Comprehensive AI laws represent broad, omnibus regulatory frameworks that address artificial intelligence across multiple sectors and use cases rather than targeting a single application. Modeled in part on the EU AI Act's risk-based approach, these state-level frameworks establish tiered obligations based on the risk level of AI systems — from minimal-risk general purpose AI to high-risk applications in healthcare, employment, housing, and criminal justice.
The best-known example is Colorado's AI Act (SB 24-205), which SB 26-189 repeals and replaces effective January 1, 2027. These laws typically require impact assessments, algorithmic audits, transparency notices, and governance frameworks that apply across industries.
Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act
Illinois' SB 315, the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act, regulates developers of frontier AI models (foundation models trained with more than 10^26 operations). All frontier developers must publish a transparency report when deploying a new or substantially modified model and report critical safety incidents within 72 hours. Large frontier developers (over $500 million revenue with affiliates) need a state disclosure statement from January 1, 2027, and from January 1, 2028 a published frontier AI framework and annual independent audits. Large developers face Attorney General penalties up to $1 million, then $3 million. Signed July 6, 2026 (P.A. 104-0538); effective January 1, 2027.
HEAL-AI Act Healthcare Education in AI Literacy Act
The federal H.R. 6077 (HEAL-AI Act, Healthcare Education in AI Literacy Act) would amend the Public Health Service Act to create a Health Resources and Services Administration competitive grant program, with grants of up to $100,000 a year, for medical schools and residency sponsors to train students, residents and faculty in using AI in medicine. Referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee November 18, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Requires third party verification of compliance with transparency and safety requirements for developers of artificial intelligence models; requires publication of such compliance reports.
New York's S 10373 would require a large frontier developer to retain a third party verifier each year to report on its compliance with its frontier AI framework, including any noncompliance and whether its public statements on catastrophic risk conflict with the findings. The verifier must publish a summary within sixty days of completing the report. The Attorney General could seek civil penalties of up to $1 million for a first violation and up to $3 million for each later one. Referred to the Senate Internet and Technology Committee May 15, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Consumer Protection - High-Risk Artificial Intelligence - Developer and Deployer Requirements
Maryland's SB 936 (2025) would have added Commercial Law sections 14-47A-01 to 14-47A-08 requiring developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used for consequential decisions to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination starting February 1, 2026, with impact assessments, consumer notices and appeals. The Attorney General would enforce, with fines up to $1,000 per violation ($1,000 to $10,000 if willful). A Senate Finance hearing was set for February 27, 2025; the bill went no further and died when the session ended.
No Adversarial AI Act
The No Adversarial AI Act would have the Federal Acquisition Security Council list AI produced or developed by a foreign adversary within 60 days of enactment; OMB would publish the list within 180 days and the Council would update it at least every 180 days. Within 90 days, executive agencies would have to review and consider excluding and removing AI from listed foreign adversary entities, using their supply-chain authority under 41 U.S.C. 4713. Agency heads could approve exceptions, with notice to OMB and Congress, for research, testing, counterterrorism or counterintelligence, or mission-critical functions. Introduced June 25, 2025.
No Adversarial AI Act
The federal S. 2177 (No Adversarial AI Act) would require the Federal Acquisition Security Council to develop, within 60 days after enactment, a list of AI produced or developed by a foreign adversary, to be published by the OMB Director within 180 days and updated at least every 180 days. Within 90 days after enactment, executive agency heads would have to review and consider for exclusion and removal AI from foreign adversary entities on the list, with exceptions. Introduced June 25, 2025 and referred to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; no further action.
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.
An act relating to creating oversight and safety standards for developers and deployers of inherently dangerous artificial intelligence systems
Vermont's H.341 (2025-2026 biennium) would have set oversight and safety standards for developers and deployers of inherently dangerous AI systems, meaning high-risk AI systems, dual-use foundational models and generative AI systems, used by non-small businesses doing business in Vermont. Duties included reasonable care, NIST-based testing and risk management, and Safety and Impact Assessments filed with an AI Division in the Agency of Digital Services. Harmed consumers could sue. It was referred to House Commerce on February 25, 2025 and died.
Providing consumer protections for artificial intelligence systems.
Washington's SB 6284 (1st substitute, 2026 session) would have required developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used to make, or be a substantial factor in, consequential decisions on employment, housing, insurance, health care, education, lending, legal services and similar matters to guard against algorithmic discrimination. Deployer duties would start July 1, 2027, consumer notice July 1, 2026, and only the Attorney General could enforce. It cleared Senate Environment, Energy & Technology on February 3, 2026, was heard in Ways & Means on February 6, and died at adjournment on March 12.
Regulating high-risk artificial intelligence system development, deployment, and use.
