collected data. Collected data could be used only for underwriting and rating. Referred to Insurance January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits the use of electronic shelving labels, digital shelf display technology, and personalized algorithmic pricing in food retail establishments and drug retail establishments; provides injunctive relief, civil penalties, and a private right of action.
New York's S 8616-B, the Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Discriminatory Pricing Act, would add General Business Law § 349-a-1. Food and drug retail establishments could not use electronic shelving labels or digital shelf displays, could not engage in surveillance pricing (pricing set completely or in part by an algorithm that uses personal data), and could not use protected class data in pricing. The Attorney General could seek penalties up to $10,000 per violation. Passed the Senate May 13, 2026 and, as amended, June 4, 2026 (50-10); on June 5 the Assembly substituted it for A9396-B on its third-reading calendar. No Assembly vote is shown.
Prohibits motor vehicle insurers from discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic factors in determining algorithms used to construct actuarial tables, coverage terms, premiums and/or rates.
New York's S 4082 would add Insurance Law § 2619 barring motor vehicle insurers from basing classification plans, rates or rating plans, in whole or in part, on eleven listed factors, including age, marital status, sex, education, occupation, income, credit information, property ownership and price elasticity of demand. It would also bar using them to adjust algorithms used to build actuarial tables or set coverage cost. Referred to Insurance January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
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.
Provides that surveillance-based price discrimination is an unfair or deceptive trade practice or act. (8/1/26)
Louisiana's SB362 would have made 'surveillance-based price discrimination' an unfair or deceptive trade practice, so that no person could engage in it. The bill defines surveillance data, behaviors and biometrics, mentions automated decision systems, and exempts cost-based price differences, equal-terms discounts and credit refusals based on a Fair Credit Reporting Act report. It was considered in committee April 22, 2026 and died.
Artificial intelligence, consumer protection
South Carolina's S 963 would enact the Consumer Protections in Interactions with Artificial Intelligence Systems Act (Chapter 31 of Title 37). Developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used in consequential decisions would owe a duty of reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with impact assessments, consumer notices and appeal rights. The Attorney General would have exclusive enforcement. Introduced February 26, 2026 and referred to the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
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.
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.
An act relating to the regulation of social media platforms and artificial intelligence systems
Vermont's H.365 (2025-2026 biennium) would have required operators of social media platforms and AI systems used by Vermont consumers to register annually with the Secretary of State ($100 fee) and meet product safety and privacy duties. AI providers would have had to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, disclose AI interaction and get informed consent before collecting or sharing consumer data. The Attorney General would enforce. It was referred to House Commerce on February 26, 2025 and died when the biennium ended.
An Act Concerning Artificial Intelligence, Automated Decision-making And Personal Data Privacy.
Connecticut's Public Act 23-16 governs AI in state government. The Department of Administrative Services (for all state agencies) and the Judicial Department must inventory the AI systems in use by December 31, 2023 and yearly after, and post them. OPM and the Judicial Branch set policies by February 1, 2024 for buying, using and assessing AI; from then, agencies may not deploy an AI system without an impact assessment showing it will not cause unlawful discrimination or disparate impact. It formed a working group on AI best practices and an AI bill of rights, and from October 1, 2023 state contracts must require compliance with the data privacy act. Signed June 7, 2023.
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).
Pretrial release: risk assessment tools.
SB 36 regulates algorithmic pretrial risk assessment tools used in release decisions. Each pretrial services agency using one must validate it by January 1, 2021 and at least every 3 years, and publish information about the tool, including validation studies. The Judicial Council must list agencies that meet these requirements, publish annual reports on outcomes and potential bias in pretrial release, and report by July 1, 2022 with recommendations to reduce bias and disparate effects.
Postsecondary education: sexual harassment, harassment, intimidation, and bullying policies: student training.
AB 2212 amended Education Code Section 66262.5 and related provisions of the Equity in Higher Education Act. Commencing August 1, 2027, it defines digitized sexually explicit material, meaning realistic depictions created by digitization, including computer-generated nude body parts or sexual conduct the person did not engage in, along with sextortion and technology-facilitated sexual harassment, and revises the definitions of sexual harassment and sexual exploitation that campus policies and student training must address.
