{"table":"asks","corpusVersion":"1.0.0","generatedAt":"2026-07-21T12:00:00Z","demo":false,"license":"CC BY 4.0 — cite AI Tribune (aitribune.org)","count":20,"rows":[{"id":"ask-preempt-state-frontier","questionId":"q-preemption","title":"Preempt or pause state frontier-safety statutes","summary":"Bar states from enforcing their own AI safety laws, by statutory moratorium, by conditioning federal funds on a state's 'AI regulatory climate', or by DOJ litigation against state statutes. The single most consequential ask in US AI policy.","direction":"weaken","locus":"state","status":"partially-adopted","statusNote":"Rejected twice in Congress (Senate struck the OBBBA 10-year moratorium 99-1, Jul 2025; preemption dropped from the FY2026 NDAA, Dec 2025), then adopted as far as executive authority reaches: EO 14365 (Dec 11, 2025) directs DOJ litigation, BEAD funding conditions, an FCC disclosure proceeding, and an FTC policy statement against state AI laws, and DOJ is in court against Colorado's AI Act. An EO cannot itself preempt state law; statutory preemption has not passed Congress, and the March 2026 legislative framework and the Great American AI Act discussion draft (three-year preemption) remain proposals.","jurisdictions":["US","US-state"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2025-03-13","instrumentId":"us-ostp-rfi-2025","event":"Filed in OSTP RFI responses as federal preemption tied to a voluntary partnership framework"},{"date":"2025-05-22","instrumentId":"us-hr1-moratorium","event":"House passes reconciliation bill with 10-year state-enforcement moratorium"},{"date":"2025-07-01","instrumentId":"us-hr1-moratorium","event":"Senate adopts Blackburn-Cantwell-Markey amendment 99-1 striking the AI moratorium; only Sen. Tillis votes no"},{"date":"2025-07-23","instrumentId":"us-ai-action-plan","event":"AI Action Plan directs agencies to weigh a state's AI regulatory climate in discretionary funding"},{"date":"2025-09-16","instrumentId":null,"event":"Rep. Baumgartner introduces H.R.5388, American Artificial Intelligence Leadership and Uniformity Act (5-year moratorium on new state AI mandates)"},{"date":"2025-11-20","instrumentId":"us-preemption-eo-draft","event":"Draft EO 'Eliminating State Law Obstruction of National AI Policy' circulates; Public Citizen publishes section-by-section legal analysis"},{"date":"2025-12-11","instrumentId":"us-preemption-eo-draft","event":"President signs EO 14365 'Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence' (DOJ task force, BEAD conditions, FCC/FTC directives, carve-outs for child safety, data centers, state procurement)"},{"date":"2026-01-09","instrumentId":"us-preemption-eo-draft","event":"DOJ announces AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state AI laws"},{"date":"2026-01-15","instrumentId":null,"event":"Preemption language circulated for NDAA and standalone federal-framework vehicles (119th Congress, 2nd session)"},{"date":"2026-03-20","instrumentId":"us-natl-ai-framework","event":"White House releases National Policy Framework for AI legislative recommendations proposing a federal baseline preempting 'undue burden' state AI laws"},{"date":"2026-04-09","instrumentId":"us-co-sb205","event":"xAI sues to enjoin the Colorado AI Act (D. Colo.) on First Amendment, Commerce Clause, vagueness, and equal-protection grounds"},{"date":"2026-04-24","instrumentId":"us-co-sb205","event":"DOJ moves to intervene / files companion complaint, first DOJ challenge to a state AI law under EO 14365"},{"date":"2026-04-27","instrumentId":"us-co-sb205","event":"Stipulated order suspends enforcement of the Colorado AI Act"},{"date":"2026-05-14","instrumentId":"us-co-sb205","event":"Colorado repeals and reenacts its AI Act as SB 26-189 (ADMT transparency framework, obligations from Jan 1, 2027)"},{"date":"2026-06-04","instrumentId":"us-great-american-ai-act","event":"Obernolte-Trahan Great American AI Act discussion draft proposes three-year preemption of state laws specifically regulating AI model development"}],"version":3,"firstSeen":"2025-03-06","lastSeen":"2026-06-04"},{"id":"ask-federal-frontier-framework","questionId":"q-preemption","title":"Enact one federal frontier-transparency framework","summary":"Replace the state patchwork with a single federal disclosure-and-incident-reporting regime for frontier developers, offered by some filers as the lawful path to uniformity, and by others as the price preemption must pay.","direction":"strengthen","locus":"developer","status":"active","statusNote":"Trajectory: 2023 licensing/new-agency proposals (Altman testimony; Blumenthal-Hawley framework) gave way to the May 2024 Senate roadmap's committee-by-committee approach; concrete vehicles emerged late 2025-2026, the Hawley-Blumenthal DOE evaluation program (S.2938) and the Great American AI Act's federal frontier safety framework offered as the trade for state preemption; the administration backs a 'minimally burdensome' framework (EO 14365 Sec. 8, March 2026 legislative recommendations) and built a voluntary federal frontier-security review (EO 14409) instead of binding rules. No frontier-framework statute has advanced past introduction as of July 2026.","jurisdictions":["US"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2023-05-16","instrumentId":null,"event":"Senate Judiciary testimony: OpenAI proposes a new federal agency licensing above-threshold AI efforts; IBM opposes a new agency in favor of 