Automated decision-making (ADM) and automated decision-making technology (ADMT) laws regulate how organizations use AI systems to make or assist in decisions that significantly affect individuals — from hiring and lending to healthcare and housing.
These laws typically require impact assessments, transparency notices, human oversight, and opt-out mechanisms for consumers subject to automated decisions.
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 and Labor and Employment - Surveillance-Based Price and Wage Setting - Prohibition
Maryland's HB 148 (2026) would have barred surveillance-based price setting (new Commercial Law section 14-1330) and surveillance-based wage setting (new Labor and Employment section 3-718): using surveillance data with an automated decision system to offer or inform a customized price or wage for an individual or group. It was pre-filed August 14, 2025, introduced January 14, 2026 and referred to Economic Matters, where the last recorded action was a February 10 hearing notice. It died when the 2026 session ended.
Consumer Protection and Labor and Employment - Electronic Shelving Labels and Surveillance-Based Price and Wage Setting - Prohibitions
Maryland's SB 889 (2026, first reader text) would have barred surveillance-based price setting (pricing consumer goods or services based on profiling or processing of consumer or device data), barred food retailers of at least 15,000 square feet from using electronic shelving labels to display prices, and barred employers from surveillance-based wage setting using surveillance data with an automated decision system. It had a Senate Finance hearing set for March 12, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.
Relating To The Patients' Bill Of Rights.
Hawaii's HB 2537 (2026), the Patients' Bill of Rights, would have amended HRS chapter 432E for managed care plans. It would set prior authorization deadlines (one business day urgent, three non-urgent), require notice and independent board-certified clinician review before an adverse action to which an automated decision support tool materially contributed, and require governance and bias-testing records by June 30, 2027. It was referred to HLT and CPC February 2, 2026 and died.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's SB 2967 (2026) would have added a part to HRS chapter 480 regulating businesses ('deployers') that use AI systems or automated decision tools with consumers. They would have to disclose AI interactions, give notice and explanation, correction, appeal and human review for AI-influenced consequential decisions, keep risk programs, do annual impact assessments and report incidents within 90 days. A violation would be an unfair or deceptive act. The Senate committee on LBT deferred it February 11, 2026; it died.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's HB 2500 (2026) would have added a chapter on algorithmic decision systems. Developers would have to give deployers risk disclosures; deployers would have to give notice before use and post-decision information (including the 20 most influential characteristics) when a system affects education, employment, finance, government services, health care, housing, insurance or legal services; generative AI would have to be disclosed to users. Developers and deployers would be jointly and severally liable for violations facilitated by the deployer. House committee ECD deferred it February 6, 2026; it died.
Use of automated decision systems in employment settings regulated.
Minnesota's HF 4445 would have required employers to give workers written notice before using an automated decision system (ADS) for employment-related decisions, with consent, human review, post-decision notice, appeal and records rules, enforced by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry and by private suits. It would have banned using ADS for facial, gait or emotion recognition. Introduced March 18, 2026 and never left committee.
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.
Artificial Intelligence
Not law: died in committee. Florida's SB 972 (2024) would have created a nine-member Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council in the Department of Management Services, required each state agency to inventory its automated decision systems by July 1, 2025, and barred counties, municipalities and political subdivisions from regulating private or public use of AI. It died March 8, 2024. None of it became law through companion CS/CS/SB 1680 (Ch. 2024-118), which instead created a different advisory body, the Government Technology Modernization Council.
An act relating to consumer data privacy
Vermont's S.93 (2025-2026 biennium) would have enacted a consumer data privacy law applying to businesses that process personal data of at least 100,000 consumers, or at least 25,000 consumers while deriving over 25 percent of revenue from selling data. It would have given consumers rights including opting out of profiling for solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, required consent for sensitive data including biometrics, and given the Attorney General exclusive enforcement. It died in committee after referral on February 27, 2025.
Establishes requirements for health insurance issuers using artificial intelligence or automated decision systems. (8/1/26)
Louisiana's SB246 would have set rules for health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and independent review organizations that use AI or automated decision systems in utilization review: no use that denies, delays or modifies care, adverse determinations signed by a physician who reviewed the record, disclosure of AI use, and a presumption that AI-influenced adverse decisions are invalid on appeal. The Senate withdrew it from its files May 28, 2026, so it died.
Provides 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.
Video Lottery Games, Table Games And Sports Wagering--the Rhode Island Consumer Protection Gaming Act
Rhode Island S 2491 (2022), as introduced on March 1, 2022, would amend the Consumer Protection Gaming Act to bar facial recognition technology and biometric recognition programs in video-lottery terminals at pari-mutuel licensees and in online betting applications. It would also prohibit algorithmic programs that use a gaming consumer's betting history to increase wagering, and AI or automated decision systems that promote play through intermittent reinforcement. The text states no penalties and takes effect upon passage.
To Require Public Entities To Create A Policy Concerning The Authorized Use Of Artificial Intelligence.
Act 848 requires every Arkansas public entity, from state departments to cities, counties, school districts and colleges, to adopt an artificial intelligence and automated decision tool policy. The policy must define the authorized uses of AI and automated decision tools and require an authorized human employee or designee to make every final decision, whatever the AI recommends. Entities must train employees on the policy and create a disciplinary procedure for violations. Because the act has no emergency clause, it took effect August 5, 2025.
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.
COM COL-COURSE INSTRUCTOR-AI
Illinois' Public Act 104-0201 (HB 1859) adds Section 3-29.28 to the Public Community College Act. Each community college board must require that the faculty member who teaches a course meet the qualifications in 23 Ill. Adm. Code 1501.303(f) and any other applicable Illinois Community College Board rules, and a course may not use AI, in lieu of a faculty member, as the sole source of instruction for students. Faculty may still use AI to augment course instruction. AI has the meaning in Section 2-101 of the Illinois Human Rights Act. Approved August 15, 2025; effective January 1, 2026.
Artificial Intelligence Fraud and Accountability Act; enact.
Mississippi's SB 2354 (2026), the "Artificial Intelligence Fraud and Accountability Act," would have created a civil cause of action for anyone injured by use of AI systems (including deepfakes, voice cloning, generative tools, chatbots or automated decision-making systems) to deceive, impersonate or obtain money, property, data or other assets. It would have allowed the greater of compensatory damages or $500 per violation. It was referred to Judiciary, Division A on January 19, 2026, and died in committee on February 3, 2026.