Artificial Intelligence Training for the Acquisition Workforce Act (AI Training Act)
The AI Training Act requires the Director of OMB, within one year and with GSA, to develop and provide an AI training program for federal employees in program management, procurement and contracting, logistics, cost estimating and related acquisition roles (sec. 2(b)). The training must cover how AI works, how it can benefit the government, its risks including discrimination and privacy risks, ways to mitigate those risks, and future trends. OMB must update the program at least every two years and track participation and feedback. The Department of Defense and NNSA are excluded, and the section sunsets 10 years after enactment.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (Division A, Title XV, Subtitle E: Artificial Intelligence)
Subtitle E of Title XV of the FY2024 NDAA is an AI subtitle for the Department of Defense. It expands the acquisition authority of DoD's chief AI official (sec. 1541), requires bug bounty programs for foundational AI models used by DoD (sec. 1542), and directs a prize competition for technology that detects and watermarks generative AI content (sec. 1543). DoD must review its AI strategy and issue guidance on AI adoption, ethical use and mitigating bias in AI algorithms (sec. 1544), and study vulnerabilities of AI-enabled military applications (sec. 1545). The rest of the NDAA is outside this entry.
Concerning protecting consumers from unfair discrimination in insurance practices.
Colorado SB 21-169 bars insurers from unfairly discriminating based on race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity or gender expression in any insurance practice, and from using external consumer data and information sources, algorithms or predictive models that unfairly discriminate. An algorithm is a computational or machine learning process that informs human decision making in insurance practices. Commissioner rules, effective no earlier than 2023, require insurers to disclose data sources, maintain a risk-management framework, test outcomes and file attestations. Title insurance, surety and most commercial lines are exempt.
Prohibits motor vehicle insurers from discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic factors in determining algorithms used to construct actuarial tables, coverage terms, premiums and/or rates.
New York's A 1273 (2025-2026) would add Insurance Law section 2619 barring motor vehicle insurers from using classification plans, rules, rates or rating plans based in whole or in part on listed factors (age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, education, occupation, income, credit information, real property ownership, price elasticity of demand and other socioeconomic indicators). It would also make it unlawful to use them to adjust "any algorithm or equation" used to construct actuarial tables. Referred to Insurance January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
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.
FAIR Act Fair Artificial Intelligence Realization Act of 2025
The federal H.R. 5315 (FAIR Act, Fair Artificial Intelligence Realization Act of 2025) would require each federal agency to procure, after enactment, only large language models developed under four principles: truthfulness, historical accuracy and objectivity, neutrality that does not favor ideological dogmas such as diversity, equity, and inclusion, and no intentionally encoded partisan or ideological judgments unless prompted by or readily accessible to the user. Referred to the House Oversight Committee September 11, 2025; 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 A 974-A, the "New York data protection act," would add General Business Law Article 42-A letting consumers opt out of profiling (automated processing of personal data to evaluate or predict personal traits) in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects, and requiring a data protection assessment for profiling with a reasonably foreseeable risk of unfair or deceptive treatment of, or unlawful disparate impact on, consumers. It would also add targeted-advertising and data-sale opt-outs and other rights, with Attorney General civil penalties of up to $20,000 per violation. Amended May 29, 2026 and recommitted to Codes; not passed by either chamber.
Establishes criteria for the use of automated employment decision tools; provides for enforcement for violations of such criteria.
New York's A 3914 would add Labor Law § 203-g making it unlawful for an employer to use an automated employment decision tool to screen candidates unless a disparate impact analysis is done at least annually, a summary and the tool's distribution date are posted on the employer's website before use, and the summary is provided annually to the Department. The Attorney General or Commissioner could investigate and sue. Would take effect immediately. Referred to the Labor Committee January 30, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
AI open sourced, decentralized
South Carolina's S 225 is a Senate resolution, so it would not change the law. If adopted, the Senate would express support for the development of artificial intelligence technologies in South Carolina and opposition to censorship or bias that would hamper that growth, with whereas clauses favoring open-source AI. Introduced January 15, 2025 and referred to the Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee; it has not been adopted.
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.
Creates standards for independent bias auditing of automated employment decision tools.
New Jersey's A1021 would bar an employer or employment agency from using an automated employment decision tool if more than one year has passed since its most recent independent bias audit. Audits would have to calculate selection or scoring rates and impact ratios across categories such as sex, race, age and disability. Pre-filed for introduction in the 2026 session.
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.
Further providing for definitions; providing for use of automated employment decision tool; and further providing for civil penalties.
Pennsylvania's HB 594 (2025-26) would amend the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act to require an employer or employment agency using an automated employment decision tool to notify and get consent from individuals before the interview and to use only tools with a bias audit from within the past year, with the results summary posted online. It was referred to the House Labor & Industry Committee on February 12, 2025.