'precision regulation'"},{"date":"2024-05-15","instrumentId":"us-senate-ai-roadmap","event":"Bipartisan Senate AI Working Group roadmap opts for rolling committee bills and $32B/yr R&D over an omnibus regulatory framework"},{"date":"2025-03-06","instrumentId":"us-ostp-rfi-2025","event":"Federal transparency standard proposed in RFI responses"},{"date":"2025-09-29","instrumentId":"us-ca-sb53","event":"California enacts the state version the federal framework would displace"},{"date":"2025-09-29","instrumentId":"us-ai-risk-eval-act","event":"Hawley-Blumenthal Artificial Intelligence Risk Evaluation Act (S.2938) introduced: mandatory pre-deployment DOE testing for loss-of-control and weaponization risks"},{"date":"2025-12-11","instrumentId":"us-preemption-eo-draft","event":"EO 14365 Sec. 8 directs preparation of legislative recommendations for a uniform federal AI policy framework"},{"date":"2026-02-01","instrumentId":null,"event":"Federal frontier-framework discussion drafts circulate in Senate Commerce"},{"date":"2026-03-20","instrumentId":"us-natl-ai-framework","event":"White House transmits National Policy Framework for AI legislative recommendations to Congress"},{"date":"2026-06-02","instrumentId":"us-eo-14409-frontier-security","event":"EO 14409 establishes voluntary pre-release engagement for covered frontier models with explicit disclaimer of any mandatory licensing or preclearance"},{"date":"2026-06-04","instrumentId":"us-great-american-ai-act","event":"Discussion draft pairs first comprehensive federal safety/accountability framework for large frontier developers with three-year state preemption"}],"version":2,"firstSeen":"2023-05-16","lastSeen":"2026-06-04"},{"id":"ask-frontier-transparency-mandates","questionId":"q-transparency","title":"Mandate published safety frameworks and incident reporting","summary":"Require developers above a capability or compute threshold to publish their safety frameworks, report critical incidents to a state authority, and protect whistleblowers.","direction":"strengthen","locus":"developer","status":"partially-adopted","statusNote":"Adopted in the two lead states, CA SB 53 (signed Sep 29, 2025; in force Jan 1, 2026) and NY RAISE (signed Dec 19, 2025 with chapter amendments; effective Jan 1, 2027), and operational in the EU, where GPAI transparency obligations apply since Aug 2, 2025 via the AI Act, the GPAI Code of Practice (signed by OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, IBM, Mistral; declined by Meta; xAI safety chapter only), the Commission Guidelines and the Art. 53 training-data template. In the US federal executive lane the mandates receded: EO 14110's compute-threshold reporting was revoked in Jan 2025 and EO 14409 moved cyber-capability benchmarking into classified channels. The Great American AI Act discussion draft would create federal transparency obligations as the counterpart to preemption.","jurisdictions":["US-state","US","EU"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2023-10-30","instrumentId":"us-eo-14110","event":"EO 14110 Sec. 4.2 imposes DPA-based reporting on dual-use foundation models above 10^26 operations"},{"date":"2024-08-31","instrumentId":"us-ca-sb1047","event":"Passed both chambers with liability provisions"},{"date":"2024-09-29","instrumentId":"us-ca-sb1047","event":"Vetoed"},{"date":"2025-01-20","instrumentId":"us-eo-14110","event":"EO 14110 revoked by EO 14148 initial rescissions; EO 14179 (Jan 23) directs unwinding of actions taken under it"},{"date":"2025-06-13","instrumentId":"us-ny-raise","event":"RAISE Act passes the New York Legislature (S6953/A6453)"},{"date":"2025-07-07","instrumentId":null,"event":"Anthropic publishes targeted federal/state transparency framework proposal (secure development frameworks, system cards, whistleblower protections)"},{"date":"2025-07-10","instrumentId":"eu-gpai-cop","event":"AI Office publishes final GPAI Code of Practice (Transparency, Copyright, Safety & Security chapters)"},{"date":"2025-07-18","instrumentId":"eu-gpai-cop","event":"Meta announces it will not sign the Code; Commission publishes GPAI scope Guidelines the same day"},{"date":"2025-07-30","instrumentId":"eu-gpai-cop","event":"Google announces it will sign, with reservations on copyright, approvals and trade secrets; OpenAI (Jul 11) and Anthropic (Jul 21) had announced signing earlier the same month"},{"date":"2025-08-02","instrumentId":"eu-ai-act","event":"GPAI obligations begin to apply; Code signatories get streamlined compliance route"},{"date":"2025-09-29","instrumentId":"us-ca-sb53","event":"Re-vehicled as transparency-only; signed"},{"date":"2025-12-19","instrumentId":"us-ny-raise","event":"Signed in New York with chapter amendments"},{"date":"2026-01-01","instrumentId":"us-ca-sb53","event":"SB 53 in force; AG-enforced penalties up to $1M per violation"},{"date":"2026-03-27","instrumentId":"us-ny-raise","event":"Final chapter amendment signed; law effective Jan 1, 2027"},{"date":"2026-06-02","instrumentId":"us-eo-14409-frontier-security","event":"EO 14409 shifts frontier cyber-capability benchmarking to a classified NSA-led process; CAISI public evaluation publishing curtailed"},{"date":"2026-06-04","instrumentId":"us-great-american-ai-act","event":"Discussion draft includes federal transparency/safety obligations for the largest frontier developers"}],"version":3,"firstSeen":"2023-10-30","lastSeen":"2026-07-21"},{"id":"ask-delay-highrisk-2027","questionId":"q-highrisk-timing","title":"Defer