Washington's SB 6120 (2026 session), the Senate companion to HB 2157, would have required developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems, those intended to make or be a substantial factor in consequential decisions such as employment, lending, housing, insurance, health care and education, to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination. It included developer documentation, deployer risk programs and impact assessments, consumer notices, and private lawsuits for injunctions. It had a first reading on January 14, 2026 and died at adjournment.
Relating to the regulation and reporting on the use of artificial intelligence systems by certain business entities and state agencies; providing civil penalties.
Texas HB 1709 (2025), as introduced, the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, would have set duties for developers, distributors and deployers of high-risk AI systems that are a substantial factor in consequential decisions, with attorney general enforcement and civil penalties of $50,000 to $100,000 per uncured violation. It also would have banned certain uses, created a regulatory sandbox and an AI Council. It died when the regular session adjourned June 2, 2025.
VET Artificial Intelligence Act Validation and Evaluation for Trustworthy (VET) Artificial Intelligence Act
The VET AI Act would direct NIST to develop, within a year and update at least every 2 years, voluntary technical guidelines for internal and independent third-party assurance of AI systems: testing, evaluating, verifying and validating them. The guidelines would address consumer privacy, assessing and reducing harms, dataset quality, documentation and disclosure, and governance, and recommend how often and how deeply developers and deployers should be assessed based on risk. Commerce would convene an advisory committee on assessor qualifications and study the capacity of the AI assurance sector. Introduced July 31, 2025.
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.
Crimes and offenses; obscenity; repeal and replace Code Section 16-12-80
Not law. HB 171 passed the Georgia House 160-0 in February 2025. Its final Senate Rules Committee substitute (March 27, 2026), the Ensuring Accountability for Illegal AI Activities Act, would have made it a felony (1 to 15 years) to knowingly create, distribute, solicit or possess for distribution AI-generated visual material harmful to minors, even if no real child is shown. It would also have added longer sentences when a defendant knowingly used AI to commit offenses such as stalking, elder exploitation, child enticement, theft, fraud or election interference. It never got a Senate floor vote before the 2025-2026 session ended.
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.
Artificial intelligence models: large developers.
California's SB 53, the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, covers developers of frontier models (foundation models trained with more than 10^26 operations). Large frontier developers (over $500 million in prior-year revenue with affiliates) must publish and follow a frontier AI framework for catastrophic risks. All frontier developers must publish transparency reports at deployment, report critical safety incidents to the Office of Emergency Services within 15 days, and not retaliate against whistleblowers. Large developers face penalties up to $1 million per violation. Signed September 29, 2025 (Chapter 138); effective January 1, 2026.
Relates to the training and use of artificial intelligence frontier models; defines terms; establishes remedies for violations.
New York's RAISE Act (S 6953-B, Chapter 699 of 2025) as signed covered "large developers" spending over $100 million on compute, required safety protocols and set penalties up to $10 million, then $30 million. Chapter 96 of 2026 (signed March 27, 2026) repealed and replaced Article 44-B and set the effective date at January 1, 2027. From then, developers of frontier models (over 10^26 training operations) must publish transparency reports when deploying and report critical safety incidents to a Department of Financial Services office within 72 hours; those with over $500 million in revenue must also publish a frontier AI framework and file disclosure statements. Signed December 19, 2025.
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.
HEALTH AI Act Healthcare Enhancement And Learning Through Harnessing Artificial Intelligence Act
The federal H.R. 5045 (HEALTH AI Act) would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a grant program for research on the use of generative AI in health care. Grants would go to universities, 501(c)(3) nonprofits and federal, State, local or Tribal agencies, with priority for entities that encourage adoption, invest in workforce development, reduce burnout or health disparities, or serve underserved populations. Introduced August 26, 2025 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee; no further action.
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.
Public School Code of 1949 - omnibus amendments (Act 20 of 2026), including the policy relating to bullying and cyberbullying involving artificial intelligence-generated or modified media
Pennsylvania's Act 20 of 2026 is a Public School Code omnibus; its AI provisions update the school bullying policy law. It defines "artificial intelligence-generated or modified media" (text, code, images, audio or video created or modified with AI), extends the definition of cyberbullying to conduct using such media, and requires school entities to report bullying and cyberbullying, including the number of cyberbullying incidents suspected to involve AI-generated or modified media. The AI provisions took effect immediately on approval (July 12, 2026).
Fiscal Code - omnibus amendments (Act 45 of 2025), including section 1755-E on stenography services and transcripts created by artificial intelligence
Pennsylvania's Act 45 of 2025 is a Fiscal Code omnibus; its AI provision is new section 1755-E. Money appropriated for stenography services for administrative proceedings may not be used to create a stenographic transcript that is solely and exclusively created by artificial intelligence without a human stenographer present, in person or virtually. Administrative proceedings are actions, proceedings or appeals before an executive branch agency, and AI includes generative AI. The section took effect immediately on approval (Nov. 12, 2025).