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 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.
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.
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.
Consumer Protection - Consumer Reporting Agencies - Use of Algorithmic Systems
Maryland's HB 1477 (2025) would have added Commercial Law section 14-1228 for consumer reporting agencies that use algorithmic systems to assemble or evaluate consumer information. They would have had to give plain-language explanations, keep a public registry of algorithms, meet error-rate and accuracy thresholds, get quarterly third-party bias audits, and have all automated evaluations reviewed by a human within 24 hours. It was introduced February 7, 2025, its March 4 hearing was canceled, and it died when the session ended.
Requesting The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission To Examine The Applicability Of Existing State Anti-discrimination Laws To Algorithmic And Automated Decision Systems.
Hawaii's House Concurrent Resolution 192 (2026) would have requested the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission to examine how existing state anti-discrimination laws apply to algorithmic and automated decision systems, and to report before the 2027 session. The House adopted it April 9, 2026, but in the Senate it was only received and referred to JDC on April 10, 2026; it was adopted by the House but not the other chamber and died. A concurrent resolution does not change the law.
Prohibits employers from engaging in discrimination on the basis of a protected class when using artificial intelligence for recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, or the terms, privileges, or conditions of…
New York's S 9028 would amend the Executive Law (Human Rights Law) to make it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to use artificial intelligence in recruitment, hiring, promotion, discharge, discipline or other employment terms in a way that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on protected classes, or to use zip codes as a proxy for them, or to fail to notify employees of such AI use. Referred to the Senate Investigations and Government Operations Committee January 23, 2026; it has not passed either house.
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.
Relative to issuing guidance regarding setting policies for the use of AI in schools
Massachusetts' H 614 would require the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education to issue guidelines for school districts and charter schools on student and teacher use of AI. The guidance would cover AI's benefits and limitations, safe use, equity implications and factors for setting school AI policies, after at least three public hearings. Referred to the Education Committee February 27, 2025; hearing November 12, 2025; reporting date extended to March 18, 2026. It has not passed either chamber.
AUTOMATED DECISION TOOLS
Illinois's SB 2203 (104th General Assembly) would create the Preventing Algorithmic Discrimination Act. On or before January 1, 2027, and annually after, a deployer of an automated decision tool would have to perform an impact assessment, notify people subject to consequential decisions, and keep a governance program. Re-referred to Assignments on April 11, 2025.
SURVEILLANCE DISCRIMINATION
Illinois's SB 2255 (104th General Assembly) would create the Surveillance-Based Price and Wage Discrimination Act. A person could not use surveillance data as part of an automated decision system to inform the individualized price charged to a consumer or the individualized wage paid to an employee. The Attorney General would enforce it. Re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026.
SURVEILLANCE-BASED WAGES
Illinois's HB 4987 (104th General Assembly) would create the Surveillance-Based Wage Discrimination Act. A person could not use surveillance data as part of an automated decision system to inform the individualized wage paid to an employee. The bill sets exemptions, Attorney General enforcement, private rights of action and penalties. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee March 27, 2026.
Artificial intelligence; Joint Commission on Technology and Science to study advancements.
Virginia's SJ 14 (2024 Regular Session) was a Senate joint resolution that would have directed the Joint Commission on Technology and Science to study advancements in artificial intelligence, including deepfakes, data privacy, misinformation and discrimination. It would not have changed the law. Continued to 2025 in committee on February 7, 2024; it failed.
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.
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.
TRANSPARENCY IN DOWNCODING ACT
Illinois's HB 4735 (104th General Assembly) would create the Transparency in Downcoding Act for certain health insurance policies. A health insurance issuer could not use an automated process, system or tool to downcode a claim, or downcode based solely on reported diagnosis codes, and downcoding decisions would have to be made by a licensed physician. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee March 27, 2026.
Data brokers; regulation, civil penalties.
Virginia's HB 638 (2026 Regular Session) would regulate data brokers. It would bar acquiring personally identifiable information by fraud, or to stalk, harass, commit fraud or unlawfully discriminate; require data brokers to keep an information security program; and require annual registration with the Secretary of the Commonwealth beginning December 1, 2027. Continued to 2027 in committee on February 9, 2026.
Registered Nurse Use of AI
Illinois's HB 4804 (104th General Assembly) would amend the Nurse Practice Act to set rules for registered nurses' use of AI, including a bar on substituting AI for nursing services, patient notice and confidentiality protections, and discipline for violations. Health care entities deploying AI in direct patient care would have to keep validation and bias monitoring records. Re-referred to Rules Committee on March 27, 2026.