EU high-risk obligations to December 2027","summary":"Postpone the AI Act's high-risk regime (originally binding from August 2026) until standards and guidance exist, operationalised in the Digital Omnibus as a delay to December 2027.","direction":"defer","locus":"deployer","status":"adopted","statusNote":"Enacted via the Digital Omnibus on AI (COM(2025) 836, proposed 19 Nov 2025). The 7 May 2026 provisional Council-Parliament agreement fixed the dates: 2 Dec 2027 for stand-alone (Annex III) high-risk systems and 2 Aug 2028 for high-risk AI embedded in regulated products (Annex I). EP plenary adopted 16 Jun 2026 (423-57-174); Council gave final approval 29 Jun 2026; final act signed 8 Jul 2026, OJ publication due before the original 2 Aug 2026 deadline. Not everything industry sought was granted: the two-year across-the-board 'stop the clock' (incl. pausing GPAI obligations) was rejected in July 2025, and Art. 50 transparency obligations still apply 2 Aug 2026.","jurisdictions":["EU"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2025-06-26","instrumentId":"eu-ai-act","event":"CCIA Europe urges EU leaders to pause AI Act implementation ahead of the June European Council"},{"date":"2025-07-03","instrumentId":"eu-ai-act","event":"EU AI Champions Initiative 'Stop the Clock' open letter: 40+ European CEOs urge a two-year clock-stop on GPAI and high-risk obligations"},{"date":"2025-07-04","instrumentId":"eu-ai-act","event":"European Commission rejects pause calls: 'no stop the clock, no grace period, no pause'"},{"date":"2025-08-02","instrumentId":"eu-ai-act","event":"GPAI obligations enter into application on schedule; no pause granted"},{"date":"2025-10-14","instrumentId":"eu-hys-simplification","event":"Deferral filed on the record in the omnibus call for evidence"},{"date":"2025-11-19","instrumentId":"eu-digital-omnibus","event":"Commission proposes Digital Omnibus on AI (COM(2025) 836) deferring high-risk application dates"},{"date":"2026-03-13","instrumentId":"eu-digital-omnibus","event":"Council agrees general approach"},{"date":"2026-05-07","instrumentId":"eu-digital-omnibus","event":"Provisional trilogue agreement: fixed high-risk dates of 2 Dec 2027 (Annex III) and 2 Aug 2028 (Annex I); new Art. 5 prohibition on AI-generated NCII/CSAM added"},{"date":"2026-06-16","instrumentId":"eu-digital-omnibus","event":"European Parliament plenary adopts the agreement (423 for, 57 against, 174 abstentions)"},{"date":"2026-06-29","instrumentId":"eu-digital-omnibus","event":"Council gives final green light"},{"date":"2026-07-08","instrumentId":"eu-digital-omnibus","event":"Final act signed; OJ publication due by 30 Jul 2026, entry into force on the third day after publication"}],"version":2,"firstSeen":"2025-04-10","lastSeen":"2026-07-08"},{"id":"ask-hold-ai-act-timeline","questionId":"q-highrisk-timing","title":"Hold the AI Act application timeline","summary":"Apply the AI Act as scheduled; treat reopening the text as deregulation under a simplification label and a reward for non-readiness.","direction":"strengthen","locus":"deployer","status":"rejected","statusNote":"Held in 2025, lost in 2026 on high-risk timing. The Commission kept the schedule through 2025 (prohibitions Feb 2025, GPAI Aug 2025, public rejection of any 'stop the clock'), but the Digital Omnibus on AI, opposed in an open letter by 133 civil-society organisations and unions (13 Nov 2025) and by follow-on coalition letters through spring 2026, was adopted in June 2026, delaying Annex III high-risk obligations to 2 Dec 2027 and Annex I to 2 Aug 2028. Partial offsets in the final deal: Art. 50 transparency dates held, and new prohibitions on AI-generated non-consensual intimate imagery and CSAM were added.","jurisdictions":["EU"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2025-02-02","instrumentId":"eu-ai-act","event":"AI Act prohibitions (Art. 5) and AI-literacy obligations begin to apply"},{"date":"2025-07-04","instrumentId":"eu-ai-act","event":"Commission initially states there is no stop the clock"},{"date":"2025-07-09","instrumentId":"eu-ai-act","event":"Open Joint Letter (CDT Europe, EDRi, ECNL, BEUC + ~40 orgs) against delaying and reopening the AI Act"},{"date":"2025-08-02","instrumentId":"eu-ai-act","event":"GPAI obligations apply on schedule"},{"date":"2025-11-13","instrumentId":"eu-digital-omnibus","event":"133 civil-society organisations and unions urge the Commission to halt the Digital Omnibus ('point of no return')"},{"date":"2026-02-10","instrumentId":"eu-digital-omnibus","event":"Access Now-coordinated 46-org letter urges legislators to keep Article 49(2) high-risk registration transparency"},{"date":"2026-04-15","instrumentId":"eu-digital-omnibus","event":"Amendments to strike the delay tabled in Parliament; 37-org 'Safeguard the AI Act' open letter urges rejection of the AI Omnibus"},{"date":"2026-06-16","instrumentId":"eu-digital-omnibus","event":"Parliament adopts the AI Omnibus over civil-society objections; the hold-the-timeline ask fails"},{"date":"2026-06-29","instrumentId":"eu-digital-omnibus","event":"Council final adoption of the omnibus delaying high-risk obligations"}],"version":2,"firstSeen":"2025-06-30","lastSeen":"2026-06-29"},{"id":"ask-liability-relief-partnership","questionId":"q-liability","title":"Condition liability relief on federal safety-institute partnership","summary":"Give developers who voluntarily