Vehicle Code (75 Pa. C.S.) - omnibus amendments (Act 130 of 2022), including highly automated vehicles and platooning
Pennsylvania's Act 130 of 2022 rewrites Chapter 85 of the Vehicle Code on highly automated vehicles (vehicles with an automated driving system). Operating one on a highway requires a certificate of compliance issued by PennDOT after a self-certification, which is deemed approved if not rejected within 30 days. The act sets operation, commercial operation, enforcement and penalty rules, updates the Highly Automated Vehicle Advisory Committee, and makes PennDOT the lead agency on platoons of up to three vehicles. Most provisions took effect in 240 days (July 1, 2023).
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.
Increase Transparency for Algorithmic Systems
Colorado's SB 25B-004, passed in the August 2025 special session, replaced every February 1, 2026 start date in the Colorado AI Act (SB 24-205, C.R.S. 6-1-1702 to 6-1-1704) with June 30, 2026. That moved developers' and deployers' reasonable-care, documentation, risk-program, impact-assessment, notice and reporting duties and the AI-interaction disclosure. It adds no new duties. Signed August 28, 2025 (Chapter 3, 2025 First Extraordinary Session); effective November 25, 2025. SB 26-189 repeals and reenacts Part 17 effective January 1, 2027.
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.
Artificial intelligence.
SJR 6 is a nonbinding joint resolution of the California Legislature. It urges the President and Congress of the United States to develop a comprehensive Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee and to adopt a comprehensive artificial intelligence policy. Its findings cite AI adoption by businesses and consumers, expected effects on the workforce, and national AI strategies adopted by other countries. It was filed with the Secretary of State on July 9, 2019 and creates no legal obligations.
Judiciary, public safety, and corrections policy and finance bill (Laws 2025, chapter 35), including article 4, section 12 on child sexual abuse material created with generative artificial intelligence
Minnesota's 2025 judiciary and public safety omnibus (Laws 2025, chapter 35) brings AI-generated material into the state's child sexual abuse material laws. Article 4, section 12 amends Minn. Stat. 617.246, subd. 1: child sexual abuse material now includes any visual depiction, including a computer-generated image, of an individual indistinguishable from an actual minor created with generative AI or other prompt-driven computer technology engaging in sexual conduct, if obscene. Article 4, section 13 gives interactive computer services and telecommunications providers immunity for specified actions tied to the new AI-material offense. The rest of the act is not AI-related.
Elections policy and finance bill (Laws 2024, chapter 112), including article 2, sections 63-64 and 76-78 amending the election deep fake crime (Minn. Stat. 609.771)
Minnesota's 2024 elections omnibus (Laws 2024, chapter 112) rewrites parts of the 2023 election deep fake crime, Minn. Stat. 609.771. Under article 2, section 76, disseminating a deep fake of a candidate without consent to injure the candidate or influence an election is a crime if done with knowledge or reckless disregard that it is a deep fake, within 90 days before a party nominating convention or after absentee voting begins; broadcasters required by federal law to air a candidate's ad are exempt. Sections 63-64 and 77 require a convicted candidate to forfeit the nomination or office and bar appointment to it, and section 78 revises who may seek injunctive relief.
Omnibus Public Safety policy bill (Laws 2026, chapter 97), including article 3, section 3 adding forged digital likenesses to the identity theft statute (Minn. Stat. 609.527)
Minnesota's Laws 2026, chapter 97 (public safety policy) brings deepfakes into identity theft law. Article 3, section 3 amends Minn. Stat. 609.527, subd. 1 to define a "forged digital likeness": a recording, image or photograph (or a technological representation derived from one) created or altered in a way that depends substantially on technical means, that misrepresents a person's appearance, speech or conduct and is realistic enough that a reasonable person would believe it depicts the actual individual. A forged digital likeness is added to the definition of identity, so using one with intent to commit an unlawful act falls under identity theft. The rest of the act is not AI-related.
Commerce policy bill (Laws 2026, chapter 124), including article 3, section 6 barring utilization review organizations from using artificial intelligence exclusively to make adverse determinations
Minnesota's 2026 commerce omnibus (Laws 2026, chapter 124) adds an AI rule to the state's utilization review law. Article 3, section 6 amends Minn. Stat. 62M.09, subd. 3 to prohibit a utilization review organization from exclusively using artificial intelligence to make an adverse determination on coverage of benefits; a clinician must review the denial. AI may still be used in other parts of the review process. Article 1, section 61 also routes civil penalties under the 2026 nudification ban to the victims of crime account. The rest of the act is not AI-related.
