As the EU AI Act takes effect, U.S. companies with international operations face the challenge of complying with both European and American AI regulation simultaneously. This comparative area examines how EU requirements for high-risk AI systems, prohibited practices, transparency obligations, and conformity assessments align with or diverge from the patchwork of U.S. state AI laws.
Key comparison points include risk classification frameworks, bias audit requirements, transparency mandates, enforcement mechanisms, and extraterritorial reach. Legal practitioners advising multinational clients should track both regulatory regimes to develop unified compliance strategies.
Prohibits the use of biometric surveillance technology by law enforcement; establishes the biometric surveillance regulation task force; and provides for the expiration and repeal of certain provisions
New York's A 1045 would bar police agencies, police officers, peace officers and state police members from acquiring, possessing, accessing or using any biometric surveillance system, or information derived from one, in their duties, and let a person sue for equitable or declaratory relief. Mobile fingerprint scanning, DNA index and fingerprint database comparisons are excepted. It would create a 12-member task force reporting between 2029 and 2030. Introduced January 8, 2025 and referred to the Governmental Operations Committee; it has not passed either house.
Law-enforcement agencies; use of certain technology & interrogation practices; forensic laboratory.
Virginia's HB 1261 (2026 Regular Session) would direct the Department of Criminal Justice Services to set a framework for law-enforcement use of generative AI, machine learning systems and audiovisual surveillance technologies and for interrogations, with model policies and training. Continued to 2027 in committee on February 2, 2026.
Law-enforcement agencies; use of certain technologies and interrogation practices.
Virginia's HB 2433 (2025 Regular Session) would have had the Department of Criminal Justice Services set a framework for law-enforcement use of generative AI, machine learning systems, audiovisual surveillance technologies and interrogations, with model policies by January 1, 2026 and agency policies by July 1, 2026. It also covered forensic laboratory accreditation. Left in committee on February 5, 2025; it failed.
Governmental Use of Facial Recognition Technology
Utah SB 34 (2021) enacts Utah Code Title 77, Chapter 23e on government use of facial recognition technology, defined as a computer system that uses an algorithm to compare facial biometric data of an unknown person with known individuals. Only the Department of Public Safety may run facial recognition comparisons against image databases it shares or maintains, and only under listed conditions and a set request process. Employees must be trained, the public must be notified when a government entity uses facial recognition on images it takes, and the law sets which comparison records are public or protected.
Public Surveillance Prohibition Amendments
Utah SB 231 (2024) defines biometric surveillance information as analysis of surveillance information using biometric software to identify a person or their location from physical attributes, and bars a government entity from obtaining it without a warrant, subject to listed exceptions. Entities must adopt policies on the use, management and auditing of such information. The act also amends the definition of a facial recognition comparison in the 2021 facial recognition chapter so it excludes biometric surveillance information. Effective May 1, 2024.
An Act Concerning Motor Vehicle Registration Notice, the International Registration Plan, Carriers, School Buses, the Medical Advisory Board, Reserved Parking Spaces, Autonomous Vehicles and Other Motor Vehicle Statutes
Sections 17 and 18 of Connecticut's Public Act 19-119 revise the state's fully autonomous vehicle testing pilot program. The Office of Policy and Management runs the program in up to four municipalities, each of which signs an agreement with testers setting routes, vehicles and hours. Testing is allowed only if a trained, licensed operator is physically inside the vehicle (no longer necessarily in the driver's seat), monitoring it and able to take immediate manual control, and each vehicle is registered with the DMV. Testing on limited-access highways is barred, OPM may halt unsafe testing, and testers must share performance information. Both sections were effective on passage.
International AI Energy Grid Modernization Strategy Act
The federal H.R. 7697 (International AI Energy Grid Modernization Strategy Act) would require the Secretary of State, with other agencies, to develop and implement an international strategy for AI research and development to modernize electrical grids, and to report on progress starting 540 days after enactment and annually for 5 years. Introduced February 25, 2026 and referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee; no further action.
Autonomous vehicles.
California's SB 480 lets autonomous vehicles, from January 1, 2026, be equipped with automated driving system (ADS) marker lamps, which emit a light showing when the ADS is engaged in operating the vehicle, built to SAE International standards J3134 (May 2019) and J578 (April 2020), as revised. It exempts these lamps from the Vehicle Code rules that front lighting be white or yellow and rear lighting be red. The lamps are optional. Signed October 6, 2025 (Chapter 415); effective January 1, 2026.
Prohibits the use of biometric surveillance technology by law enforcement; establishes the biometric surveillance regulation task force; and provides for the expiration and repeal of certain provisions
Not law. S 1033 would have barred New York police officers, peace officers and police agencies, including the State Police, from using biometric surveillance systems such as facial recognition, with exceptions such as lawful DNA comparison, fingerprinting and internal security systems. A 12-member task force would have studied the technology's accuracy, effectiveness and harms, especially to vulnerable groups, and recommended whether and how police could use it. The bill was recommitted and its enacting clause stricken on February 21, 2025, which ends it. The Assembly version, A 1045, has its own page.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29; Title 33; Title 39 and Title 47, relative to artificial intelligence.
Tennessee Public Chapter 1066 directs the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR) to study artificial intelligence and report to the governor and both speakers by January 31, 2027. The study must assess AI risks to child safety, of death or injury and of property loss; explore ways to reduce them and review national, international and industry standards; look at ways to stop AI from giving dangerous prompts such as encouraging suicide or violent crime; and identify the risks of chatbots acting human or offering emotional support or health care. Introduced as a felony bill, it was rewritten into this study. Signed May 22, 2026; effective immediately.
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.
State-by-State Regulation of EU AI Act vs US Laws
Artificial intelligence regulation is advancing at the state level. This page lists the 11 published bills we track on EU AI Act vs US 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 EU AI Act vs US 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.