work with the federal government on model evaluation a shield from state enforcement and reduced liability exposure, preemption paid for with access.","direction":"weaken","locus":"developer","status":"partially-adopted","statusNote":"OpenAI's March 2025 formula, voluntary partnership in exchange for relief from state rules, has been half-realized as of July 2026: EO 14409 (June 2026) creates the voluntary pre-release engagement channel and EO 14365 pursues the state-law relief through litigation and funding leverage, but no statutory liability protection or safe harbor for participating developers exists.","jurisdictions":["US"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2025-03-13","instrumentId":"us-ostp-rfi-2025","event":"Proposed: voluntary partnership in exchange for preemption of state laws"},{"date":"2026-02-01","instrumentId":null,"event":"Safe-harbor variants appear in circulating federal framework drafts"},{"date":"2026-06-02","instrumentId":"us-eo-14409-frontier-security","event":"EO 14409 creates voluntary 30-day pre-release government access framework for covered frontier models, without liability relief"}],"version":2,"firstSeen":"2025-03-13","lastSeen":"2026-06-02"},{"id":"ask-developer-duty-of-care","questionId":"q-liability","title":"Impose a developer duty of care for catastrophic harms","summary":"Make frontier developers legally answerable for catastrophic harms their models enable, reasonable-care standards, attorney-general enforcement, no blanket immunity.","direction":"strengthen","locus":"developer","status":"superseded","statusNote":"The SB 1047-style liability/duty-of-care model was rejected in California (vetoed Sep 2024) and its successors pivoted to transparency (SB 53; the RAISE Act as chapter-amended). The EU flank was also set back: the AI Liability Directive was withdrawn (announced Feb 2025; formal withdrawal Oct 2025), with BEUC and partners pressing for replacement rules. No jurisdiction currently imposes an SB 1047-style duty of care on frontier developers; the transparency-mandate ask carries the successor vehicles.","jurisdictions":["US-state","EU"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2024-08-31","instrumentId":"us-ca-sb1047","event":"Duty-of-care with AG enforcement passes both chambers"},{"date":"2024-09-29","instrumentId":"us-ca-sb1047","event":"Vetoed"},{"date":"2025-02-11","instrumentId":"eu-aild","event":"Commission 2025 work programme announces intention to withdraw the AI Liability Directive"},{"date":"2025-06-12","instrumentId":"us-ny-raise","event":"Penalty-bearing version passes NY legislature"},{"date":"2025-10-06","instrumentId":"eu-aild","event":"AI Liability Directive formally withdrawn (OJ C/2025/5423); file closed"},{"date":"2025-12-19","instrumentId":"us-ny-raise","event":"Signed with amendments narrowing enforcement"}],"version":2,"firstSeen":"2024-02-07","lastSeen":"2026-03-01","supersededBy":"ask-frontier-transparency-mandates"},{"id":"ask-training-fair-use","questionId":"q-training-copyright","title":"Confirm training on lawfully accessed works as fair use / TDM exception","summary":"Declare, by policy or statute, that training on lawfully accessed copyrighted material is fair use (US) or covered by a broad text-and-data-mining exception (UK/EU), no license, no opt-in.","direction":"weaken","locus":"data","status":"active","statusNote":"Still contested on all fronts as of July 2026. Developers (OpenAI, Google, a16z) asked OSTP in March 2025 to affirm fair-use training; the July 2025 AI Action Plan did not adopt the codification ask, leaving the question to courts (Bartz v. Anthropic: training transformative, pirated-library retention not; ~$1.5B settlement Sept 2025). USCO Part 3 (pre-publication, May 2025) rejected categorical fair use. The UK's March 18, 2026 statutory report dropped the TDM-with-opt-out preferred option and left UK law unchanged. The March 2026 US legislative framework lists intellectual property among areas for federal legislation without resolving the training question.","jurisdictions":["US","UK","EU"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2024-12-17","instrumentId":"uk-copyright-consultation","event":"UK proposes TDM exception with rights reservation as its preferred option; consultation closes 25 Feb 2025 with 11,500+ responses"},{"date":"2025-03-13","instrumentId":"us-ostp-rfi-2025","event":"Fair-use confirmation filed as a top ask by developers; News/Media Alliance counters with licensing-based approach (Mar 14)"},{"date":"2025-05-09","instrumentId":"us-usco-ai-study","event":"USCO releases Part 3 (Generative AI Training) in pre-publication form: training is not categorically fair use; market dilution weighs against it"},{"date":"2025-05-10","instrumentId":"us-usco-ai-study","event":"Register of Copyrights dismissed the day after Part 3 appears; restored by a D.C. Circuit order Sep 10, 2025 while Perlmutter v. Blanche proceeds"},{"date":"2025-06-23","instrumentId":null,"event":"US district rulings (Anthropic, Meta) treat training as fair use on narrow grounds"},{"date":"2025-07-23","instrumentId":"us-ai-action-plan","event":"America's AI Action Plan omits copyright/training measures despite developer requests"},{"date":"2026-03-18","instrumentId":"uk-copyright-ai-report-2026","event":"UK Report on Copyright and AI abandons the TDM-exception-with-opt-out preferred option; no legislative change to UK copyright for AI