Automated Decision-Making Technology
Colorado's SB 26-189 repeals and reenacts the 2024 AI Act as rules for automated decision-making technology (ADMT) that materially influences consequential decisions such as hiring, lending, housing and health care. Developers must document covered ADMT for deployers; deployers must give notice before use, explain adverse outcomes within 30 days and, on request, give correction steps and, where commercially reasonable, human review. Signed May 14, 2026 (Chapter 131); applies from January 1, 2027. A stipulated April 27, 2026 order in X. AI LLC v. Weiser bars AG enforcement of 2026 laws replacing SB 24-205 for violations through 14 days after a ruling on xAI's planned injunction motion.
An act relating to miscellaneous changes to laws related to vehicles and the Department of Motor Vehicles
Vermont's S.149 (Act 60 of 2019) is a motor vehicle omnibus whose Sec. 16 adds the Automated Vehicle Testing Act, 23 V.S.A. chapter 41. An automated vehicle (one equipped with an automated driving system) may not be tested on public highways until the Traffic Committee approves a tester's permit application after a public hearing, defining the test's scope and operational design domain. Testing on class 2 to 4 town highways needs the town's preapproval, which it can revoke. Testers must use trained operators aged 21 or older who can take immediate manual or remote control. The Governor signed the act June 14, 2019; these sections took effect July 1, 2019.
An act relating to miscellaneous judiciary procedures
Vermont's H.878 (Act 161 of 2024) is a judiciary omnibus. Its Sec. 45 amends 13 V.S.A. 2606, the crime of disclosing sexually explicit images without consent, so that a visual image includes a digital reproduction created or altered by digitization. Digitization means altering an image in a realistic manner using images of the person, images of other people or computer-generated images. Knowingly disclosing such an image of an identifiable person who is nude or engaged in sexual conduct, without consent and with intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce, is therefore a crime even when the image is a deepfake. The act took effect on passage; the Governor signed it June 6, 2024.
An Act To Amend Title 29 Of The Delaware Code Relating To The Artificial Intelligence Commission.
Delaware's HB 333 (84 Del. Laws c. 307) creates the Delaware Artificial Intelligence (AI) Commission within the Department of Technology and Information. The Commission recommends legislative and executive AI actions to the General Assembly and the state Chief Information Officer, develops statewide processes and guidelines for agencies' AI use, encourages agencies to use AI to improve services, recommends actions that keep citizens safe and protect individual rights, and inventories generative AI use in state agencies, identifying high-risk areas. It reports every December 31 from 2024. Signed and effective July 17, 2024; the act expires July 17, 2034 unless extended.
State Bar of California.
SB 253 is a State Bar omnibus bill. Its AI provision, in amended Business and Professions Code Section 6046.6, requires the Committee of Bar Examiners to provide notice if artificial intelligence is used in creating questions for the bar examination or in grading the bar examination. The bill also adds notice periods before changing the exam's question vendor or authorizing remote administration.
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Division U, Title I: AI in Government Act of 2020)
Title I of Division U of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 is the AI in Government Act of 2020. It creates an AI Center of Excellence within the General Services Administration to help agencies adopt AI and share best practices (sec. 103). It requires the Director of OMB to issue guidance to agencies on the acquisition and use of AI, including how to reduce barriers, protect civil liberties, privacy and civil rights, and identify AI risks (sec. 104). It also directs the Office of Personnel Management to identify skills for AI positions and create or update an occupational series for AI work (sec. 105). The remainder of the omnibus is outside this entry.
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.
Prohibiting Social Media Manipulation Act (commerce omnibus, Laws 2024, chapter 114, article 3)
Minnesota's Prohibiting Social Media Manipulation Act, enacted in the 2024 commerce omnibus (Laws 2024, chapter 114, article 3, sections 63 to 67, now Minn. Stat. 325M.30 to 325M.34), requires social media platforms to publicly and conspicuously post how they limit excessive account interactions, an explanation of how they assess content quality and users' expressed preferences and how those assessments are used and weighted in each of the platform's algorithmic ranking systems, and usage statistics by percentile of account holders. The provisions took effect July 1, 2025.
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 "New Jersey Responsible AI Advancement and Workforce Protection Act."
New Jersey's S1840 would create the New Jersey Responsible AI Advancement and Workforce Protection Act, funding worker retraining through an AI Horizon Fund fed by a 5% assessment on AI infrastructure entities' gross AI revenue. It would require environmental assessments and community benefit agreements for AI computing facilities and impact assessments for high-risk AI systems.
AN ACT relating to protection of information and declaring an emergency.