Data Privacy Amendments
Utah's HB 450 reorganizes oversight of how state and local government entities handle personal data under the Government Data Privacy Act. It restructures the Utah Privacy Commission to include state agency, city, county and public education members, moves its support to the Utah Office of Data Privacy, makes a data privacy ombudsperson part of that office, sets a complaint process (complaints go first to the entity, then to mediation), and moves the state privacy auditor's duties to the state auditor. The act already treats facial recognition, automated decision-making and profiling as high-risk processing. It governs government, not businesses. Effective May 6, 2026.
Enacts the legislative oversight of automated decision-making in government act (LOADinG Act) to regulate the use of automated decision-making systems and artificial intelligence techniques by state agencies.
New York's S 7543-B, the LOADinG Act (Chapter 674 of 2024), as signed would have barred state agencies from using automated decision-making systems for public benefits or decisions affecting rights or safety without meaningful human review, and required impact assessments. Before those rules took effect, Chapter 96 of 2025 replaced them: each state agency using automated employment decision-making tools must post a list of them by December 30 each year, starting 2025; the Office of Information Technology Services keeps a public AI inventory; and, until July 1, 2028, AI use may not displace state employees. Signed December 21, 2024; effective July 1, 2025.
Employment: automated decision systems.
Vetoed. California's SB 7 would have regulated employers' use of automated decision systems (ADS) such as AI tools in employment decisions. Employers would have had to give workers written notice at least 30 days before deploying an ADS for decisions other than hiring (by April 1, 2026 for systems already in use), tell applicants when one is used in hiring, not rely solely on an ADS to discipline, fire or deactivate workers, use a human reviewer when relying primarily on one, and give a post-use notice, with a $500 civil penalty. Vetoed by Governor Newsom October 13, 2025; veto sustained March 2, 2026. A later bill, SB 947, was signed in 2026 (Chapter 859).
High-risk artificial intelligence systems: duty to protect personal information.
California's SB 468 (Becker) would add Civil Code Title 1.81.28 requiring a business that deploys a high-risk AI system (a high-risk automated decision system) that processes personal information to develop, implement and maintain a written comprehensive information security program. A violation would be a deceptive trade act under the Unfair Competition Law. Held in Senate Appropriations May 23, 2025; returned to the Secretary of the Senate under Joint Rule 56 on February 2, 2026; it did not pass the Senate.
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.
Department of Technology: high-risk automated decision systems: inventory.
California's AB 302 required the Department of Technology, by September 1, 2024, to inventory every high-risk automated decision system that state agencies use, develop or procure, or have proposed to, and to report it to two legislative committees by January 1, 2025 and annually after that; the reporting duty becomes inoperative January 1, 2029. High-risk systems assist or replace human decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, such as access to housing, education, employment, credit, health care and criminal justice. It applies only to state agencies. Signed October 13, 2023 (Chapter 800); effective January 1, 2024.
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.
Establishes NJ Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council.
New Jersey's A390 would create the New Jersey Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council in, but not of, the Office of Information Technology, with seven voting members, to study the advantages and disadvantages of State agencies procuring, developing and using AI. It would assess the need for a State AI code of ethics and review agencies' automated decision systems, and report to the Governor and Legislature within one year of its first meeting. Referred to the Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee January 13, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Relating To The Hawaii Patients' Bill Of Rights And Responsibilities Act.
Hawaii's SB 2167 (2026) would have amended HRS chapter 432E, the Patients' Bill of Rights, to set prior authorization deadlines (one business day urgent, three non-urgent) and require that a denial initiated by an automated decision system be reviewed and co-signed by a board-certified specialist, with written notice to enrollees and providers whenever such a system is used. It was referred to HHS and CPN January 26, 2026 and died.
An Act to Enact the Maine Consumer Data Privacy Act
Not law. Maine's LD 1088, the Maine Consumer Data Privacy Act, as introduced would have applied to controllers handling data of 100,000 or more consumers (50,000 from 2028), or 25,000 with more than 25% of gross revenue from data sales. Consumers could have accessed, corrected, deleted and ported data and opted out of targeted advertising, sales and profiling in furtherance of solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. The Attorney General would have enforced it exclusively, with no private right of action. The Judiciary Committee split three ways on June 13, 2025, and Report A, Ought Not To Pass, was accepted June 25, 2025.
An Act to Enact the Maine Online Data Privacy Act
Not law. Maine's LD 1822, the Maine Online Data Privacy Act, as introduced would have applied to controllers handling data of 35,000 or more consumers (or 10,000 with over 20% of gross revenue from data sales). Consumers could have accessed, corrected and deleted data and opted out of targeted advertising, sales and profiling in furtherance of solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. It would have banned selling sensitive data and required data protection assessments, including for risky profiling. Committee amendment C-A and later floor amendments were adopted. The Attorney General would have enforced it exclusively. It died between houses April 13, 2026.
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).
Automated decision systems.
California's AB 1018 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have regulated automated decision systems (ADS) used to make consequential decisions. Developers of a covered ADS would have to give deployers instructions for use; deployers would have to disclose adverse outcomes to the affected person and allow an appeal. The Assembly passed it 50-16 on June 2, 2025; it was on the Senate floor, ordered to third reading August 30, 2026, and was not passed before the session ended.
State agencies: automated decision systems.
California's SB 1248 (2025-26 Regular Session) would restrict how state agencies use automated decision systems to confer services such as professional licenses and public benefits. An agency could not use a system's output as the sole basis for an adverse service determination affecting a person, except as specified, and would have to verify accuracy and promote nondiscrimination. Held under submission in Senate Appropriations on May 14, 2026; not passed before the session ended.
Agentic artificial intelligence.
California's SB 1106 (2025-26 Regular Session), titled Agentic artificial intelligence, would define 'agentic artificial intelligence' in Civil Code section 3110 and amend Government Code sections 11546.45.5, 11549.64 and 11549.65. The Office of Emergency Services' AI risk-analysis recommendations and the Department of Technology's inventory of high-risk automated decision systems would have to cover agentic AI. Passed the Senate 39-0; held in Assembly Appropriations August 13, 2026; not passed.
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.
Insurance; use of artificial intelligence in making certain decisions regarding coverage; prohibit
Georgia's HB 887 (2023-2024 session) would have barred coverage determinations, healthcare actions and public-assistance decisions based solely on the results of AI or automated decision tools, and required that such decisions be meaningfully reviewed by an individual with authority to override the tool. It would also have required the Georgia Composite Medical Board to adopt rules, including for disciplining physicians who do not comply. The bill reached House Second Readers on January 11, 2024 and died when the 2023-2024 session ended.