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.
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.
Health care services: artificial intelligence.
Vetoed. AB 2575 would have barred California employers from retaliating against workers providing direct patient care based solely on their override of, or reliance on, a clinical decision support system (AI that aids decisions on timing of care, diagnosis or treatment), with enforcement by the Labor Commissioner. In lawsuits over harm from such a system, its developer or deployer could not have argued that a clinician's failure to override it cut off liability. Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 30, 2026, saying its anti-retaliation test set a higher bar than other protections and would make the Labor Commissioner judge the medical standard of care.
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).
AUTOMATED DECISION TOOLS
Illinois's HB 5116 (103rd General Assembly) would have created the Automated Decision Tools Act. On or before January 1, 2026, and annually after, a deployer of an automated decision tool would have to perform an impact assessment, notify people subject to a consequential decision, and keep a governance program to manage algorithmic discrimination risk. The Attorney General could sue. Died at Session Sine Die on January 7, 2025.
Senate Study Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Digital Currency; create
Georgia's SR 391 is a Senate resolution, adopted 52-0 on April 2, 2025, that created the Senate Study Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Digital Currency: six members appointed by the President of the Senate, who names a legislative member as chair. It was to study AI and digital and cryptocurrency, including safeguards against fraud, unintended bias, discrimination and privacy infringements from AI, and to recommend any action or legislation. The committee stood abolished December 1, 2025. As a resolution of one chamber, it does not change the law.
Requesting The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission To Examine The Applicability Of Existing State Anti-discrimination Laws To Algorithmic And Automated Decision Systems.
Hawaii's Senate Resolution 165 (2026) asks the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission to examine how existing state anti-discrimination laws apply to algorithmic and automated decision systems, including AI tools used in employment screening, tenant selection, credit and public benefits decisions: whether current law gives enough authority to investigate and remedy such discrimination, jurisdictional and evidentiary hurdles, whether guidance or rulemaking would help, a possible complaint pathway, and any legislation needed. Report due 20 days before the 2027 session. Adopted by the Senate April 9, 2026; a resolution of one chamber does not change the law.
Requires artificial intelligence companies to conduct safety tests and report results to Office of Information Technology.
New Jersey's S3742 would require AI companies, defined as any private entity or public agency that sells, develops, deploys, uses or offers AI technology in New Jersey, to subject their AI technology to a safety test each year and report the results to the Office of Information Technology (OIT). OIT would set minimum test requirements, including cybersecurity, bias and inaccuracy analysis, and would review each report. Introduced October 7, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Relates to the use of automated lending decision-making tools by banks for the purposes of making lending decisions; allows loan applicants to consent to or opt out of such use.
New York's 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.
Regulates use of automated employment decision tools in employment decisions to minimize discrimination in employment.
New Jersey's A2726 would regulate automated employment decision tools. A tool could not be sold, developed, deployed, used or offered in New Jersey unless it had a bias audit in the past year; employers would have to notify candidates at least 10 days before use and post audit summaries. Civil penalties would be up to $1,500 for a developer's first violation and up to $500 per violation for employers. Pre-filed for introduction in the 2026 session.
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.
AI Whistleblower Protection Act
H.R. 3460, the AI Whistleblower Protection Act, would bar employers from retaliating against employees and independent contractors, including former ones, who report AI security vulnerabilities or AI violations to regulators, Congress or supervisors. Remedies would include reinstatement and double back pay. Introduced May 15, 2025 and referred to the House Education and Workforce Committee; it has not passed either house.
SURVEILLANCE-BASED PRICING
Illinois's HB 4985 would create the Surveillance-Based Price Discrimination Act, barring a person from using surveillance data as part of an automated decision system to inform the individualized price charged to a consumer. The Attorney General and aggrieved consumers could sue. Filed February 4, 2026; assigned to the Consumer Protection Committee March 18 and re-referred to the Rules Committee March 27, 2026; it has not passed either house.
AN ACT relating to data privacy.
Kentucky's HB 33, the Kentucky Price Fairness Act (2026 session), would have amended the Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act (KRS 367.3611 and 367.3617) to bar controllers from 'surveillance pricing', meaning customized price increases based on individualized data, and from setting or displaying a price with an automated-decision system based on such data. The base price would have had to be the same for all consumers. Exceptions: uniform real-time market adjustments, loyalty programs, and verifiable costs. Referred to committee January 13, 2026; died when the session ended.