Kentucky's HB 672 (2025 session) would have required state departments and agencies to route generative and high-risk AI through an Artificial Intelligence Governance Committee created by the Commonwealth Office of Technology. It would have required approval, a public registry, disclaimers on AI-generated decisions and outputs, risk management policies and impact assessments for high-risk systems, employee training, and regulations by July 1, 2025. It also would have let candidates and election officers sue over undisclosed synthetic media in election ads. Referred to House State Government; died. SB 4 (2025), with the same title, was enacted instead (Acts Ch. 66).
In culpability, providing for liability for deployment of artificial intelligence system.
Pennsylvania's HB 1533 (2025-26) would add 18 Pa.C.S. 306.1, making a person who deploys an AI system to perform an automated or autonomous function subject to criminal or civil liability, or both, for any negative outcome from the deployment. Claims that the AI acted autonomously or was supplied by a third party would not avoid liability. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on May 30, 2025.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's HB 2591 (2026) would have required the State's Chief Data Officer to turn the open data portal into a hub with an AI chatbot and data visualizations on statewide shared data sets, and to set up a system to evaluate AI governance tools and collect agency reports of AI use cases and vendors. It would have appropriated $2,000,000 for FY 2026-2027. It was referred to ECD and FIN on February 2, 2026 and was not enacted.
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.
Relating To Insurance.
Hawaii's SB 2953 (2026) would have set rules for insurers' use of AI: a written AI governance program, testing and monitoring, clinician review of AI-supported adverse health determinations, and limits on adverse residential property underwriting actions based solely on aerial images or AI outputs. The Insurance Commissioner would have enforced it. It was referred to CPN/LBT and WAM on January 30, 2026 and was not enacted.
AI PRINCIPLES
Illinois's HB 3529 (104th General Assembly) would create the Illinois High-Impact AI Governance Principles and Disclosure Act. The Department of Innovation and Technology would adopt rules to make businesses using AI systems comply with 5 principles of AI governance and publish a report on their websites. It would apply to businesses with 10 or more employees. Re-referred to Rules March 21, 2025.
AI Safety Measures Act
Illinois's SB 3312 (104th General Assembly) would create the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act. Large frontier developers would have to adopt and publish a frontier AI framework covering catastrophic risk management, transparency and cybersecurity, and report critical safety incidents to the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security. Re-referred to Senate Assignments on May 22, 2026.
AI SAFETY MEASURES ACT
Illinois's HB 4799 (104th General Assembly) would create the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act. Large frontier AI developers would have to adopt and publish a frontier AI framework covering catastrophic risk management, transparency and cybersecurity, and report critical safety incidents to the Attorney General, with civil penalties for noncompliance. It would also create a consortium to develop ILCompute, a public cloud computing resource. Referred to Rules February 6, 2026.
artificial intelligence; state agencies; rules
Vetoed. Arizona's HB 2592 (2026) would have added A.R.S. § 18-105, requiring the Department of Administration director to have each state budget unit identify AI uses that reduce administrative burdens, eliminate regulations that unnecessarily restrict AI innovation, streamline AI procurement and set up enterprise AI governance. Agencies could not have adopted rules specifically regulating AI systems or computational resources without an express legislative delegation to address a specific harm and a least-restrictive-means showing. The director would have reported yearly by December 1. Vetoed June 19, 2026.
CREATE AI Act of 2025 Creating Resources for Every American To Experiment with Artificial Intelligence Act of 2025
The CREATE AI Act of 2025 (H.R. 2385) would have the National Science Foundation establish the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource within 1 year of enactment, giving researchers and students access to computing, data and tools. Referred to the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee on March 26, 2025, which ordered it reported in the nature of a substitute, 29-0, on June 25, 2026. The introduced text is described here; neither house has passed the bill.
An Act Concerning Artificial Intelligence.
Connecticut's SB 2, as passed by the Senate (File 603 as amended by Senate Amendments A and B, as described in the OLR bill analysis), would require anyone doing business in the state to tell consumers when they interact with an AI system, and deployers of high-risk AI systems used in consequential decisions to give notices, explain adverse decisions and allow correction and appeal, beginning October 1, 2026, with attorney general enforcement. It would also create AI studies, an AI Academy and a synthetic intimate image crime. Passed the Senate May 14, 2025; tabled on the House calendar May 16, 2025; it did not pass the House.
STATE GOVT AI ACT
Illinois' SB1366 would create the State Government AI Act. The Department of Innovation and Technology would have to adopt rules before January 1, 2028 on the development, procurement, deployment, use and assessment of AI by State agencies, and from January 1, 2028 agencies could not deploy or use AI unless those rules permit it. Filed January 29, 2025 and referred to the Senate Assignments Committee; it has not passed either house.
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.