Trade Practices; surveillance based price discrimination and surveillance based wage discrimination; prohibit
Georgia's SB 164 would add Article 37 to Title 10, Chapter 1, prohibiting 'surveillance based price discrimination' and 'surveillance based wage discrimination', meaning use of an automated decision system to set individualized prices or wages based on surveillance data about a consumer or worker. Defined exceptions would apply, such as cost-based price differences. According to its title, it would provide civil penalties and enforcement. The bill was read and referred on February 13, 2025 and died when the session ended.
Video Lottery Games, Table Games And Sports Wagering--the Rhode Island Consumer Protection Gaming Act
Rhode Island H 7222 (2022), as introduced on January 26, 2022, would amend the Consumer Protection Gaming Act to bar facial recognition technology and biometric recognition programs in video-lottery terminals at pari-mutuel licensees and in online betting applications. It would also prohibit algorithmic programs that use a gaming consumer's betting history to increase wagering, and AI or automated decision systems that promote play through intermittent reinforcement. The text states no penalties and takes effect upon passage.
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.
An act relating to consumer data privacy and online surveillance
Vermont's H.208 (2025-2026 biennium) would have enacted a consumer data privacy and online surveillance law applying to businesses processing data of at least 25,000 consumers, or 12,500 consumers with over 25 percent of revenue from selling data. Consumers could learn whether their data is used in an AI system and opt out of profiling for automated decisions; sensitive data including biometric and neural data would be limited. It would have taken effect July 1, 2026. It was referred to House Commerce on February 12, 2025 and died.
Revises provisions relating to health insurance. (BDR 57-238)
Nevada's AB 295 (2025) would have set prior authorization deadlines for health carriers (5 days non-urgent, 48 hours urgent, replacing 20 days) and required carriers using AI or automated decision tools for prior authorization to notify insureds in writing, and barred using AI to make adverse determinations or reduce or modify approved care unless a physician (or dentist) independently reviews the request. Carriers would report annually. Under Joint Standing Rule 14.3.1 no further action was allowed after April 12, 2025, so it died.
Advanced Technology
Florida's CS/CS/SB 1680 (Chapter 2024-118) creates the Government Technology Modernization Council (s. 282.802, F.S.), chaired by the Lieutenant Governor, to study AI in government: a state code of ethics for AI systems, AI safety and security standards, how automated decision systems affect legal rights, how bad actors exploit AI, and provenance disclosure for AI-generated images and audio. It reports each December 31 from 2024. New s. 827.072 makes knowingly possessing or intentionally viewing, or intentionally creating, generated child pornography (computer-created or altered images of a fictitious minor) a third-degree felony. Effective July 1, 2024.
Automated Decision-Making Technology
Colorado's SB 26-189 repeals and reenacts the 2024 AI Act as rules for automated decision-making technology (ADMT) that materially influences consequential decisions such as hiring, lending, housing and health care. Developers must document covered ADMT for deployers; deployers must give notice before use, explain adverse outcomes within 30 days and, on request, give correction steps and, where commercially reasonable, human review. Signed May 14, 2026 (Chapter 131); applies from January 1, 2027. A stipulated April 27, 2026 order in X. AI LLC v. Weiser bars AG enforcement of 2026 laws replacing SB 24-205 for violations through 14 days after a ruling on xAI's planned injunction motion.
Lower Grocery Prices Act
The federal H.R. 8229 (Lower Grocery Prices Act) would prohibit surveillance-based price setting for food, groceries and agricultural commodities: using an automated decision system to offer or inform a customized price for a specific person or group based on surveillance data. The FTC and state attorneys general could enforce it, and injured people could sue for the greater of actual damages or $3,000 per violation. Introduced April 9, 2026 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce and Judiciary committees; no further action.
Health insurance; review agents; artificial intelligence system; adverse determinations; effective date.
Oklahoma's HB 3675 (2026), as introduced, would have required a qualified human professional to review any adverse determination made by an algorithm, AI system or automated decision system in utilization review before it is finalized, let the Insurance Commissioner audit use of such systems, and required adverse-determination notices to give reasons and appeal rights. It was referred to the Rules Committee February 11, 2026 and died when the session ended May 14, 2026.
An Act Concerning Broadband Internet, Gaming, Social Media, Online Services and Consumer Contracts
Public Act 25-113 overhauls the Connecticut Data Privacy Act's rules on automated decision-making. From July 1, 2026, consumers can opt out of profiling used for any automated decision with legal or similarly significant effects (housing, insurance, health care, employment, financial services and more), question the result and learn why the decision was made, and for housing decisions correct inaccurate data. Controllers that profile for such decisions must complete impact assessments (for processing created on or after Aug. 1, 2026), and privacy notices must state whether personal data is collected, used or sold to train large language models.
An Act Concerning Artificial Intelligence, Automated Decision-making And Personal Data Privacy.
Connecticut's Public Act 23-16 governs AI in state government. The Department of Administrative Services (for all state agencies) and the Judicial Department must inventory the AI systems in use by December 31, 2023 and yearly after, and post them. OPM and the Judicial Branch set policies by February 1, 2024 for buying, using and assessing AI; from then, agencies may not deploy an AI system without an impact assessment showing it will not cause unlawful discrimination or disparate impact. It formed a working group on AI best practices and an AI bill of rights, and from October 1, 2023 state contracts must require compliance with the data privacy act. Signed June 7, 2023.
Health care services: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 1979 sets rules for AI in clinical care. Health facilities such as hospitals, clinics, physician offices and group practices must take reasonable steps so licensed providers keep independent professional judgment whenever care is informed by a clinical decision support system, and may not use AI to independently perform licensed clinical work, or to direct unlicensed staff doing it. Businesses offering health care chatbots that consumers use to manage their health information or to diagnose, treat or manage a condition are treated as health care providers under the state's medical privacy law (CMIA). Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 854); effective January 1, 2027.
Employment: automated decision systems.
California's SB 947 limits how employers, including public employers and labor contractors, use automated decision systems (ADS) such as AI tools, starting July 1, 2027. Employers may not use an ADS to violate labor or civil-rights laws, infer a protected status, or predict and punish workers for exercising their rights, and may not rely solely on an ADS to discipline or fire. When they primarily rely on one, a human must corroborate the output, and the worker gets a written notice and can request a description of their data used. $500 per violation. Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 859).
Artificial intelligence.
AB 2885 amended Business and Professions Code Section 22675, Education Code Section 75002, and Government Code Sections 11546.45.5, 11547.5, and 53083.1 to use a single definition of artificial intelligence: an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments. The amended provisions include the state's high-risk automated decision system inventory and deepfake-related government provisions.
An Act To Amend Title 6 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Personal Data Privacy And Consumer Protection.