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.
Relating to the use of artificial intelligence to score certain portions of assessment instruments administered to public school students.
Texas's HB 5282 (89th Legislature, 2025, as introduced) would have required the agency to prohibit using AI, including AI-based algorithms and automated scoring engines, to score constructed (written) responses on state assessment instruments under Education Code section 39.023. Machine scoring of multiple choice would remain allowed, and an AI method could be used if trained on representative samples including educationally disadvantaged, emergent bilingual or special education students, shown valid and reliable, and certified by an independent evaluator as showing no measurable bias against them. Referred to Public Education April 7, 2025; it died in committee.
Relative to AI health communications and informed patient consent
Massachusetts' H 1210 would give patients the right to be told when health information they get was generated by AI, with instructions for reaching a human provider if the provider had not reviewed it. Health insurance carriers would have to disclose AI or automated decision tools used in claims review and file an annual report on AI algorithms and training data used in utilization review, with a bias attestation. Referred to Financial Services February 27, 2025; on February 9, 2026 it accompanied a study order (H 5066) and did not advance as its own bill.
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.
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.
Eliminating Bias in Algorithmic Systems Act of 2026
The federal S. 3680 (Eliminating Bias in Algorithmic Systems Act of 2026) would require the head of each federal agency that uses, funds, procures, oversees, regulates or advises on machine-learning or AI-based algorithms with a material effect on programs, economic opportunities or protected rights to ensure it has an office of civil rights focused on algorithmic bias and discrimination. Those offices would report to Congress 1 year after enactment and every 2 years after, and DOJ would convene an interagency working group. Introduced January 15, 2026 and referred to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; no further action.
Eliminating Bias in Algorithmic Systems Act of 2026
The federal H.R. 7110 (Eliminating Bias in Algorithmic Systems Act of 2026) would require the head of each federal agency that uses, funds, procures, oversees, regulates or advises on machine-learning or AI-based algorithms with a material effect on programs, economic opportunities or protected rights to ensure it has an office of civil rights focused on algorithmic bias and discrimination. Those offices would report to Congress 1 year after enactment and every 2 years after, and DOJ would convene an interagency working group. Introduced January 15, 2026 and referred to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee; no further action.
Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act of 2025
The federal S. 3308 (Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act of 2025) would bar developers and deployers from offering or using a covered algorithm in a way that causes or contributes to disparate impact or otherwise discriminates based on a protected characteristic in consequential actions such as employment, education, housing, health care, credit, insurance and government benefits. It would require independent-auditor evaluations and annual assessments, public disclosures, human alternatives and appeals, with enforcement by the FTC, State attorneys general and private suits. Introduced December 2, 2025 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; no further action.
Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025
The federal H.R. 5511 (Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025) would direct the FTC to issue regulations within 2 years requiring covered entities to assess the impact of covered algorithms before and after deployment and file summary reports. Covered entities include those with over $50,000,000 in average annual gross receipts or $250,000,000 in equity value, or data on over 1,000,000 consumers, households or devices. Violations would be treated as FTC rule violations, and state attorneys general could sue. Introduced September 19, 2025 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee; no further action.
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.
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.
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.
Education - Artificial Intelligence - Guidelines and Pilot Program
Maryland's SB 979 (2024) would have added Education Article subtitle 22 (sections 7-2201 to 7-2203): the State Department of Education would develop guidelines for county boards on safe, responsible and ethical AI use in consultation with the Governor's AI Subcabinet, and adopt policies against unlawful discrimination and unapproved collection of personal information. A Senate committee hearing was set for March 6, 2024; it went no further and died when the session ended.
Artificial Intelligence Task Force; create and prescribe responsibilities of.
Mississippi's SB 2426 created the Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AIR) Task Force: two legislators as co-chairs plus the heads (or designees) of Information Technology Services, the Mississippi AI Network, Homeland Security, the National Guard and the Attorney General's office, with optional nonvoting experts. It drafts proposed revisions to the Mississippi Code on AI, reviews other states' and federal AI laws (privacy, testing, ethics, liability, bias, copyright), and recommends AI uses in state agencies. It reports by December 1 each year and dissolves December 31, 2027. Its meetings and findings are exempt from open meetings and public records laws. Effective March 18, 2025.
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.
Relative to the use of artificial intelligence by state agencies.
