State-by-State AI Compliance Wizard (2026)

Five state-level frameworks matter most going into 2026: Colorado SB 24-205 (effective 1 February 2026), New York City LL-144 (in force since July 2023), Texas HB 149 / TRAIGA (effective 1 January 2026), Illinois HB 3773 (effective 1 January 2026, amending the Illinois Human Rights Act), and California AB 2013 + SB 942 + SB 1001 (all in force for 2026). This wizard cross-cites all five.

Each statute has its own nexus test. Colorado SB 24-205 reaches any deployer doing business in Colorado that uses a high-risk AI system on a Colorado consumer. Texas TRAIGA reaches anyone developing, deploying, or promoting an AI system for Texas consumers or residents. NYC LL-144 applies whenever a NYC employer uses an AEDT or NYC candidates are screened. California AB 2013 / SB 942 apply when the generative AI is made available in California. Illinois HB 3773 covers Illinois employers. In short: user footprint matters more than office footprint.

Adopting the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (or ISO/IEC 42001) as your governance backbone. NIST AI RMF is an affirmative defense under Texas TRAIGA § 552.202, evidence of "reasonable care" under Colorado SB 24-205 § 6-1-1703, and a widely accepted governance baseline for California, Illinois, and NYC audits. One documented program satisfies all five states.

It depends on your state. NYC LL-144 requires an annual independent bias audit and public posting for any AEDT that "substantially assists" hiring or promotion decisions. Illinois HB 3773 requires notice and non-discriminatory use but does not mandate a specific audit format. Colorado SB 24-205 requires an impact assessment for high-risk systems, which many providers satisfy with a NIST AI RMF-aligned audit. Texas TRAIGA requires disclosure and NIST-aligned risk management but no dedicated bias audit.

Penalties vary. NYC LL-144: $500 first violation, $1,500 per day for continued violations. Texas TRAIGA: up to $10,000 per curable violation and up to $200,000 per uncurable (§ 552.052) violation. Colorado SB 24-205: enforced as a deceptive trade practice under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, penalties per violation. California SB 942: $5,000 per day per violation. Illinois BIPA (biometric): $1,000 negligent and $5,000 intentional per violation with a private right of action — the highest per-violation exposure of any U.S. AI-adjacent statute.

Colorado exempts open-source models used solely for research or evaluation. Texas TRAIGA does not exempt open source per se but focuses on consumer-facing deployment. California AB 2013 applies to any generative AI made available in California, including open weights. Best practice: assume duties attach as soon as an open-source model is offered to consumers commercially in the state.

The EU AI Act applies extraterritorially whenever the output of the AI system is used in the EU. U.S. state laws apply based on the state footprint of your consumers or employees. A U.S. SaaS with EU customers must satisfy both: state duties for U.S. operations and EU AI Act duties for EU output. The good news — Article 9 risk management, Article 10 data governance, Article 11 technical documentation, and Article 15 accuracy and robustness controls all overlap heavily with NIST AI RMF.

The federal AI executive order was revoked in January 2025, but OMB memoranda M-24-10 and M-24-18 remain guidance for federal agency AI use. Federal preemption of state AI laws is limited and untested in court. Multi-state operators should assume no federal preemption today and plan for state compliance until Congress acts.

Frequently. Texas DIR rulemaking is ongoing through 2025-2026. Colorado AG rulemaking is active. California CPPA is finalizing ADMT (automated decisionmaking technology) regulations under CCPA. We update this wizard within one week of any material state statutory or regulatory change and post release notes on aicompliancevendors.com and on our sister site ailawsbystate.com.

Colorado SB 24-205: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-205. NYC LL-144: https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/about/automated-employment-decision-tools.page. Texas HB 149: https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=891&Bill=HB149. Illinois HB 3773: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=3773. California AB 2013: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2013. California SB 942: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB942.

No. This wizard is a preliminary self-service compliance check citing public statutes and regulations. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. State and local rulemaking is ongoing. For binding advice, engage counsel licensed in each state.

No. Classification runs entirely in your browser. Nothing is transmitted to our servers. You can download the Markdown report locally and share it with counsel or your GRC team.