Resource
State AI law tracker
A structured reference to the major US state AI laws — in force, scheduled to take effect, pending, vetoed or failed. Each entry is sourced to the legislature or the enforcing agency, re-checked at least every 90 days, and switches to “In force” on its effective date automatically.
Where major AI laws stand
Embed this map ↗9 states have a major AI law in force; 2 more have one enacted but not yet in force; 1 state has only a bill pending — in our tracker of major AI laws. New York City also has its own law in force.
- Law in force9
- Enacted, not yet in force2
- Bill pending1
- Bill vetoed or failed1
- None in our tracker38
- City law in force (New York City)
Shows the major AI-specific laws and bills in this tracker, not every AI-related bill. A state shown as none may still have other AI rules. Colors update automatically on effective dates.
Enacted laws
Laws that are either already in force or have been signed and have a fixed future effective date.
| State | Law | Status | Effective | Scope | Max penalty | Enforcement | Primary source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado | Colorado SB 26-189 Automated Decision-Making Technology (replaced the Colorado AI Act, SB 24-205) SB 26-189 (signed May 2026 — Gov. Polis); repealed SB 24-205 | Enacted — effective 2027 | Jan 1, 2027 | Developers and deployers of automated decision-making technology that materially influences consequential decisions about Colorado consumers (e.g. employment, education, housing, financial services, insurance, healthcare, essential government services). Notice, adverse-outcome explanation within 30 days, data correction and human review, developer documentation, three-year record keeping. | Enforced under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act; 60-day cure period until Jan 1, 2030. | Colorado Attorney General (exclusive; no private right of action) | leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb26-189 |
| Texas | Texas HB 149 (TRAIGA) Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA) HB 149 (signed Jun 22, 2025 — Gov. Abbott) | In force | Jan 1, 2026 | Intent-based prohibitions on AI systems (manipulation, government social scoring, unlawful discrimination, deepfakes/CSAM); heightened duties on governmental entities. 36-month regulatory sandbox. | $10,000–$12,000 curable; $80,000–$200,000 uncurable; $2,000–$40,000/day continuing; up to $100,000 secondary agency sanctions. | Texas Attorney General (exclusive, 60-day cure period) | capitol.texas.gov — HB 149 enrolled text |
| Illinois | Illinois HB 3773 AI in Employment — Illinois Human Rights Act Amendment HB 3773 / Public Act 103-0804 (signed Aug 9, 2024 — Gov. Pritzker) | In force | Jan 1, 2026 | Employers using AI in recruitment, hiring, promotion, discipline, or conditions of employment; disparate impact is sufficient (intent not required); prohibits ZIP code as proxy for protected class. | IHRA civil remedies — back pay, compensatory damages, attorneys fees, civil penalties. | Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR); Illinois Human Rights Commission | dhr.illinois.gov — AI in Employment |
| New York City | NYC Local Law 144 (AEDT law) Automated Employment Decision Tools (AEDT) Local Law 144 of 2021 (enforcement began Jul 5, 2023) | In force | Jul 5, 2023 | NYC employers and employment agencies using automated employment decision tools to screen candidates or employees for hire or promotion. | $500 first violation; $1,500 per subsequent violation; each day = separate violation. | NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) | nyc.gov — AEDT official page |
| California | California AB 2013 Generative AI: Training Data Transparency AB 2013 (signed Sep 28, 2024 — Gov. Newsom) | In force | Jan 1, 2026 | Developers of any generative AI system publicly available to Californians. Documentation required for systems released on or after January 1, 2022. | No statutory dollar schedule; enforcement via California AG and consumer protection statutes. | California Attorney General / CPPA (via general consumer protection authority) | leginfo.legislature.ca.gov — AB 2013 |
| California | California SB 942 (AI Transparency Act) California AI Transparency Act SB 942 (signed Sep 19, 2024 — Gov. Newsom); start date delayed by AB 853 (signed Oct 2025) | In force | Aug 2, 2026 | Covered providers — GenAI systems with >1,000,000 monthly users publicly accessible in California. Requires free AI detection tool; manifest and latent content disclosures; 96-hour license revocation for licensee tampering. | $5,000 per violation; each day of continued violation is a separate violation; attorneys fees. | California Attorney General; city attorneys; county counsel | leginfo.legislature.ca.gov — SB 942 |
| California | California AB 3030 Healthcare Provider Generative AI Patient Communication Disclosure AB 3030 (signed Sep 2024 — Gov. Newsom) | In force | Jan 1, 2025 | Health facilities, clinics, physician offices, group practices using GenAI to generate written or verbal patient communications about clinical information. Disclosure exempted when a licensed provider reviews. | Health facility licensure actions; California Medical Board disciplinary action. | California Medical Board; California Department of Public Health; licensing boards | Medical Board of California — GenAI Notification |