New Hampshire's HB 1688 adds RSA chapter 5-D. State agencies may not use AI to classify people in ways that cause unlawful discrimination, use real-time remote biometric identification for public surveillance (except law enforcement with a warrant), or use deepfakes for deceptive or malicious purposes. Irreversible AI decisions need human review, generative AI material not reviewed by a human must be labeled, and users must be told when they interact with AI. Signed July 12, 2024 (Chapter 209); effective July 1, 2024.
REGISTERED NURSE USE OF AI
Illinois's SB 3702 would amend the Nurse Practice Act to bar AI systems from providing nursing services in place of a registered professional nurse in direct patient care, require a nurse to get patient consent before AI records or analyzes an encounter, and require written notice that AI supports but does not replace the nurse. Health care entities employing nurses and deploying AI in direct patient care would have to keep validation and bias monitoring records, train nurses, and not rely solely on AI for staffing, triage, admission, discharge or transfer decisions. Introduced February 5, 2026; re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026 under Senate Rule 3-9(a); it has not passed either house.
Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025
The federal S. 2164 (Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025) would direct the FTC to issue regulations within 2 years requiring covered entities that deploy automated decision systems in critical decisions to assess their impact before and after deployment and file summary reports. Covered entities include those with over $50,000,000 in average annual gross receipts or $250,000,000 in equity value, or data on over 1,000,000 consumers, households or devices. Violations would be treated as FTC rule violations; state attorneys general could sue. Introduced June 25, 2025 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; no further action.
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.
Establishes the New York artificial intelligence ethics commission.
New York's S 8755 (2023-2024) would have added State Technology Law § 106-c creating a nine-member New York artificial intelligence ethics commission to oversee ethical AI use by state agencies and private entities affecting New York residents. The commission would set ethical guidelines, review AI projects, receive complaints, develop certification and audits, and report annually. The bill would also prohibit nine AI practices, including systematic unfair discrimination and non-consensual surveillance. Referred to Internet and Technology March 7, 2024; it died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
VIDEO INTERVIEW DEMOGRAPHIC
Illinois' Public Act 102-0047 (HB 53) adds Section 20 to the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act. An employer that relies solely upon an AI analysis of a video interview to decide whether an applicant gets an in-person interview must collect and report the race and ethnicity of applicants who are and are not given an in-person interview after the AI analysis, and of those hired. Reports go to the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity by December 31 each year, covering the 12 months ending November 30; by July 1 each year the Department reports whether the data shows racial bias in AI use. Approved July 9, 2021; effective January 1, 2022.
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.
Creates standards for independent bias auditing of automated employment decision tools.
New Jersey's S2964 would bar an employer or employment agency from using an automated employment decision tool (AEDT) if more than one year has passed since its last independent bias audit. Audits would have to compute selection or scoring rates and impact ratios by sex, race/ethnicity and intersectional categories. Employers would have to post audit results and notify candidates at least 10 business days before use. The text sets no penalties. Introduced March 18, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Relating to public safety; and declaring an emergency.
Oregon's 2026 public safety act (Chapter 77, in effect since it was signed on March 31, 2026) sets statewide rules for police use of automated license plate recognition (ALPR): cameras combined with computer algorithms that read plates and vehicle traits. Police may use ALPR only for listed purposes, must delete data not tied to a case or investigation within 30 days, log every search, publish their policies and their vendors' monthly audits, and may share data with non-Oregon agencies only for a specific law enforcement purpose. Vendors may not use, share or sell the data. The act also changes pretrial release and two state grant programs.
Technology; artificial intelligence; state agencies; prohibited uses; permitted uses; Office of Management and Enterprise Services; effective date.
Oklahoma's HB 3545 (2026), as engrossed, would have set rules for state agency use of AI: banning cognitive behavioral manipulation, discriminatory classification, real-time remote biometric identification in public spaces (with warrant and emergency exceptions) and deceptive deepfakes, and requiring human review of high-risk AI decisions. It passed the House 96-0 on March 11, 2026 and was referred to a Senate committee April 1, 2026; it died when the session ended May 14, 2026.
Surveillance-based price and wage discrimination prohibited.
Not law. Minnesota's HF 4131 would have added Minn. Stat. 325D.141 prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination and wage discrimination, meaning use of an automated decision system to inform individualized prices or wages from surveillance data about a consumer or worker. Listed cost, group-discount and insurer risk exceptions would apply, and wage-setters would have to disclose the data and how the system uses it. The text has no penalties or enforcer. Introduced March 9, 2026; effective August 1, 2026 if enacted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
AI Whistleblower Protection Act
The federal S. 1792 (AI Whistleblower Protection Act) would bar employers from retaliating against employees and independent contractors, including former ones, who report an AI security vulnerability or an AI violation. Victims could file with the Secretary of Labor or sue in district court, and could recover reinstatement and 2 times back pay. Introduced May 15, 2025 and referred to the Senate HELP Committee; no further action.