training"},{"date":"2026-03-20","instrumentId":"us-natl-ai-framework","event":"National Policy Framework for AI includes intellectual property among its seven federal legislative areas"}],"version":2,"firstSeen":"2024-12-17","lastSeen":"2026-03-20"},{"id":"ask-training-transparency","questionId":"q-training-copyright","title":"Require disclosure of copyrighted works used in training","summary":"Oblige developers to tell rights-holders, or the public, which protected works were used to train a model, so licensing and enforcement become possible.","direction":"strengthen","locus":"developer","status":"partially-adopted","statusNote":"Adopted at state level in California (AB 2013, operative Jan 1, 2026) and in the EU (Art. 53(1)(d) template mandatory from Aug 2, 2025, though 40 rightsholder organisations called the delivered transparency insufficient). Rejected in the UK, the Kidron amendments fell after repeated DUA Act ping-pong, and the March 2026 statutory report declined statutory transparency in favour of industry best-practice work. US federal vehicles (COPIED Act, TRAIN Act) are pending but unmoved in committee as of July 2026.","jurisdictions":["EU","UK","US","US-state"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2024-04-09","instrumentId":null,"event":"Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act (H.R. 7913, Rep. Schiff) introduced; dies in the 118th Congress"},{"date":"2024-09-28","instrumentId":"us-ca-ab2013","event":"Gov. Newsom signs AB 2013, requiring public training-data documentation for generative AI systems"},{"date":"2025-01-28","instrumentId":"uk-dua-act","event":"Lords adds transparency amendment (Kidron)"},{"date":"2025-04-09","instrumentId":"us-copied-act","event":"COPIED Act reintroduced as S.1396; referred to Senate Commerce"},{"date":"2025-06-11","instrumentId":"uk-dua-act","event":"Commons removes the Kidron amendments for the final time; Act passes without them"},{"date":"2025-07-24","instrumentId":"eu-art53-template","event":"Commission publishes the mandatory Art. 53(1)(d) training-content summary template; obligation applies from Aug 2, 2025"},{"date":"2025-07-24","instrumentId":"us-train-act","event":"TRAIN Act reintroduced as S.2455 (Welch, Blackburn, Schiff, Hawley); referred to Senate Judiciary"},{"date":"2025-07-30","instrumentId":"eu-art53-template","event":"40 rightsholder organisations issue joint statement rejecting the template as insufficient ('betrayal of the EU AI Act's objectives')"},{"date":"2025-12-15","instrumentId":"uk-copyright-consultation","event":"Government lays its statement of progress on copyright and AI before Parliament; no transparency legislation proposed"},{"date":"2026-01-01","instrumentId":"us-ca-ab2013","event":"AB 2013 training-data documentation obligations become operative"},{"date":"2026-03-18","instrumentId":"uk-copyright-ai-report-2026","event":"UK statutory report sets out input/output transparency analysis but announces no immediate legislation"}],"version":2,"firstSeen":"2024-12-17","lastSeen":"2026-03-18"},{"id":"ask-open-weights-freedom","questionId":"q-open-weights","title":"No restrictions on open-weight release","summary":"Keep the release of model weights lawful and unlicensed; treat open models as a competitive and scientific asset rather than a proliferation channel.","direction":"weaken","locus":"model","status":"adopted","statusNote":"NTIA recommended monitoring over restriction (Jul 2024); the AI Action Plan affirmatively encourages open models (Jul 2025). No restriction vehicle is live in any tracked jurisdiction; CAISI evaluates PRC open-weight models for security rather than restricting US releases.","jurisdictions":["US"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2024-03-27","instrumentId":"us-ntia-open-weights","event":"Comment docket splits on restriction"},{"date":"2024-07-30","instrumentId":"us-ntia-open-weights","event":"NTIA: monitor, don't restrict"},{"date":"2025-07-23","instrumentId":"us-ai-action-plan","event":"Action Plan: encourage open-source and open-weight AI"}],"version":2,"firstSeen":"2024-03-27","lastSeen":"2025-07-23"},{"id":"ask-chip-export-enforcement","questionId":"q-compute-export","title":"Tighten chip export controls and smuggling enforcement","summary":"Maintain and enforce controls on advanced AI chips, location verification, end-use checks, no relaxation for strategic markets, on the theory that compute is the governable input.","direction":"strengthen","locus":"state","status":"active","statusNote":"Contested and net-loosened as of July 2026: the AI Diffusion Rule was rescinded before taking effect and China sales of H20 then H200-class chips were permitted with conditions, while BIS tightened diversion enforcement guidance (Huawei Ascend) and a successor diffusion rule remains unissued. The Chip Security Act (location verification) advanced 42-0 in House Foreign Affairs (Mar 2026) over NVIDIA and ITI opposition. Anthropic and national-security advocates press to strengthen; NVIDIA, Microsoft, and ITI pressed to weaken.","jurisdictions":["US"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2025-01-15","instrumentId":"us-bis-diffusion-rule","event":"BIS issues Framework for AI Diffusion interim final rule (three-tier global licensing; compliance due May 15, 2025)"},{"date":"2025-05-13","instrumentId":"us-bis-diffusion-rule","event":"Commerce announces rescission of the AI Diffusion Rule and issues guidance on PRC chip