Delaware's HB 359 (152nd General Assembly) would have applied the Delaware Personal Data Privacy Act to State government. Its substitute, HS 1 for HB 359, narrowed this to letting consumers enforce their opt-out right under 6 Del. C. § 12D-104(a)(6) against the State. That right covers opting out of targeted advertising, the sale of personal data, and profiling in furtherance of solely-automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. The bill text itself never mentions AI. HB 359 was substituted on May 2, 2024; the substitute stayed in a House committee and died when the 152nd General Assembly ended.
NETWORK ADEQUACY-STANDARDS
The Health Care Protection Act is a broad health insurance reform covering network adequacy, prior authorization, step therapy and short-term plans. Its automated decision provision amends Section 85 of the Managed Care Reform and Patient Rights Act (215 ILCS 134/85) on utilization review programs. Only a clinical peer may make adverse medical necessity determinations. A health care professional, an accredited algorithmic automated process, or both together may certify (approve) medical necessity in line with accreditation standards, and an automated process may be used to refer a case to a clinical peer for a possible denial. Effective January 1, 2025.
Criminal Justice Amendments
Utah HB 366 (2024) is a criminal justice bill whose AI-relevant provisions limit algorithmic decision-making. Courts may not rely solely on an algorithm or a risk assessment tool score when deciding on diversion or determining a sentence (Utah Code 77-18-103). The Administrative Office of the Courts must collect data on risk assessment scores. Other provisions on the sentencing commission chair and escape offenses are unrelated to AI. Effective May 1, 2024.
Data Privacy Amendments
Utah H.B. 444 (2025) amends the Government Data Privacy Act for state and local governmental entities. It defines "automated decision making" (decisions about a person by automated processing without human review) and says high-risk processing activities may include facial recognition technology and automated decision making. Each entity must describe its high-risk processing in an annual privacy program report, and the Utah Office of Data Privacy, which monitors high-risk processing, must help identify best practices on automated decision making and synthetic data. It applies to government, not businesses. Passed by two-thirds, it took effect when signed on March 27, 2025.
An act relating to consumer data privacy and online surveillance
Vermont's S.71 (Act 145) adds the Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act. It covers businesses that in the prior year processed personal data of at least 35,000 Vermonters or sensitive data of at least 3,000, or offered for sale personal data of at least 3,000. Consumers may access, correct, delete and port their data and opt out of targeted ads, sales and profiling for automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. Controllers must minimize data, get consent for sensitive data, say whether they use data to train large language models, and assess risky processing and profiling. Attorney General enforcement only. Signed June 16, 2026; effective January 1, 2028.
Health Insurance - Artificial Intelligence, Adverse Decisions, and Grievances - Reporting Requirements
Maryland's HB 697 (2025) would have required each health insurance carrier to report quarterly to the Insurance Commissioner on how it creates, deploys and uses artificial intelligence or automated decision-making systems (new Insurance section 15-147), and expanded the demographic and call-center data carriers report on grievances and adverse decisions (section 15-10A-06). The sponsor withdrew it on February 17, 2025, after a canceled February 13 hearing.
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.
Establishes the position of chief artificial intelligence officer and such person's functions, powers and duties; including, but not limited to, developing statewide artificial intelligence policies and governance, coordinating the activities of any and all state departments, boards, commissions…
New York's S 933 would create an office of artificial intelligence headed by a chief artificial intelligence officer, appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, to develop statewide AI policies and governance and coordinate state agencies' use of AI tools and automated decision-making systems. It would also create an advisory committee on state AI policy. Passed the Senate on March 5, 2026 and was delivered to the Assembly and referred to its Governmental Operations Committee; it has not passed the Assembly.
A bill for an act prohibiting the use of an automated decision-making system to alter the price of a product or service for a specific individual based on surveillance data, and providing civil penalties.
Iowa's HF 2469 would add Code chapter 554J, barring a person from using an automated decision-making system (AI or algorithms making decisions with little or no human intervention) to alter the price of a product or service for a specific individual based on surveillance data. A violation would be an unlawful practice under Code sections 714.16 and chapter 714H (consumer fraud). Four exceptions apply. Introduced and referred to the House Commerce Committee February 16, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
AN ACT RELATING TO LABOR AND LABOR RELATIONS -- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USE AND FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
Rhode Island's H 7767 would add a chapter to Title 28 limiting how employers use electronic monitoring and automated decision systems on workers. Employers could monitor only for listed purposes, with written notice, an independent impact assessment, and human review of decisions based on monitoring data; monitoring tools using facial recognition or gait, voice analysis or emotion recognition would be barred. Introduced February 12, 2026; House Labor recommended it be held for further study April 15, 2026. It has not passed either chamber.
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.
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.
AI-Meaningful Human Review
Illinois's HB 3567 (104th General Assembly) would create the Meaningful Human Review of Artificial Intelligence Act. A State agency, or an entity acting for it, could not use an automated decision-making system for specified agency functions without continuous meaningful human review, and the agency would have to complete an impact assessment submitted to the Governor and General Assembly. Re-referred to Rules on March 27, 2026.
CONSUMER FRAUD-DIGITAL PRICING
Illinois's SB 3657 (104th General Assembly) would amend the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act in two ways. Grocery stores offering digital coupons would have to provide a paper copy of equal value on request. A person also could not use surveillance-based price setting, or surveillance data in an automated decision system, to set individualized prices. Re-referred to Assignments March 27, 2026.
CONSUMER DATA PRIVACY ACT
Illinois's HB 5221 (104th General Assembly) would create the Consumer Data Privacy Act, with rules for agreements between personal data processors and controllers, controller responsibilities, small business requirements, data protection assessments and civil penalties. Consumers could opt out of processing for targeted advertising, sale of personal data, or profiling in furtherance of automated decisions with legal effects. It would take effect January 1, 2027. Re-referred to Rules March 27, 2026.
AI-MEANINGFUL HUMAN REVIEW
Illinois's HB 3720 (104th General Assembly) would create the Meaningful Human Review of Artificial Intelligence Act. A State agency, or an entity acting for one, would be prohibited from using an automated decision-making system for specified agency functions without continuous meaningful human review, and agencies seeking to use such a system would have to perform impact assessments and submit them to the Governor and General Assembly. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee on March 21, 2025.