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.
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.
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.
Relating to the disclosure and use of artificial intelligence.
Texas HB 5496 (2025), as introduced, would have added Chapter 611 to the Business & Commerce Code. A person using AI in conducting business or providing a good or service to a Texas resident, including social media, political advertising or financial services, would have had to maintain AI industry best-practice standards, give individuals a tool to detect AI use, explain how and why an AI decision was reached, and ensure the AI does not show bias or discriminate on any legally protected classification. A violation would have been a deceptive trade practice. No enrolled version exists, so it died June 2, 2025.
An act relating to regulating developers and deployers of certain automated decision systems
Vermont's H.340 (2025-2026 biennium) would have regulated developers and deployers of automated decision systems used for consequential decisions in areas such as education, employment, housing, health care, financial services and government services. It would have made algorithmic discrimination unlawful, required independent audits and reports to the Attorney General, notices, explanations and human-review appeals for consumers, and a risk management program. It was referred to House Commerce on February 25, 2025 and died when the biennium ended.
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.
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.
Commerce and Trade; private entities that employ certain AI systems to guard against discrimination caused by such systems; provide
Georgia's SB 167 would add a new Chapter 16 to Title 10 regulating automated decision systems used for consequential decisions (education, employment, essential government services, financial or lending services, healthcare, housing, insurance and legal services). Developers could not make available a system that results in algorithmic discrimination and would have to provide information to the Attorney General. According to its title, deployers would also have duties, and the Attorney General would enforce. The bill was read and referred on February 13, 2025 and died when the session ended.
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; establishing the rights of Oklahomans when interacting with artificial intelligence; effective date.
Oklahoma's HB 3453 (2024), as engrossed, would define artificial intelligence and declare that Oklahomans have rights when dealing with it: to know when they interact with AI in consequential exchanges or consume realistic content generated entirely by AI without human review, to rely on watermarks and content credentials, to consent to AI recreations of their voice or likeness, and to be free from algorithmic discrimination. It passed the House 89-0 on March 14, 2024 and was referred to Senate Judiciary March 27, 2024; it died when the 2024 session ended without Senate passage.
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.
Establishes the Artificial Intelligence Literacy Act which establishes an artificial intelligence literacy in the digital equity competitive grant program.
New York's A 6874-A, the Artificial Intelligence Literacy Act, would add Education Law § 115 and require the State Education Commissioner to run a competitive AI literacy digital equity grant program for public schools, community colleges, institutions of higher education and community organizations. Introduced March 18, 2025; amended and recommitted to the Education Committee on April 28, 2025 and re-referred to it on January 7, 2026. It has not passed either house. If enacted, it would take effect one year after becoming law.
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.
Health care services: artificial intelligence.
California's SB 503 targets bias in clinical AI. Developers and deployers (health facilities, clinics and medical practices) of clinical decision support systems, AI that aids decisions on timing of care, diagnosis or treatment, must make reasonable efforts to find systems with known or foreseeable risk of biased impacts based on protected characteristics. Developers must mitigate those risks and give deployers a statement of uses and risks plus documentation on training data, bias testing and monitoring; deployers must monitor the systems and take reasonable steps to mitigate bias. Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 857); effective January 1, 2027.
Artificial intelligence; statewide education program
Died in the Senate. The 'Getting Arizona Ready for AI Act' would have created a voluntary Arizona Artificial Intelligence Education Program in the Department of Education: a summer course open to any resident, teaching digital hygiene (algorithmic bias, data privacy, spotting AI-generated misinformation) and practical AI skills for small businesses. Public schools, universities and community colleges could have awarded credit for it. It passed the House but was held in the Senate and died when the Legislature adjourned on June 13, 2026.
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.
Regulates the use of artificial intelligence in aiding decisions on rental housing and loans; requires a study on the impact of artificial intelligence and machine learning on housing discrimination and redlining.