risks and diversion prevention"},{"date":"2025-05-13","instrumentId":"us-chip-security-act","event":"Chip Security Act introduced (location verification); S. 1705 and H.R. 3447"},{"date":"2025-07-14","instrumentId":null,"event":"Administration signals it will grant licenses for NVIDIA H20 exports to China, reversing the April 2025 restriction"},{"date":"2025-07-23","instrumentId":"us-ai-action-plan","event":"Action Plan backs export-control enforcement incl. location verification"},{"date":"2026-01-13","instrumentId":null,"event":"Commerce codifies conditional rule permitting NVIDIA H200-class exports to China following the President's December 2025 announcement"},{"date":"2026-03-26","instrumentId":"us-chip-security-act","event":"House Foreign Affairs Committee orders H.R.3447 reported (as substitute) by 42-0"}],"version":2,"firstSeen":"2025-01-13","lastSeen":"2026-03-26"},{"id":"ask-worker-consultation","questionId":"q-worker-voice","title":"Require worker voice in AI deployment decisions","summary":"Notice, consultation, or bargaining before AI systems are used to manage, surveil, or replace workers; no fully automated discipline or termination.","direction":"strengthen","locus":"deployer","status":"partially-adopted","statusNote":"Partially adopted for public-sector AI use: New York's LOADinG Act (Dec 2024) requires human review of consequential automated decisions, impact assessments, and limits on displacing state workers; Illinois HB 3773 (in force Jan 1, 2026) adds employee notice when AI is used in employment decisions. Private-sector consultation mandates remain unadopted in every tracked jurisdiction: the TUC's draft UK bill has not been taken up, and US federal AI policy contains no worker-consultation provisions (the July 2025 Action Plan speaks to upskilling only).","jurisdictions":["US","US-state","UK"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2024-04-18","instrumentId":null,"event":"TUC publishes its draft Artificial Intelligence (Regulation and Employment Rights) Bill proposing mandatory worker consultation before high-risk workplace AI deployment"},{"date":"2024-12-21","instrumentId":"us-ny-loading","event":"NY LOADinG Act signed: human review, impact assessments, and workforce-displacement limits for state-agency automated decision systems"},{"date":"2025-03-14","instrumentId":"us-ostp-rfi-2025","event":"Filed by labor federations in the Action Plan RFI"},{"date":"2025-07-23","instrumentId":"us-ai-action-plan","event":"America's AI Action Plan limits worker provisions to education/upskilling; California Labor Federation condemns absence of guardrails"},{"date":"2025-08-01","instrumentId":null,"event":"State ADS bills advance in IL and CA"},{"date":"2025-10-15","instrumentId":null,"event":"AFL-CIO launches Workers First Initiative on AI, including a state and local task force to defend state AI safety laws"},{"date":"2026-01-01","instrumentId":"us-il-hb3773","event":"Illinois AI-in-employment notice and nondiscrimination duties take effect"},{"date":"2026-04-03","instrumentId":null,"event":"Commons Business and Trade Committee inquiry on AI and the future of the workforce closes its call for written evidence"}],"version":2,"firstSeen":"2024-04-18","lastSeen":"2026-04-03"},{"id":"ask-likeness-consent","questionId":"q-worker-voice","title":"Create a federal digital-replica right (consent for voice & likeness)","summary":"A property-like federal right against unauthorized AI simulation of a performer's voice or likeness, with consent and compensation requirements, the NO FAKES Act ask.","direction":"strengthen","locus":"user","status":"partially-adopted","statusNote":"Adopted at state level (Tennessee ELVIS Act in force Jul 2024; California digital-replica laws) and in the intimate-imagery slice federally (TAKE IT DOWN Act signed May 19, 2025; 48-hour platform takedown effective May 19, 2026). The broader federal digital-replica right is advancing: NO FAKES reintroduced Apr 2025, revised as S.4591 (NO FAKES Act of 2026) and placed on the Senate calendar Jun 24, 2026 over CCIA/NetChoice objections to notice-and-staydown. USCO Part 1 recommended a federal right (Jul 2024). The UK opened a digital-replicas workstream (Mar 2026); the EU omnibus added an AI Act prohibition on generating NCII/CSAM (May 2026). Equity campaigns for UK statutory personality rights.","jurisdictions":["US","US-state","UK","EU"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2024-03-21","instrumentId":"us-tn-elvis","event":"Gov. Lee signs the ELVIS Act, first state law adding voice to right-of-publicity protections against AI cloning; effective Jul 1, 2024"},{"date":"2024-04-30","instrumentId":"us-no-fakes","event":"Senate Judiciary IP Subcommittee hearing on the NO FAKES Act; SAG-AFTRA, FKA twigs, and Warner Music Group testify in support"},{"date":"2024-07-31","instrumentId":"us-no-fakes","event":"NO FAKES Act formally introduced in the Senate (S.4875, 118th Congress)"},{"date":"2024-07-31","instrumentId":"us-usco-ai-study","event":"USCO Report Part 1 (Digital Replicas) recommends a new federal law protecting individuals against unauthorized digital replicas"},{"date":"2025-04-09","instrumentId":"us-no-fakes","event":"NO FAKES Act reintroduced (S.1367/H.R.2794) with cross-sector backing including RIAA, SAG-AFTRA, MPA, OpenAI, Google, and IBM"},{"date":"2025-05-19","instrumentId":"us-take-it-down","event":"TAKE IT DOWN Act (S.146) signed into law after 