PRIVACY RIGHTS ACT
Illinois' SB 52 is a general consumer privacy bill. As introduced, the Privacy Rights Act would give consumers rights over their personal information and create a Privacy Protection Agency. Its AI-related parts are narrow: it defines profiling as automated processing of personal information, and directs the Attorney General to adopt rules on access and opt-out rights for automated decision-making technology and on risk assessments. Introduced January 13, 2025; re-referred to Assignments April 11, 2025 and still pending.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's HB 2152 (2024) would have set up a plan for state use of generative AI: Office of Enterprise Technology Services risk assessments and procurement guidelines, an inventory of high-risk uses by each agency, employee training, a duty to tell people when AI mediates electronic communication, and chief information officer approval before adopting an automated decision system. It was referred to HET/LGO, CPC and FIN on January 24, 2024 and was not enacted.
Relating To 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.
Requesting The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission To Examine The Applicability Of Existing State Anti-discrimination Laws To Algorithmic And Automated Decision Systems.
Hawaii's Senate Concurrent Resolution 184 (2026) asks the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission to examine how existing state anti-discrimination laws apply to algorithmic and automated decision systems, including AI tools used in employment screening, tenant selection, credit and public benefits decisions: whether current law gives enough authority to investigate and remedy such discrimination, jurisdictional and evidentiary hurdles, whether guidance or rulemaking would help, a possible complaint pathway, and any legislation needed. Report due 20 days before the 2027 session. Adopted by the Senate April 9 and the House April 24, 2026; a concurrent resolution does not change the law.
Establishes the position of chief artificial intelligence officer and such person's functions, powers and duties; including, but not limited to, developing statewide artificial intelligence policies and governance, coordinating the activities of any and all state departments, boards, commissions…
New York's A 1205 would amend the State Technology Law to create a chief artificial intelligence officer, appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, who would set state AI and automated decision-making policy, coordinate agencies' AI use, audit that use, recommend deactivating harmful applications and report annually to the legislature. It would also create an Advisory Committee for State Artificial Intelligence Policy. Referred to Governmental Operations January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Concerning Artificial Intelligence, Algorithms, And Other Automated Technologies; And To Regulate Certain Practices Of Healthcare Insurers.
Arkansas HB 1297 (2025), as engrossed, would have added a subchapter (Ark. Code §§ 23-63-2101 to 2113) regulating healthcare insurers' use of AI and automated decision-making in utilization review. Insurers would have had to disclose algorithm details from January 1, 2026, give explanations for AI-supported denials, and have a clinician licensed in Arkansas review adverse prior authorization determinations. The Insurance Commissioner could fine up to $25,000 per determination. The author withdrew it on April 1, 2025.
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.
Prohibits algorithmic wage-setting; provides for exceptions; provides for penalties for violation; creates a private right of action.
New York's A 9641 would add Labor Law Article 20-D (§§ 750-755) providing that “no employer shall engage in algorithmic wage-setting,” meaning use of an automated decision system to inform individualized wages based on surveillance data about an employee. Civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation and a private right of action would apply. Referred to the Labor Committee January 21, 2026; it has not passed either chamber. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after it becomes law.
Limits the use of automatic data systems in connection with employment; requires an employer shall provide a written notice that an automatic data system is being used; provides remedies.
New York's A 10251 would add Labor Law Article 38, “Automated Decision Systems” (§§ 1075-1081). Employers would have to give workers written notice at least 30 days before first deploying an automated decision system for employment-related decisions (other than hiring), could not rely solely on one for discipline, termination or deactivation, and would owe a post-use notice. A civil penalty of $500 per violation would apply. Referred to Labor February 12, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Enacts the NY privacy act to require companies to disclose their methods of de-identifying personal information, to place special safeguards around data sharing and to allow consumers to obtain the names of all entities with whom their information is shared.
New York's A 4947 (the "New York privacy act") would add General Business Law Article 42-A. For solely automated decisions that materially contribute to denials of lending, housing, insurance, health care or similar services, controllers would have to disclose the automation, offer an appeal with meaningful human review and run annual impact assessments by an external, independent auditor or researcher. Consumers would also get opt-in consent, access, correction and deletion rights. AG penalties up to $15,000 per violation; private suits. Most sections would take effect two years after enactment. Referred to committee February 10, 2025 and January 7, 2026; not passed by either chamber.
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.
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.
Relates to the use of automated decision tools by landlords for making housing decisions; sets conditions and rules for use of such tools.
New York's S 6471-A would add Real Property Law § 227-g making it unlawful for a landlord to use an automated housing decision making tool to screen applicants unless an independent disparate impact analysis is done at least annually. A summary of the latest analysis must be posted on the landlord's website and on listings, and applicants must get notice at least 24 hours before use. The Attorney General could sue to compel compliance. Referred to Investigations and Government Operations January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits algorithmic wage-setting; provides for exceptions; provides for penalties for violation; creates a private right of action.
New York's S 8872 would add Labor Law Article 20-D (§§ 750-755) stating that no employer shall engage in algorithmic wage-setting, meaning using an automated decision system to inform individualized wages based on surveillance data about an employee. An employer is not deemed in violation if wages rest solely on task-related employee data or differences in labor cost and the employer discloses what data is used before hiring. Civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation; a private right of action. Referred to Labor January 13, 2026.
Consumer Data Privacy Act
Pennsylvania's HB 78 (Consumer Data Privacy Act) would give consumers rights to access, correct, delete and port personal data and to opt out of targeted advertising, data sales and profiling for solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. Controllers would need consent for sensitive data and data protection assessments; the Attorney General alone would enforce, with no private right of action. Passed the House 127-76 October 1, 2025; this describes the Senate-amended version (PN 3688), which has not passed the Senate.
Relative to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence
Massachusetts S49 is a broad cybersecurity bill that would require annual cybersecurity training for public employees, create a Cybersecurity Control Board and state cybersecurity code (artificial intelligence is one listed standards area), and create an Automated Decision Making Control Board to study and regulate automated decision systems. Reported favorably and referred to Senate Ways and Means May 12, 2025.
Labor: fair employment practices; use of electronic monitoring or automated decisions tools by an employer; prohibit except for certain purposes. Creates new act.
Michigan's HB 5579, the 'responsible artificial intelligence security for employees act', would bar employers from using an automated decisions tool to make an employment-related decision, except to screen large volumes of applications or assess job skills. It would also limit electronic monitoring, require independent impact assessments, and allow civil fines of up to $500. Introduced February 24, 2026 and referred to the House Committee on Economic Competitiveness; it has not passed either chamber.
A bill for an act relating to automated decision systems used by employers.
Iowa's SF 2414 would create Code chapter 91F requiring employers to give employees advance written notice of automated decision systems used for employment decisions, bar sole reliance on them for discipline, termination or deactivation, and give employees access to their data. The Department of Inspections, Appeals, and Licensing could enforce with a $500 civil penalty. Referred to Senate Workforce February 19, 2026; subcommittee named February 23, 2026.
