Should states impose high-risk AI duties on consequential decisions?

Whether states should impose developer/deployer duties, impact assessments, an anti-discrimination duty of care, consumer notice and appeal, on AI used in consequential decisions, and whether such comprehensive acts survive industry pushback and federal challenge. The core fight of 2024–26: Colorado SB 24-205 (delayed, enforcement suspended, repealed and reenacted as a transparency-only framework), Texas TRAIGA (pared from the Colorado model to intent-based prohibitions), Virginia HB 2094 (vetoed), Illinois HB 3773 (employment-only, in force).

status: open · opened 2026-07-21

1 asks · click any ask for its full record

What has been asked

Wants fewer rulesUS · StatePartially adopted

Delay or narrow comprehensive state AI acts

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.

For · 2

NetChoice · Computer & Communications Industry Association

Against · 0

Nobody on the record yet.

latest · 2026-05-14 · SB 26-189 repeals and reenacts the Colorado framework as transparency-centered ADMT rules with AG-only enforcement

Full record · 2 claims