Protecting Consumers from Deceptive AI Act
The federal H.R. 8479 (Protecting Consumers from Deceptive AI Act) would have NIST set up task forces on standards for identifying AI-generated content and require generative AI application providers to embed a machine-readable disclosure in audio or visual content they create or substantially modify, and large online platforms to show it to users. The FTC would write rules within 2 years and enforce them as unfair or deceptive practice rules. Introduced April 23, 2026 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce and Science, Space, and Technology committees; no further action.
GAIN AI Act of 2025 Guaranteeing Access and Innovation for National Artificial Intelligence Act of 2025
The federal S. 3150 (GAIN AI Act of 2025) would amend the Export Control Reform Act to require a license to export, reexport or transfer advanced AI integrated circuits designed or marketed for data centers to entities in or headquartered in countries of concern. Applicants would have to certify that U.S. persons had a right of first refusal and that the sale creates no backlog for U.S. buyers, and licenses without it would be denied. Introduced November 6, 2025 and referred to the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee; no further action.
Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act
The federal S. 1213 (Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act) would add Section 325 to the Federal Election Campaign Act to bar any person, committee or entity from knowingly distributing materially deceptive AI-generated audio or visual media of a federal candidate, or in carrying out federal election activity, to influence an election or solicit funds. Candidates could sue for injunctions and damages. Introduced March 31, 2025 and referred to the Senate Rules Committee; no further action.
Artificial intelligence; AI devices in health care; qualified end-user; deployer; quality assurance program; State Department of Health; effective date.
Oklahoma's HB 1915, as introduced, would require AI devices used in health care that are medical devices under federal law to be deployed under FDA rules and used only by a qualified end-user (a licensed physician able to perform the task without the device). Hospitals, practices and other deployers would have to run a quality assurance program, an AI governance group and a device inventory, with penalties set by the State Department of Health. Referred to the House Rules committee February 4, 2025; the bill died when the 2026 legislative session ended on May 14, 2026 without passing.
GAIN AI Act of 2025 Guaranteeing Access and Innovation for National Artificial Intelligence Act of 2025
The federal H.R. 5885 (GAIN AI Act of 2025) would amend the Export Control Reform Act to require a license to export, reexport or transfer advanced AI integrated circuits designed or marketed for data centers to entities in or headquartered in countries of concern. Applicants would have to certify that U.S. persons had a right of first refusal, and licenses without the certification would be denied. Introduced October 31, 2025 and referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee; no further action.
LIFE with AI Act Learning Innovation and Family Empowerment with AI Act
The federal S. 3063 (LIFE with AI Act) would condition federal education funds on student-privacy rules: a simpler directory-information opt-out form, a bar on using student photos to train facial recognition without parental consent, and public ed-tech contracts with vendor privacy certifications. It would also create a "Golden Seal of Excellence in Student Data Privacy", a Privacy Technical Assistance Center, and teacher resources and research priority for AI in education. Introduced October 28, 2025 and referred to the Senate HELP Committee; no further action.
Information Technology - Artificial Intelligence - Policies and Procedures (Artificial Intelligence Governance Act of 2024)
Maryland's SB 818, the Artificial Intelligence Governance Act of 2024, governs AI used by Executive Branch agencies. Agencies must inventory their data, including data used in AI, by December 1, 2024 and yearly, and their high-risk AI systems by December 1, 2025 and regularly after, and assess high-risk systems by December 31, 2026 (procured on or after February 1, 2026) or July 1, 2027 (procured earlier). The Department of Information Technology was to adopt high-risk AI policies by December 1, 2024; from July 1, 2025 agencies may not procure or deploy a new AI system that does not comply. It codifies the Governor's AI Subcabinet. Signed May 9, 2024 (Chapter 496); effective July 1, 2024.
AN ACT relating to the promotion of family well-being and making an appropriation therefor.
Kentucky's HB 734, the omnibus ALPHA Act on family well-being, included a provision that would bar the Cabinet for Health and Family Services from relying exclusively on automated, AI-based or algorithmic software to identify fraud in public assistance programs and from denying, discontinuing or reducing benefits without staff review of the documentation. Introduced February 26, 2024; sent to the House Appropriations & Revenue Committee March 5, 2024. It died when the 2024 session ended without passing.
AN ACT relating to the promotion of family well-being and making an appropriation therefor.
Kentucky's SB 34, the omnibus ALPHA Act on family well-being, included a provision that would bar the Cabinet for Health and Family Services from relying exclusively on automated, AI-based or algorithmic software to identify fraud in public assistance programs and from denying, discontinuing or reducing benefits without staff review of the documentation. Introduced January 2, 2024; sent to the Senate Appropriations & Revenue Committee January 5, 2024. It died when the 2024 session ended without passing.
Relating To Artificial Intelligence.