Health Claims & AI
South Carolina's S 443 would add Section 38-59-23 on health care coverage decisions made with artificial intelligence. Actions on coverage decisions could not be based solely on AI results or an automated decision-making tool, and a health care professional would have to supervise and meaningfully review decisions that modify or deny provider authorization requests. Introduced March 11, 2025 and referred to the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee; it has not passed either chamber.
Establishing the Comprehensive Massachusetts Consumer Data Privacy Act
Massachusetts H80 would add G.L. Chapter 93M, the Massachusetts Consumer Privacy Act, giving consumers rights to access, correct, delete and port data and to opt out of targeted advertising, sales and profiling for solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. Referred to the Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity Committee February 27, 2025; on November 17, 2025 it accompanied new draft H4746, which was referred to House Ways and Means that day.
Establishes the position of chief artificial intelligence officer and such person's functions, powers and duties; including, but not limited to, developing statewide artificial intelligence policies and governance, coordinating the activities of any and all state departments, boards, commissions…
New York's A 10231 (2023-2024 session) would have created an Office of Artificial Intelligence in the Office of Information Technology Services, headed by a chief artificial intelligence officer appointed by the Governor with Senate consent, to set statewide AI policy, coordinate and audit state agencies' use of AI and automated decision-making systems, and report annually to the legislature. It also would have created an advisory committee. It was introduced May 15, 2024 and referred to Governmental Operations; it did not pass, and the 2023-2024 session ended without action.
Establishing the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act
Massachusetts S45 would add G.L. Chapter 93M (Massachusetts Data Privacy Act) and Chapter 93N (location data), with an opt-out of profiling used for automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. Referred to committee February 27, 2025; on May 12, 2025 it was folded into new draft S2516 (reported to Senate Ways and Means that day; replaced by S2608 on September 25, 2025).
Establishing the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act
Massachusetts H104 would add G.L. Chapter 93M (the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act) and Chapter 93N (location data). Individuals could access, correct, delete and port covered data and opt out of profiling used for automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects; biometric data is sensitive data. Referred to the Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity Committee February 27, 2025; on November 17, 2025 it accompanied new draft H4746, which was referred to House Ways and Means that day.
Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act of 2025
The federal H.R. 4640, the Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act of 2025, would bar a person from surveillance-based price setting (using an automated decision system to set a customized price from surveillance data) and from surveillance-based wage setting, with limited exceptions, and would require data-accuracy, correction and disclosure procedures to be published 180 days before relying on a price exception or using a wage-setting system. The FTC, state attorneys general and, for wages, the EEOC could enforce it; private suits would seek the greater of actual damages or $3,000 per violation. Introduced July 23, 2025; it remains in committee and has not passed either chamber.
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.
Establishing the Comprehensive Massachusetts Consumer Data Privacy Act
Massachusetts S 33 would create a comprehensive consumer data privacy act. After a joint committee hearing on April 9, 2025, the committee folded it into new draft S2516 on May 12, 2025, so S33 itself does not move further. The successor, redrafted as S2608 and passed by the Senate 40-0 on September 25, 2025 as S2619, would let consumers opt out of profiling for solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. The House passed different text on June 4, 2026 and a conference committee was appointed in June 2026; nothing is law.
Consumer protection: privacy; personal data privacy act; create. Creates new act.
Michigan's SB 359 would create a Personal Data Privacy Act giving consumers rights over personal data, including opting out of profiling in furtherance of solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. Introduced June 5, 2025 and referred to the Committee on Finance, Insurance, and Consumer Protection, it was reported favorably without amendment on June 11, 2025 and referred to the Committee of the Whole on June 12, 2025; it has not passed either house.
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.
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.
Personal Data Privacy/Social Media Safety
North Carolina's H 462 (Edition 2) would enact a Data Privacy Act giving residents rights to access, correct, delete and take their data and to opt out of targeted ads, sales and profiling for solely automated decisions with significant effects, and a social media act requiring parental consent and age verification for minors. Reported favorably as a committee substitute and re-referred to House Commerce and Economic Development April 29, 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.
Establishes NJ Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council.
New Jersey's A4400 would create the New Jersey Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council, located in but not part of the Office of Information Technology, to study State agency use of AI. The seven voting members would assess whether State agencies need an AI code of ethics, recommend guidelines, review automated decision systems, and report to the Governor and Legislature within one year of the first meeting. Introduced May 16, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
An act relating to the use and oversight of artificial intelligence in State government
Vermont's H.410 (Act 132 of 2022) acts on the state's Artificial Intelligence Task Force recommendations. It creates a Division of Artificial Intelligence within the Agency of Digital Services, led by a Director of AI who serves as the State's expert on AI use and oversight in government, and an Artificial Intelligence Council to advise on a code of ethics and AI policy. New 3 V.S.A. 3305 requires the Agency to review and inventory all automated decision systems developed, employed or procured by State government, including systems using machine learning or other AI to make or support government decisions, with annual updates. Signed May 24, 2022; effective July 1, 2022.
AN ACT RELATING TO LABOR AND LABOR RELATIONS -- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USE AND FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
Rhode Island SB 2499 (2026), as introduced on February 6, 2026, would add a chapter on electronic monitoring and automated decision systems in employment. It would make it unlawful for an employer to use an electronic monitoring tool to collect employee information unless stated conditions are met, bar tools that incorporate facial recognition, and require impact assessments. Employers would have to keep records for five years; penalties would be those in title 28. The text says it takes effect upon passage.
Online Privacy Act of 2026
The federal H.R. 8014 (Online Privacy Act of 2026) would create individual privacy rights and security duties for covered entities that intentionally collect, process or maintain personal information and send or receive it over the internet, and a new Digital Privacy Agency to enforce them. Its AI-related parts include a right to human review of solely automated decisions that materially increase reasonably foreseeable significant privacy harms and a ban on behavioral personalization without affirmative express consent. Introduced March 19, 2026 and referred to House committees; no further action.
Video Lottery Games, Table Games And Sports Wagering -- The Rhode Island Consumer Protection Gaming Act
Rhode Island S 146 (2023), as introduced on February 1, 2023, would amend the Consumer Protection Gaming Act to bar facial recognition technology and biometric recognition programs in video-lottery terminals at pari-mutuel licensees and in online betting applications. It would also prohibit algorithmic programs that use a gaming consumer's betting history to increase wagering, and AI or automated decision systems that promote play through intermittent reinforcement. The text states no penalties and takes effect upon passage.
