Orientation
center-rightLitigation and advocacy consistently target state regulation on First Amendment and free-market grounds.
3 claims · every quote links to its document
“Finally, it would contributing to a growing state-by-state patchwork of AI laws that would stall innovation while the Trump administration is still working on fleshing out an America First approach to federal AI policy.”
Document is testimony in opposition to TX HB 149 as introduced; stance coded relative to the ask (narrowing comprehensive state AI acts), which the testimony supports. Source's 'it would contributing' typo preserved.
“The RAISE Act would create a legal minefield for New Yorkers trying to innovate by imposing vague, unworkable standards that punish developers instead of bad actors. This bill would stifle AI tech development, harm economic competitiveness and undermine free expression. NetChoice urges Governor Hochul to veto this misguided legislation and support a clear, national approach to AI governance”
“There is no doubt future administrations will attempt to do the same when it comes to AI. Unless further guardrails against this kind of graft are put in place or Congress finally acts to deliver a national AI framework, we are concerned the collaborative framework President Trump has put forward will not remain voluntary.”
Qualified support of EO 14409's voluntary approach; coded oppose relative to a mandatory review requirement.
Disputes an extraction? Every actor has a standing right of reply. Replies are published alongside the disputed claim, unedited.