| California | California SB 1120 (Physicians Make Decisions Act) Health Care Coverage: Utilization Review — AI Guardrails (Physicians Make Decisions Act) SB 1120 (signed Sep 28, 2024 — Gov. Newsom) | In force | Jan 1, 2025 | Health care service plans, disability insurers, and contractors using AI/algorithm tools for utilization review or utilization management. Medical necessity decisions must be made by a licensed clinician, not AI alone. | DMHC administrative penalties; CDI Insurance Commissioner penalties; willful violation by a health plan is a crime under Knox-Keene Act. | California DMHC; California Department of Insurance (CDI) | leginfo.legislature.ca.gov — SB 1120 |
| Utah | Utah SB 149 (Utah AI Policy Act) Utah AI Policy Act (AIPA) SB 149 (signed Mar 13, 2024 — Gov. Cox); amended by SB 226 (May 2025) | In force | May 1, 2024 | Consumer-facing AI interactions. General interactions: disclose AI use on clear and unambiguous request. Regulated occupations (attorneys, therapists, financial advisors, healthcare) in high-risk interactions: proactively disclose at session start. | Administrative fines up to $2,500/violation (Utah Division of Consumer Protection); civil penalties up to $5,000/violation for court/admin order breach. | Utah Division of Consumer Protection; Utah Attorney General | le.utah.gov — SB 149 |
| Utah | Utah HB 452 AI Applications Relating to Mental Health HB 452 (signed Mar 25, 2025 — Gov. Cox) | In force | May 7, 2025 | Suppliers of AI chatbots that provide (or are reasonably believed to provide) mental health therapy. Disclosure before first access, after 7 days of inactivity, and on request. Written policy filed with Utah Division of Consumer Protection. | Up to $2,500/violation (Utah Division of Consumer Protection); $5,000/violation for order breach; disgorgement; injunctive relief. | Utah Division of Consumer Protection | le.utah.gov — HB 452 enrolled |
| Tennessee | Tennessee HB 2091 (ELVIS Act) Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security (ELVIS) Act HB 2091 / SB 2096 (signed Mar 21, 2024 — Gov. Lee) | In force | Jul 1, 2024 | Right of publicity — unauthorized use of voice, name, photograph, or likeness for commercial purposes, including AI-generated simulations. Secondary liability for distributors and tools whose primary purpose is unauthorized replication. | Civil action for damages, with destruction of infringing goods; treble damages and attorneys fees for members of the armed forces. Unauthorized use is also a misdemeanor. | Private right of action; state prosecutors (criminal) | wapp.capitol.tn.gov — HB 2091 (113th General Assembly) |
| New York | New York S 6953B (RAISE Act) Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (RAISE Act) S 6953B / A 6453B — Chapter 699 of 2025 (signed Dec 19, 2025 — Gov. Hochul) | Enacted — effective 2027 | Jan 1, 2027 | Frontier AI developers with >$500M annual revenue that have trained a frontier model (>10^26 computational operations at >$100M compute cost). Written safety and security protocol; 72-hour incident reporting; whistleblower protection; academic research excluded. | Up to $1,000,000 first violation; up to $3,000,000 subsequent (per agreed chapter amendments; statute text: $10M / $30M). | New York Attorney General; NY Department of Financial Services (new oversight office) | nysenate.gov — S 6953B |
| Michigan | Michigan HB 5144 AI Political Deepfake Law / Materially Deceptive Media in Elections HB 5144 — Public Act 265 of 2023 (approved Nov 30, 2023 — Gov. Whitmer); part of a package with HB 5141, 5143 and 5145 | In force | Feb 13, 2024 | Distributing materially deceptive media (such as AI-generated depictions of candidates) within 90 days before an election, knowing it falsely represents the person depicted and intending both to harm a candidate and to change how people vote by deceiving them. Does not apply when the media carries a clearly visible disclaimer that it "has been manipulated by technical means and depicts speech or conduct that did not occur." | Misdemeanor — up to 90 days and/or $500; a repeat violation within 5 years is a felony — up to 5 years and/or $1,000. Courts may issue permanent injunctions. | State prosecutors (criminal); injunctions may be sought by the Attorney General, the depicted individual, an injured candidate or an organization representing voters | legislature.mi.gov — HB 5144 / Public Act 265 of 2023 |
| Minnesota | Minnesota HF 1370 Use of Deep Fake Technology to Influence an Election (Minn. Stat. § 609.771) HF 1370 / SF 1394 (signed May 26, 2023 — Gov. Walz); amended 2024 (HF 4772) | In force | Aug 1, 2023 | Disseminating a deepfake, knowing (or recklessly disregarding) that it is one, without the depicted person's consent and with intent to injure a candidate or influence an election — within 90 days before a party nominating convention, or after absentee voting begins for a primary or general election. | Up to 90 days and/or $1,000; up to 364 days and/or $3,000 if intended to cause violence or bodily harm; up to 5 years and/or $10,000 for a repeat conviction within 5 years. A convicted candidate forfeits the nomination or office. | Criminal prosecution; injunctions may be sought by the Attorney General, a county or city attorney, the depicted individual or an injured candidate | revisor.mn.gov — Minn. Stat. § 609.771 |