Hawaii's HB 2597 (H.D. 1, S.D. 1) would have required the State's chief data officer to turn the open data portal into a comprehensive Hawaii data hub with an AI chatbot developed in phases, and to build a system to evaluate and select AI governance tools for state agencies and publish agency AI use cases and vendors. It passed the House March 5, 2026, but the Senate never passed it; it died when the session adjourned May 8, 2026.
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.
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.
Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding generative artificial intelligence in public education.
Idaho's S 1227 (2026 Session Laws Chapter 71) adds Chapter 70, Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education, to Title 33. The State Department of Education must develop a statewide generative AI framework for K-12 schools, subject to State Board approval, that prioritizes human oversight, transparency, safety and data security and ensures no generative AI replaces a human teacher. Every school district and public charter school must adopt a generative AI policy aligned with it. Vendors of AI tools bought by schools must disclose whether products use machine learning, predictive analytics or generative AI. Signed March 19, 2026; effective July 1, 2026.
James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (Division G, Title LXXII, Subtitle B: Advancing American AI Act)
Subtitle B of Title LXXII of Division G of the FY2023 NDAA is the Advancing American AI Act. OMB guidance under the AI in Government Act must consider responsible-AI practices and civil rights and privacy protections (sec. 7224). For five years each agency must keep an inventory of its AI use cases, share it, and publish it where practicable (sec. 7225). OMB must identify new AI use cases and run pilot projects (sec. 7226), and the Act supports small-business engagement in agency AI work (sec. 7227). Intelligence community elements are exempt (sec. 7228). The rest of the NDAA is outside this entry.
Relates to transparency and safety requirements for developers of artificial intelligence models
New York's S 8828 (Chapter 96 of 2026) is the chapter amendment to the RAISE Act (Chapter 699 of 2025). It repealed and replaced General Business Law Article 44-B and set the effective date at January 1, 2027. Developers of frontier models (over 10^26 training operations) must publish transparency reports when deploying and report critical safety incidents to a Department of Financial Services office within 72 hours. Those with over $500 million in revenue must also publish and follow a frontier AI framework, report internal-use risk assessments, file disclosure statements and pay assessments, and face Attorney General penalties up to $1 million, then $3 million. Signed March 27, 2026.
TEST AI Act of 2025 Testing and Evaluation Systems for Trusted Artificial Intelligence Act of 2025
The federal S. 1633 (TEST AI Act of 2025) would require the NIST Director, with the Secretary of Energy, to run a pilot program of testbeds to assess the feasibility and advisability of developing measurement standards for AI systems used by Federal agencies. A Commerce-led AI Testing Working Group of up to 10 members would write a strategy within 1 year of being established. Introduced May 7, 2025 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; no further action.
Enact the Ohio Right to Compute Act
The Ohio Right to Compute Act would bar state agencies and local governments from restricting anyone's lawful use, development, deployment or possession of computing resources, including AI and machine learning systems, unless the restriction is narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest, such as critical infrastructure reliability, fraud, protecting minors from nonconsensual deepfakes, or rules for employees' AI use. Anyone operating an AI system that controls critical infrastructure would need a risk management policy following the NIST AI framework or another recognized standard. The House Technology and Innovation Committee reported an amended version on June 10, 2026.
LIFT AI Act Literacy in Future Technologies Artificial Intelligence Act
U.S. Congress's H.R. 5584, the Literacy in Future Technologies Artificial Intelligence Act (LIFT AI Act, 119th Congress), as introduced would let the National Science Foundation Director make competitive, merit-reviewed awards to higher education institutions or nonprofits (or consortia) for research on K-12 AI literacy curricula, teacher professional development and evaluation methods. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee ordered it reported, as amended, 34-1 on June 25, 2026; it has not passed the House.
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.
Establishes criteria for the use of automated employment decision tools; provides for enforcement for violations of such criteria.
New York's S 5641-A (2023-24 session, Sen. Comrie) would have added Labor Law article 20-D on automated employment decision tools (AI that is the controlling factor in a decision to hire, promote or terminate). Deployers and developers would have had to perform annual impact assessments and keep an AI governance program, and deployers to notify affected individuals; the Attorney General could investigate and would give 45 days' notice to cure. Referred to Labor March 10, 2023 and amended and recommitted to Labor January 8, 2024; it died when the session ended.
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.
Requires an office within the department of financial services to establish minimum standards for large frontier developers' frontier AI frameworks to prevent unreasonable levels of catastrophic risk.
New York's S 10456 would add General Business Law section 1430. The Office (which the sponsor memo identifies as the Office of Digital Innovation, Governance, Integrity & Trust, DIGIT, in the Department of Financial Services) would have to adopt regulations by July 1, 2028 requiring large frontier developers' frontier AI frameworks to meet minimum standards to prevent unreasonable levels of catastrophic risk. It must consult academia, the Empire AI Research Institute, the Attorney General, civil society and frontier developers, and review the rules annually. Referred to Internet and Technology May 15, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
State contracts: report: modern foundation models and associated artificial intelligence systems.