Establishing the Massachusetts consumer data privacy act
Massachusetts H 78 would create the Massachusetts Consumer Data Privacy Act, giving consumers rights over personal data, including opting out of profiling for solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. After a hearing on April 9, 2025, the committee folded it into new draft H4746 on November 17, 2025, which was referred to House Ways and Means; the page shows no later action. Separately, Senate bill S2619 is in a conference committee (June 2026). Neither bill has passed both houses.
Artificial Intelligence Task Force/Funds.
Not law. HB 1036 would have created a North Carolina Artificial Intelligence Task Force to connect legislators with AI experts and industry, review other states' AI laws, study AI systems used by state agencies and shape state AI policy, working through groups on innovation, standards and ethics, high-risk automated decision systems, and individual rights. It would have appropriated $250,000 for 2024-25, with recommendations due to the 2025 General Assembly. It was referred to House Appropriations on May 7, 2024 and went no further.
Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025
The federal S. 2164 (Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025) would direct the FTC to issue regulations within 2 years requiring covered entities that deploy automated decision systems in critical decisions to assess their impact before and after deployment and file summary reports. Covered entities include those with over $50,000,000 in average annual gross receipts or $250,000,000 in equity value, or data on over 1,000,000 consumers, households or devices. Violations would be treated as FTC rule violations; state attorneys general could sue. Introduced June 25, 2025 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; no further action.
ILLINOIS PRIVACY RIGHTS ACT
Illinois's HB 5581 (103rd General Assembly) would have created the Illinois Privacy Rights Act, giving consumers rights to access, correct, delete and obtain a copy of their personal data and to opt out of targeted advertising, sale, or profiling in furtherance of solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. It would apply only to entities above specified consumer-data thresholds. Died at Session Sine Die on January 7, 2025.
Use of automated decision systems in employment settings regulation
Not law. Minnesota's SF 4689 (1st engrossment) would have added Minn. Stat. 181.9921 to 181.9927 regulating employers' use of automated decision systems in employment. Employers would have owed workers advance and after-decision written notice, access and correction of data, human review and an appeal, and could not rely solely on such a system or use one to terminate a worker. Penalties would run up to $1,000 or $2,500 per violation, with a private right of action. Effective January 1, 2027 if enacted.
Establishes NJ Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council.
New Jersey's S3357 would create the New Jersey Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council, located in but not part of the Office of Information Technology, to study State agency use of AI. The seven voting members would assess whether State agencies need an AI code of ethics, recommend guidelines, review automated decision systems, and report to the Governor and Legislature within one year of the first meeting. Introduced June 3, 2024. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.
Relating to the use of certain automated systems in, and certain adverse determinations made in connection with, the health benefit claims process.
Texas's SB 815 bars utilization review agents from using an automated decision system to make, wholly or partly, an adverse determination (a finding that health care services are not medically necessary or appropriate, or are experimental or investigational). Such tools may still be used for administrative support or fraud detection, and the insurance commissioner may audit and inspect an agent's use of them at any time. Adverse determination notices must describe the screening criteria and review procedures used. Signed June 20, 2025; effective September 1, 2025; applies to utilization review for health benefit plans delivered, issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2026.
Surveillance-based price and wage discrimination prohibited.
Not law. Minnesota's HF 4131 would have added Minn. Stat. 325D.141 prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination and wage discrimination, meaning use of an automated decision system to inform individualized prices or wages from surveillance data about a consumer or worker. Listed cost, group-discount and insurer risk exceptions would apply, and wage-setters would have to disclose the data and how the system uses it. The text has no penalties or enforcer. Introduced March 9, 2026; effective August 1, 2026 if enacted.
Human Control of AI Act
Illinois's HB 4980 (104th General Assembly) would create the Meaningful Human Control of Artificial Intelligence Act. Public employers and their contractors could not use or procure automated decision-making systems for specified functions without meaningful and continuing human review, and would have to run impact assessments at least every 2 years. It passed House committee as amended; re-referred to Rules April 17, 2026.
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.
Commission To Monitor The Use Of Artificial Intelligence In State Government
Rhode Island S 117 (2023), as introduced on February 1, 2023, would establish a permanent commission within the department of administration to continuously study, monitor and make recommendations on state use of automated decision systems, including a survey of all such uses. Members would be appointed within 45 days of the effective date, the commission would meet at least six times a year and report annually by December 31. The text says it takes effect upon passage.
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.
LABOR: Provides relative to the use of automated decision systems with respect to employment decisions (OR INCREASE GF EX See Note)
Louisiana's HB 421 would have regulated employers' use of automated decision systems in employment decisions: written notice to workers at least 30 days before first use, bans on facial, gait and emotion recognition, no sole reliance on an automated system for discipline, termination or deactivation, human review, and worker appeals. Louisiana Works could cite violators ($500 civil penalty) and workers could sue. It was referred to committee March 9, 2026 and died.
Fostering artificial intelligence responsibility
Massachusetts H77 would add G.L. Chapter 149B limiting employers' electronic monitoring and use of automated decision systems (independent impact assessments, 10 business days' notice, human oversight, no primary reliance for hiring, discipline or pay), and bar state agencies from using such systems for benefits or rights decisions unless authorized by law. Reported favorably and referred to House Ways and Means December 24, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Addressing artificial intelligence, student discipline, and surveillance in public schools.
Washington's SB 5956 (1st substitute, 2026 session) would have limited AI, automated decision systems (ADS) and surveillance technology in public school discipline. An ADS could not have been the sole or determinative basis for a discipline decision, districts could not have used ADS risk scores or watchlists predicting misconduct or violence, and biometric data could not have been used to infer emotions or other sensitive traits. It passed the Senate 35-13 on February 10, 2026 but was returned to Senate Rules on March 12 and died at adjournment.
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.
American Artificial Intelligence Leadership and Uniformity Act
The American Artificial Intelligence Leadership and Uniformity Act (H.R. 5388) would require the President to submit a National AI Action Plan within 30 days of enactment and would bar states from enforcing laws that limit or regulate AI models, AI systems or automated decision systems in interstate commerce for 5 years, with exceptions. Introduced September 16, 2025 and referred to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee and eleven others; it was referred to a subcommittee on December 19, 2025 and has not passed either house.
Employment decisions; automated decision systems, civil penalty.
Virginia's HB 1514 (2026 Regular Session) would have regulated automated decision systems used in employment decisions. State agencies using one as a substantial factor would have had to ensure legal compliance, disclose its use, offer an opt-out, test it annually and train staff, and no employer could make a final employment decision without a human decision maker. It failed: left in House Appropriations Committee on February 18, 2026.