| Texas | Texas SB 751 Criminal Offense for Fabricating Deceptive Videos to Influence Elections SB 751 (86th Legislature, signed Jun 14, 2019 — Gov. Abbott) | In force | Sep 1, 2019 | Creation and distribution of a deepfake video within 30 days of an election with intent to influence the election or injure a candidate. | Criminal offense — Class A misdemeanor to felony depending on circumstances. | State prosecutors (criminal only) | capitol.texas.gov — SB 751 text |
| Washington | Washington SB 5152 Synthetic Media in Election Campaigns — Disclosure Requirements SB 5152 — Chapter 360, Laws of 2023 (signed May 9, 2023 — Gov. Inslee) | In force | Jul 23, 2023 | A candidate whose appearance, action or speech is altered with synthetic media in an electioneering communication can sue the sponsor. Including the disclosure "This (image/video/audio) has been manipulated" is an affirmative defense. | Injunctions; general or special damages against the sponsor; the court may award attorneys fees and costs. | Affected candidates (private civil action) | leg.wa.gov — SB 5152 session law (Chapter 360, Laws of 2023) |
| Maryland | Maryland HB 820 (2025) Health Insurance — Utilization Review — Use of Artificial Intelligence HB 820 — Chapter 747 of 2025 (signed May 20, 2025 — Gov. Moore) | In force | Oct 1, 2025 | Health insurers and other carriers, pharmacy benefits managers and private review agents that use AI, algorithms or other software for utilization review. Determinations must rest on the enrollee's own clinical information, not solely a group dataset; the tool may not replace the health care provider's role, cause unfair discrimination or harm enrollees, and may not deny, delay or modify health care services. Tools must be open to Insurance Commissioner audit and reviewed at least quarterly; carriers' quarterly adverse-decision reports must say whether AI was used. | No penalty amount set in the Act; compliance is overseen through Insurance Commissioner audits and reviews. | Maryland Insurance Administration / Insurance Commissioner | mgaleg.maryland.gov — HB 820 (2025) |
| Maryland | Maryland SB 141 (2026) Election Misinformation, Election Disinformation, and Deepfakes SB 141 — Chapter 444 of 2026 (signed May 12, 2026 — Gov. Moore); cross-filed as HB 145 | In force | Jun 1, 2026 | Knowingly or recklessly creating, using or spreading a deepfake (a realistic but false AI- or digitally-made image, audio or video of a person) to produce materially false election information meant to influence voting, petitions or an election outcome, where it causes or is meant to cause harm. Exceptions for satire and parody, certain broadcasts, news publishers that disclose the content is not authentic, and services protected by 47 U.S.C. § 230. The State Administrator of Elections must publicly correct credible reports of election misinformation and may seek court orders to remove it. | Misdemeanor — up to $5,000 fine, up to 5 years imprisonment, or both; the State Board of Elections may also sue to recover correction costs and damages. | Criminal prosecution; Maryland State Board of Elections and State Administrator of Elections (civil suits, takedown injunctions) | mgaleg.maryland.gov — SB 141 (2026) |
| Maryland | Maryland SB 818 (2024) Artificial Intelligence Governance Act of 2024 (state government use of AI) SB 818 / HB 1271 — Chapter 496 of 2024 (signed May 9, 2024 — Gov. Moore) | In force | Jul 1, 2024 | Units of Maryland state government, with separate policy duties for public universities and constitutional officers. Annual data inventories; inventories of high-risk (rights- or safety-impacting) AI systems; impact assessments due Dec 31, 2026 (systems procured from Feb 1, 2026) or Feb 1, 2027 (earlier systems). Since Jul 1, 2025 a unit may not procure or deploy a new AI system unless it complies with Department of Information Technology policies, which matters to vendors selling AI to the State. | None — governance and procurement rules for state agencies, not penalties. | Maryland Department of Information Technology (DoIT); Governor’s AI Subcabinet | mgaleg.maryland.gov — SB 818 (2024) |
| Maryland | Maryland HB 1202 (2020) Use of Facial Recognition Services in Job Interviews (Lab. & Empl. § 3-717) HB 1202 — Chapter 446 of 2020 (became law May 8, 2020 without the Governor’s signature) | In force | Oct 1, 2020 | Employers may not use a facial recognition service to create a facial template of an applicant during a job interview unless the applicant signs a plain-language waiver stating the applicant's name, the interview date, that the applicant consents, and whether the applicant read the waiver. | None specified — the statute sets no penalty and no private right of action. | No enforcement provision in the statute; the fiscal note expects any investigations by the Maryland Commissioner of Labor and Industry | mgaleg.maryland.gov — HB 1202 (2020) |
Notable pending bills
Bills introduced or advanced through committee but not yet signed into law. Statuses in this section were last checked in October 2026; confirm at the linked source.