New York's A 3930 would regulate algorithms in housing and lending. Landlords and banks using automated decision tools to screen applicants would need annual disparate impact analyses, 24-hour notice to applicants, and (landlords) public posting of results; landlords could not use pricing algorithms with nonpublic competitor data to set rent. Tenants could sue for damages. The housing agency would study AI and housing discrimination. Would take effect immediately. Referred to Housing January 30, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Creates the Louisiana Artificial Intelligence Insurance Fairness Act (OR +$1,029,533 SG EX See Note)
Louisiana's HB880, the Louisiana Artificial Intelligence Insurance Fairness Act, would have regulated insurers that use algorithmic decision systems in homeowners, commercial property and casualty, auto, health or life insurance: annual independent disparate-impact audits, prohibited variables, human review of claims decisions, AI disclosures, and a right to explanation. Penalties would run up to $250,000 per violation and consumers could sue. It was considered in House Insurance April 23, 2026 and died.
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.
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.
No Robot Bosses Act
The federal H.R. 6371 (No Robot Bosses Act) would bar employers from relying exclusively on an automated decision system for an employment-related decision, and from using its output unless it was tested before use and at least annually for discrimination, disclosed to the individual, overseen by a human, explained in writing within 7 days and open to dispute and appeal. Employees could opt out of being managed by such a system. Enforcement would be by the Labor Secretary, private lawsuits and State attorneys general. Introduced December 3, 2025 and referred to three House committees; no further action.
Prohibition from using artificial intelligence to dynamically set product prices
Minnesota's SF 3098 (1st engrossment) would add Minn. Stat. 325D.141 prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination and wage discrimination, meaning individualized prices or wages set with an automated decision system from surveillance data about a consumer or worker, and would require published procedures for data accuracy and challenges. Introduced March 27, 2025; amended and re-referred to Commerce and Consumer Protection March 18, 2026 with no recommendation. It died when the 2026 session adjourned without passing.
Requesting The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission To Examine The Applicability Of Existing State Anti-discrimination Laws To Algorithmic And Automated Decision Systems.
Hawaii's House Resolution 182 (2026) asks the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission to examine how existing state anti-discrimination laws apply to algorithmic and automated decision systems, including AI tools used in employment screening, tenant selection, credit and public benefits decisions: whether current law gives enough authority to investigate and remedy such discrimination, jurisdictional and evidentiary hurdles, whether guidance or rulemaking would help, a possible complaint pathway, and any legislation needed. Report due 20 days before the 2027 session. Adopted by the House April 9, 2026; a resolution of one chamber does not change the law.
Regulates the development and use of certain artificial intelligence systems to prevent algorithmic discrimination; requires independent audits of high risk AI systems; provides for enforcement by the attorney general as well as a private right of action.
New York's S 1169-B would regulate high-risk AI systems used in consequential decisions on employment, education, housing, health, finance and legal services. Developers and deployers would have to take reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, commission independent audits, file reports and keep a risk management program; social scoring AI would be banned. The Senate passed it June 3, 2026 and delivered it to the Assembly; it has not passed the Assembly.
To ensure accountability and transparency in artificial intelligence systems
Massachusetts H94 would add G.L. Chapter 93M requiring developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used in consequential decisions (education, employment, lending, housing, health care, insurance, legal and government services) to guard against algorithmic discrimination, with Attorney General enforcement. On December 24, 2025 it accompanied H97, which was reported favorably and referred to House Ways and Means.
Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act of 2025
The AI Civil Rights Act would bar companies from developing or using AI-driven 'covered algorithms' in decisions about jobs, education, housing, utilities, health care, credit, insurance, criminal justice, elections, government benefits or public accommodations in a way that causes a disparate impact or otherwise discriminates based on a protected characteristic. Where harm is plausible, an independent auditor must evaluate the algorithm before deployment, and deployers must assess impacts every year, with summaries made public. The FTC would set rules for human alternatives and appeals. Enforced by the FTC, state attorneys general and private lawsuits. Introduced December 2, 2025.
Artificial intelligence by public bodies; Joint Commission on Technology and Science to analyze use.
Virginia SB 487 (2024) directs the Joint Commission on Technology and Science, with stakeholders, to analyze the use of artificial intelligence by public bodies and whether to create a Commission on Artificial Intelligence. The analysis covers policies for procuring, implementing and continually assessing AI systems, preventing unlawful discrimination and disparate impact, requiring impact assessments, and the possible commission's makeup and duties, with a report to the money and technology committees by December 1, 2024. It incorporates SB 621. Effective July 1, 2024.
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 Algorithmic Bias & Discrimination
Artificial intelligence regulation is advancing at the state level. This page lists the 171 published bills we track on Algorithmic Bias & Discrimination. 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 Algorithmic Bias & Discrimination 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.