409-2 House vote"},{"date":"2025-05-21","instrumentId":"us-no-fakes","event":"Senate Judiciary privacy subcommittee hearing on AI deepfakes and the NO FAKES Act"},{"date":"2026-03-18","instrumentId":"uk-copyright-ai-report-2026","event":"UK statutory report launches a dedicated workstream on digital replicas and personality protection"},{"date":"2026-05-07","instrumentId":"eu-digital-omnibus","event":"Provisional agreement adds AI Act Art. 5 prohibition on AI generation of non-consensual intimate imagery and CSAM"},{"date":"2026-05-20","instrumentId":"us-no-fakes","event":"Revised NO FAKES Act of 2026 (S.4591, Coons) introduced with 15 cosponsors"},{"date":"2026-06-24","instrumentId":"us-no-fakes","event":"S.4591 reported to the Senate and placed on the Legislative Calendar (No. 446) after Jun 18 markup"}],"version":2,"firstSeen":"2024-01-11","lastSeen":"2026-07-21"},{"id":"ask-mandatory-predeployment-review","questionId":"q-transparency","title":"Mandatory pre-deployment government review of frontier models","summary":"Require the most powerful AI systems to undergo government review before release, with authority to block deployment of systems posing unacceptable national-security risks, the strengthening counter-ask to EO 14409's voluntary pre-release engagement framework.","direction":"strengthen","locus":"developer","status":"active","statusNote":"EO 14409 (Jun 2026) built a voluntary 30-day pre-release access process and explicitly disclaims mandatory licensing or preclearance. FLI asks for a mandatory review with blocking authority; NetChoice warns even the voluntary framework could drift coercive without congressional guardrails. The Hawley-Blumenthal AI Risk Evaluation Act (S.2938) carries a mandatory-evaluation variant in committee.","jurisdictions":["US"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2025-09-29","instrumentId":"us-ai-risk-eval-act","event":"S.2938 introduced: mandatory pre-deployment DOE evaluation for advanced AI systems"},{"date":"2026-06-02","instrumentId":"us-eo-14409-frontier-security","event":"EO 14409 establishes voluntary pre-release engagement, disclaiming any mandatory licensing or preclearance"},{"date":"2026-06-03","instrumentId":"us-eo-14409-frontier-security","event":"FLI: 'voluntary frameworks are not enough', calls for mandatory pre-deployment review; NetChoice cautions against the framework becoming compulsory"}],"version":1,"firstSeen":"2025-09-29","lastSeen":"2026-06-03"},{"id":"ask-federal-ai-sandbox","questionId":"q-preemption","title":"Create a federal AI regulatory sandbox waiving federal rules (SANDBOX Act)","summary":"Let AI developers and deployers apply to waive or modify federal regulations that impede AI development through an OSTP-coordinated sandbox with renewable waivers of up to a decade, the deregulatory plank of the Cruz AI policy framework.","direction":"weaken","locus":"developer","status":"active","statusNote":"SANDBOX Act (S.2750) introduced Sept 10, 2025 as the first plank of Senate Commerce Chair Cruz's AI framework, with endorsements from Meta, Microsoft, BSA, ITI, TechNet, and the US Chamber; no committee action as of July 2026.","jurisdictions":["US"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2025-09-10","instrumentId":"us-sandbox-act","event":"S.2750 introduced by Sen. Cruz; referred to Senate Commerce"},{"date":"2025-09-19","instrumentId":"us-sandbox-act","event":"Senate Commerce Republicans publish industry endorsements (WTAS) incl. Meta, Microsoft, BSA, ITI, TechNet, US Chamber"}],"version":1,"firstSeen":"2025-09-10","lastSeen":"2025-09-19"},{"id":"ask-deemed-compliance","questionId":"q-preemption","title":"Deem federal or EU-code compliance sufficient under state AI laws","summary":"Treat frontier developers as compliant with state requirements when they have a safety agreement with a federal agency (e.g. CAISI) or have signed a parallel framework such as the EU GPAI Code of Practice, harmonization as an alternative to duplicative state rules.","direction":"weaken","locus":"developer","status":"active","statusNote":"Proposed by OpenAI in an open letter to Gov. Newsom during SB 53 deliberations (Aug 2025). SB 53 was signed without a deemed-compliance provision; the mechanism resurfaces in federal-framework and preemption debates.","jurisdictions":["US-state","US"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2025-08-12","instrumentId":null,"event":"OpenAI open letter asks California to treat CAISI agreements or EU Code signature as satisfying state requirements"},{"date":"2025-09-29","instrumentId":"us-ca-sb53","event":"SB 53 signed without a deemed-compliance provision"}],"version":1,"firstSeen":"2025-08-12","lastSeen":"2025-09-29"},{"id":"ask-narrow-state-highrisk","questionId":"q-state-highrisk","title":"Delay or narrow comprehensive state AI acts","summary":"Postpone, pare back, or repeal state high-risk/algorithmic-discrimination AI acts (the Colorado SB 24-205 model), via delayed effective dates, replacement with transparency-only duties, or intent-based prohibitions in place of duty-of-care frameworks.","direction":"weaken","locus":"deployer","status":"partially-adopted","statusNote":"Substantially adopted where tried: Texas pared TRAIGA from the Colorado model to intent-based prohibitions before passage (Jun 2025); Colorado delayed SB 24-205 (special session, Aug 2025), saw enforcement suspended in xAI/DOJ litigation (Apr 2026), and repealed-and-reenacted