| State | Law | Status | Effective | Scope | Max penalty | Enforcement | Primary source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York | New York A 768 NY Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Act (ALERT Act) A 768 (introduced Jan 8, 2025 — Asm. Bores) | Pending | Proposed Jan 1, 2027 | Proposed: developers and deployers of high-risk AI decision systems (employment, housing, credit, education, health, government). Colorado-style framework. | Not yet specified in current version (likely AG enforcement with civil penalties). | Proposed: New York Attorney General | nysenate.gov — A 768 |
| Massachusetts | Massachusetts AI bills Multiple pending AI bills: S 35 (FAIR Act/worker monitoring); S 2630 (MassCompute); S 2631 (election deepfakes); S 2632 (healthcare AI); S 2633 (AI CSAM) Advanced by Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology Oct 2025 | Pending | TBD 2026 | Proposed: multi-sector — employment AI monitoring, AI governance entity, election deepfake criminalization, healthcare AI limits, AI CSAM expansion. | TBD by each bill. | TBD | mass.gov — Massachusetts Law About AI |
Vetoed and failed bills
Bills that passed the legislature but were vetoed by the governor, or that died in committee when the legislative session ended. Included for historical and comparative context.
| State | Law | Status | Effective | Scope | Max penalty | Enforcement | Primary source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maryland | Maryland HB 1331 (2025) Consumer Protection — Artificial Intelligence HB 1331 (introduced Feb 7, 2025 — Del. Qi) — died in committee, 2025 session | Died in committee | — | Would have covered developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems in consequential decisions (housing, employment, financial services, health, education, criminal justice). Heard by the House Economic Matters Committee on Mar 4, 2025; no committee vote was taken before the session adjourned on Apr 7, 2025, so the bill died. | — | — | mgaleg.maryland.gov — HB 1331 (2025 session) |
| Virginia | Virginia HB 2094 High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Developer and Deployer Act HB 2094 — VETOED Mar 24, 2025 by Gov. Youngkin | Vetoed | — | Would have imposed impact assessment, risk management, and algorithmic discrimination duties on developers/deployers of high-risk AI — similar to Colorado AI Act. Vetoed for innovation and cost concerns (~$30M estimated compliance burden). | — | — | lis.virginia.gov — HB 2094 (2025 session) |
Federal preemption context
No comprehensive federal AI statute has been enacted. The House-passed “One Big Beautiful Bill” (H.R. 1) contained a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation; the Senate voted 99–1 to strip the moratorium before passage in July 2025, and the enacted bill contains no AI preemption provisions.
On 11 December 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing the creation of a DOJ AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state AI laws on constitutional grounds, a Commerce Department evaluation of “onerous” state AI laws, and conditioning of federal broadband (BEAD) funding on states not passing such laws. The order does not directly preempt state law. As of the last-updated date above, all enacted state AI laws on this page remain legally operative.
Sources: Alston & Bird · Sidley Austin · Goodwin Law — Federal AI Moratorium
Related reading
The Texas AI Act (TRAIGA) compliance guide
Every prohibited practice, penalty tier, and the 60-day cure period — with the NIST AI RMF affirmative defense.
Colorado AI law (SB 26-189)
SB 24-205 was repealed and replaced by SB 26-189 — notice and explanation duties for automated decision-making technology, effective 1 January 2027.
NIST AI Risk Management Framework
The US-origin AI risk framework — an affirmative-defense reference under Texas TRAIGA.
AI Impact Assessment template
Download a free, branded 13-page AIIA template mapped to NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001, and EU AI Act Article 27.