Regulates the use of artificial intelligence in aiding decisions on rental housing and loans; requires a study on the impact of artificial intelligence and machine learning on housing discrimination and redlining.
New York's A 3930 would regulate algorithms in housing and lending. Landlords and banks using automated decision tools to screen applicants would need annual disparate impact analyses, 24-hour notice to applicants, and (landlords) public posting of results; landlords could not use pricing algorithms with nonpublic competitor data to set rent. Tenants could sue for damages. The housing agency would study AI and housing discrimination. Would take effect immediately. Referred to Housing January 30, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Local agencies: automated decision systems.
California's SB 430 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have restricted how local agencies use an automated decision system to confer supportive services, permits or licenses. An output could not be the sole basis for an adverse eligibility or benefit determination, except as specified, and the agency would have had to verify accuracy and promote nondiscrimination. The bill was returned to the Secretary of the Senate under Joint Rule 56 on February 2, 2026 and did not pass.
Creates the Louisiana Artificial Intelligence Insurance Fairness Act (OR +$1,029,533 SG EX See Note)
Louisiana's HB880, the Louisiana Artificial Intelligence Insurance Fairness Act, would have regulated insurers that use algorithmic decision systems in homeowners, commercial property and casualty, auto, health or life insurance: annual independent disparate-impact audits, prohibited variables, human review of claims decisions, AI disclosures, and a right to explanation. Penalties would run up to $250,000 per violation and consumers could sue. It was considered in House Insurance April 23, 2026 and died.
To establish a commission to investigate AI in education
Not law. S 429 would have created a commission in the Massachusetts Executive Office of Education to study AI in schools and recommend regulations, limits, standards and safeguards. It would have surveyed how public and private school systems use generative AI and automated decision systems (for grading, scheduling, lesson planning and budgeting), examined bias, transparency, data protection, plagiarism and a possible watermark requirement, and produced guidelines for ethical use. On December 4, 2025 it was sent to a study order (S 2792), ending it for the 2025-2026 session.
Relates to the disclosure of automated employment decision-making tools; requires the office of information technology services to maintain an artificial intelligence inventory; provides that the use of artificial intelligence systems shall not affect the existing rights of employees pursuant to an…
New York's S 822 (Chapter 96 of 2025) is the chapter amendment to the LOADinG Act (Chapter 674 of 2024). It dropped that act's human-review and impact-assessment rules for state agency automated decision-making. Instead, each state agency using automated employment decision-making tools must post a list of them on its website by December 30, 2025 and yearly; the Office of Information Technology Services must keep an inventory of state agency AI systems that may directly impact the public, posted on the state's open data site each December 30; and, until July 1, 2028, AI use may not displace state employees or impair collective bargaining. Signed February 14, 2025; effective July 1, 2025.
An act relating to restricting electronic monitoring of employees and the use of employment-related automated decision systems
Vermont's H.262 (2025-2026 biennium) would have limited employers' electronic monitoring of employees and use of automated decision systems (ADS) in employment decisions (new 21 V.S.A. sec. 495q). Employers would have had to give 15 days' notice before monitoring and could use an ADS only with human corroboration, an impact assessment and notice, never relying on its output alone. Facial, gait, voice and emotion recognition would be banned. It was referred to House General and Housing on February 19, 2025 and died.
No Robot Bosses Act
The federal H.R. 6371 (No Robot Bosses Act) would bar employers from relying exclusively on an automated decision system for an employment-related decision, and from using its output unless it was tested before use and at least annually for discrimination, disclosed to the individual, overseen by a human, explained in writing within 7 days and open to dispute and appeal. Employees could opt out of being managed by such a system. Enforcement would be by the Labor Secretary, private lawsuits and State attorneys general. Introduced December 3, 2025 and referred to three House committees; no further action.
Prohibition from using artificial intelligence to dynamically set product prices
Minnesota's SF 3098 (1st engrossment) would add Minn. Stat. 325D.141 prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination and wage discrimination, meaning individualized prices or wages set with an automated decision system from surveillance data about a consumer or worker, and would require published procedures for data accuracy and challenges. Introduced March 27, 2025; amended and re-referred to Commerce and Consumer Protection March 18, 2026 with no recommendation. It died when the 2026 session adjourned without passing.
Relating to the creation of the artificial intelligence advisory council and the establishment of the artificial intelligence learning laboratory.
Texas HB 3808 (2025), as introduced, would have added Subchapter S to Government Code Chapter 2054 to create a seven-member Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council to study and monitor state agency AI systems, and an AI learning laboratory. Executive and legislative agencies would have had to submit an inventory of their automated decision systems by July 1, 2026. The council would be abolished September 1, 2029. It died when the regular session adjourned June 2, 2025.
Relating To The Patients' Bill Of Rights.
Hawaii's Senate Bill 3027 (2026), which calls itself the Hawaii Patients' Bill of Rights of 2025, would have set prior authorization deadlines for health carriers (one business day urgent, three non-urgent) and required written disclosure of any automated decision support tool used in utilization review. A board-certified clinician would have had to independently approve any adverse action the tool materially contributed to. It was referred to committee January 30, 2026 and not enacted. It would have taken effect July 1, 2026.
Requesting The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission To Examine The Applicability Of Existing State Anti-discrimination Laws To Algorithmic And Automated Decision Systems.
Hawaii's House Resolution 182 (2026) asks the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission to examine how existing state anti-discrimination laws apply to algorithmic and automated decision systems, including AI tools used in employment screening, tenant selection, credit and public benefits decisions: whether current law gives enough authority to investigate and remedy such discrimination, jurisdictional and evidentiary hurdles, whether guidance or rulemaking would help, a possible complaint pathway, and any legislation needed. Report due 20 days before the 2027 session. Adopted by the House April 9, 2026; a resolution of one chamber does not change the law.
Relating to the creation of the artificial intelligence advisory council.
Texas HB 2060 (2023) created a seven-member Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council, co-chaired by a House and a Senate member, to study AI systems used by state agencies, assess the need for a state AI code of ethics and review agency inventory reports, with a report to the legislature due December 1, 2024. Every executive and legislative branch agency had to file an inventory of its automated decision systems by July 1, 2024. The council was abolished and the subchapter expired January 1, 2025; later laws (HB 2818, SB 1964) govern state agency AI now.
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 Automated Decision-Making
Artificial intelligence regulation is advancing at the state level. This page lists the 139 published bills we track on Automated Decision-Making. 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 Automated Decision-Making 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.