it as a transparency-centered ADMT framework (SB 26-189, May 2026); Virginia's HB 2094 was vetoed (2025). Illinois's employment-only HB 3773 took effect Jan 1, 2026.","jurisdictions":["US-state"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2025-03-26","instrumentId":"us-tx-traiga","event":"NetChoice testifies in opposition to TRAIGA as introduced (Colorado-model framework)"},{"date":"2025-06-22","instrumentId":"us-tx-traiga","event":"TRAIGA signed, pared to intent-based prohibitions"},{"date":"2025-08-28","instrumentId":"us-co-sb205","event":"Colorado special session delays the Colorado AI Act (SB25B-004) to Jun 30, 2026"},{"date":"2026-04-27","instrumentId":"us-co-sb205","event":"Stipulated order suspends Colorado AI Act enforcement in xAI v. Colorado"},{"date":"2026-05-14","instrumentId":"us-co-sb189-admt","event":"SB 26-189 repeals and reenacts the Colorado framework as transparency-centered ADMT rules with AG-only enforcement"}],"version":1,"firstSeen":"2025-03-26","lastSeen":"2026-05-14"},{"id":"ask-eu-ai-liability-rules","questionId":"q-liability","title":"Adopt replacement EU AI liability rules","summary":"After the AI Liability Directive's withdrawal, adopt new EU rules easing the burden of proof for people harmed by AI systems, closing the compensation gap and preventing member-state fragmentation.","direction":"strengthen","locus":"developer","status":"active","statusNote":"The AILD was withdrawn (announced Feb 2025; formal OJ withdrawal 6 Oct 2025). BEUC, ARTICLE 19, ECNL, CDT Europe, Enforce and Mozilla urged the Commission to begin preparatory work on replacement rules (Apr 2025). No new Commission proposal as of July 2026.","jurisdictions":["EU"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2025-02-11","instrumentId":"eu-aild","event":"Commission 2025 work programme announces intention to withdraw the AI Liability Directive"},{"date":"2025-04-07","instrumentId":"eu-aild","event":"BEUC-led coalition open letter urges preparatory work on replacement AI liability rules"},{"date":"2025-10-06","instrumentId":"eu-aild","event":"Withdrawal formally completed (OJ C/2025/5423); file closed"}],"version":1,"firstSeen":"2025-04-07","lastSeen":"2025-10-06"},{"id":"ask-fm-transparency-baseline","questionId":"q-transparency","title":"Limit AI Act foundation-model obligations to a transparency baseline","summary":"During the AI Act trilogue: confine foundation-model/GPAI obligations to transparency, keep the risk-based approach targeting high-risk uses rather than technologies, and reject 'very capable'/'high-impact' model tiers, the industry counter-position to comprehensive GPAI regulation.","direction":"weaken","locus":"developer","status":"rejected","statusNote":"Pressed by DIGITALEUROPE and 30+ national associations at trilogue stage (Nov 2023). The December 2023 political agreement and final AI Act retained tiered GPAI obligations, including systemic-risk duties beyond transparency for models above the compute threshold. The ask's successors live on in Code of Practice scope fights and omnibus simplification demands.","jurisdictions":["EU"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2023-11-23","instrumentId":"eu-ai-act","event":"DIGITALEUROPE-led joint statement urges limiting foundation-model obligations to transparency standards"},{"date":"2023-12-08","instrumentId":"eu-ai-act","event":"Trilogue political agreement retains tiered GPAI obligations including systemic-risk duties"}],"version":1,"firstSeen":"2023-11-23","lastSeen":"2023-12-08"},{"id":"ask-uk-binding-ai-law","questionId":"q-uk-frontier-bill","title":"Legislate binding UK AI regulation (statutory duties, regulator powers, developer reporting)","summary":"Move the UK from its non-statutory, regulator-led framework to legislation: statutory duties on regulators, an AI ombudsman, pre-market safety assessment powers, and mandatory reporting obligations on foundation-model developers. Opposed by industry filers who back the context-based, non-statutory approach.","direction":"strengthen","locus":"developer","status":"active","statusNote":"Promised in Labour's 2024 manifesto and the Jul 2024 King's Speech ('seek to establish' legislation on the most powerful models), repeatedly deferred through 2025, and absent from the May 2026 King's Speech. Ada Lovelace Institute presses the ask; techUK endorsed the 2023 non-statutory approach. As of July 2026 no bill exists.","jurisdictions":["UK"],"vehicleHistory":[{"date":"2023-03-29","instrumentId":"uk-ai-whitepaper-2023","event":"White paper proposes non-statutory, regulator-led principles; industry welcomes, civil society urges legislation"},{"date":"2023-07-18","instrumentId":"uk-ai-whitepaper-2023","event":"Ada Lovelace Institute report recommends legislating: statutory duty on regulators, AI ombudsman, developer reporting obligations"},{"date":"2024-02-06","instrumentId":"uk-ai-whitepaper-2023","event":"Consultation response keeps the non-statutory approach while conceding future binding requirements may be needed"},{"date":"2024-07-17","instrumentId":"uk-frontier-ai-bill","event":"King's Speech: government will 'seek to establish' legislation on developers of the most powerful models"},{"date":"2026-05-14","instrumentId":"uk-frontier-ai-bill","event":"May 2026 King's Speech contains no AI bill; AI threaded through sectoral bills and sandbox powers instead"}],"version":1,"firstSeen":"2023-03-29","lastSeen":"2026-05-14"}]}