California's AB 2653 (2025-26 Regular Session) would add Public Contract Code Chapter 6.5 requiring the Department of Industrial Relations, in consultation with the Department of Technology, to convene a nine-member Foundation Model Labor and Procurement Working Group. It would assess labor practices behind modern foundation models and recommend whether and how the state should include labor standards in procurement, reporting by December 31, 2027. Held in Assembly Appropriations May 14, 2026; not passed.
Providing consumer protections for artificial intelligence systems.
Washington's HB 2667 (2026 session), the House companion to SB 6284, would have required deployers of high-risk AI systems used for consequential decisions on education, employment, lending, health care, housing, insurance, legal services and similar matters to guard against algorithmic discrimination. Deployer duties would start July 1, 2027 and consumer notice July 1, 2026; only the Attorney General could enforce. It had a first reading on January 26, 2026, never got a hearing and died at adjournment on March 12.
Enacts the "New York artificial intelligence consumer protection act", in relation to preventing the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to discriminate against protected classes.
New York's A 768, the "New York artificial intelligence consumer protection act," would add General Business Law Article 45-A. Beginning January 1, 2027, developers and deployers of high-risk AI decision systems used in consequential decisions (education, employment, lending, government services, health care, housing, insurance, legal services) would have to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with documentation, impact assessments, consumer notices and appeal rights. Only the Attorney General would enforce it. Referred to Consumer Affairs and Protection January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
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.
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.
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 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.
Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act
The federal H.R. 5272 (Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act) would add Section 325 to the Federal Election Campaign Act, barring any person, committee or entity from knowingly distributing materially deceptive AI-generated audio or visual media of a federal candidate, or in carrying out federal election activity, with intent to influence an election or solicit funds. Candidates could sue. Referred to the House Administration Committee September 10, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Liquid Cooling for AI Act of 2025
The federal S. 3269 (Liquid Cooling for AI Act of 2025) would direct the Comptroller General to begin a review of liquid cooling for AI and high-performance computing data centers within 30 days after enactment and report within 90 days, with a Department of Energy assessment of that report due 180 days after it is received. Introduced November 20, 2025 and referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, whose Energy Subcommittee held a hearing April 15, 2026; no further action.
Liquid Cooling for AI Act of 2025
The federal H.R. 5332 (Liquid Cooling for AI Act of 2025) would require the Comptroller General to start a review within 30 days after enactment of liquid cooling in data centers, including for high-performance computing and AI, and report within 90 days to the Energy Secretary and congressional committees. The Energy Secretary would then have 180 days after receiving the report to submit an assessment with recommendations for liquid-cooling and heat-reuse R&D. Introduced September 11, 2025 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce and Science, Space, and Technology committees; no further action.
A resolution affirming the critical importance of preserving the United States' advantage in artificial intelligence and ensuring that the United States achieves and maintains artificial intelligence dominance.
The federal S.Res. 490 is a simple Senate resolution that would not change the law. It would affirm that preserving U.S. primacy in AI is a national imperative, commend the White House AI Action Plan, applaud efforts to deny the Chinese government advanced chips and chipmaking equipment, and call on the U.S. government to ensure U.S. companies keep priority access to cutting-edge AI chips. Introduced November 6, 2025 and referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; no further action.
Artificial Intelligence Systems
Not law. Colorado's HB 25B-1009, introduced in the August 2025 extraordinary session, would have amended the Colorado AI Act (SB 24-205). It would have narrowed 'consequential decision' to employment and public safety decisions, delayed the effective date from February 1, 2026 to August 1, 2027, and exempted businesses with fewer than 250 employees or under $5 million in annual revenue and local governments with fewer than 100,000 residents. The House Business Affairs & Labor Committee postponed it indefinitely 8-4 on August 21, 2025.
AN ACT relating to protection of information and declaring an emergency.
Kentucky's SB 4 (2025) governs state government's use of AI. The Commonwealth Office of Technology must create an Artificial Intelligence Governance Committee, set standards for agencies' use of generative and high-risk AI, keep a registry of those systems and report yearly. Agencies must disclose AI use to the public, explain AI-driven decisions and offer appeals of consequential decisions. A candidate whose appearance, action or speech is altered with synthetic media in an electioneering communication may sue the sponsor to require a clear disclosure. Signed March 24, 2025 (Acts Ch. 66); emergency act, effective on signing.
State-by-State Regulation of Comprehensive AI Laws
Artificial intelligence regulation is advancing at the state level. This page lists the 90 published bills we track on Comprehensive AI Laws. 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 Comprehensive AI Laws 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.