Last updated: April 29, 2026 — this tracker is updated monthly. Next refresh: May 29, 2026.
The United States has no federal AI law. Regulation is being built state by state, and as of March 2026, lawmakers in 45 states have introduced 1,561 AI-related bills — already surpassing all of 2024 by mid-Q1. This page tracks the enacted comprehensive AI laws across the eight states currently shaping the national framework, identifies the pending bills most likely to enact in 2026, maps which sectors face the most state-level AI regulation, and points to deeper coverage of each major law. The picture is fragmented. The trajectory is consistent: every quarter, the patchwork tightens.
Key Takeaways
- 8 states have enacted comprehensive AI laws as of April 2026: Colorado, California, Texas, Illinois, New York City, Utah, Tennessee, and Virginia. New York State (RAISE Act) is the most recent addition.
- California leads in volume: 24 AI-related laws across 2024 and 2025 sessions, including frontier-model regulation (SB 53), training data transparency (AB 2013), and ADMT rules (CPPA, effective Jan 1, 2027).
- Colorado leads in structure: SB 24-205 (effective June 30, 2026) is the closest US analog to the EU AI Act — risk classification, algorithmic impact assessments, and consumer disclosures.
- Employment AI is the most-regulated sector: at least 12 states have enacted laws governing AI in hiring, with NYC’s LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773 the strictest.
- Federal preemption is escalating: the March 9, 2026 Trump executive order created an AI Litigation Task Force and directs Commerce to survey state AI laws for legal challenge. Companies should expect federal-state preemption litigation through 2026-2027.
How many states have enacted AI laws?
Eight states have enacted comprehensive AI laws as of April 2026. A larger group has enacted sector-specific laws — most commonly covering deepfakes, AI in elections, AI in employment, and insurance underwriting. Counting both categories, 35+ states have at least one enacted AI-related statute.
The legislative pipeline is significantly larger. According to MultiState’s 2026 tracker, lawmakers in 45 states introduced 1,561 AI-related bills as of March 2026. The most active areas in the 2026 sessions are generative AI regulation, algorithmic accountability, AI in hiring and employment decisions, and protections against nonconsensual deepfakes. Of the 44 states currently in the second year of a two-year session, 23 allow bills to carry over from 2025 — meaning roughly 700 bills already advanced through committee last year are positioned to move quickly in 2026.
The fragmentation is real but patterned. Most enacted state AI laws fall into one of four families: (1) high-risk system governance modeled on the EU AI Act (Colorado, Texas), (2) sectoral compliance for hiring AI (Illinois, NYC, with Maryland and New Jersey close behind), (3) frontier-model transparency (California SB 53), and (4) generative-AI content disclosure (California SB 942/AB 853, Tennessee ELVIS Act). Federal regulators — the FTC under Section 5, the SEC for AI washing, the FDA for medical devices — fill the remaining gaps without preempting state action.
State AI Law Tracker — Enacted Comprehensive Laws
This table covers the eight states with enacted comprehensive AI laws as of April 29, 2026. For sector-specific laws (deepfakes, election AI, NAIC insurance model adoption), see the Sector Heat Map section.
| State | Law | Bill # | Status | Effective Date | Scope | Key Provision | Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado | Colorado AI Act | SB 24-205 | Enacted (May 2024) | June 30, 2026 (enforcement) | High-risk AI in consequential decisions (employment, lending, housing, insurance, healthcare, education, government) | Reasonable care duty for developers + deployers; algorithmic impact assessments; consumer disclosures | Up to $20,000 per violation (state UDAP) |
| California | ADMT Rules (CPPA) | CCPA regulations | Enacted (Sept 2025) | Jan 1, 2026 (risk assessments); Jan 1, 2027 (ADMT) | Automated Decisionmaking Technology used for “significant decisions” | Pre-use notice, opt-out right, access right, risk assessments, cybersecurity audits | $2,500 / $7,500 per violation |
| California | Frontier AI Transparency Act | SB 53 | Enacted (Sept 29, 2025) | Jan 1, 2026 | Frontier models trained on >10^26 FLOP | Transparency reports, frontier AI framework, catastrophic risk assessment, whistleblower protections | Up to $1M per violation |
| California | Training Data Transparency | AB 2013 | Enacted (Sept 2024) | Jan 1, 2026 | GenAI systems released after Jan 1, 2022 | Public disclosure of training datasets, copyrighted material flag, PII flag | UCL — up to $2,500 per violation |
| California | CAITA (AI Transparency Act) | SB 942 / AB 853 | Enacted (Sept 2024 / Oct 2025) | Aug 2, 2026 (core); Jan 1, 2027 (platform extensions) | GenAI providers (>1M CA users), platforms, source-code distributors | Latent disclosure embedded in AI content, free AI detection tool, manifest disclosure option | $5,000 per violation |
| Texas | TRAIGA | HB 149 | Enacted (June 22, 2025) | Jan 1, 2026 | High-risk AI used by state agencies + private deployment | Consumer disclosure, government AI inventory, AG exclusive enforcement, 60-day cure | Civil penalties via AG (TRAIGA-specific) |
| Illinois | AIVICA | 820 ILCS 42 | Enacted (2020) | In effect | AI in video job interviews | Consent + disclosure + audit + diversity reporting | Civil suit under IHRA |
| Illinois | IHRA AI Amendment | HB 3773 | Enacted (2024) | Jan 1, 2026 | AI in employment decisions | Employer liability for algorithmic discrimination; no statutory affirmative defense | IHRA penalties (compensatory + punitive) |
| Illinois | BIPA | 740 ILCS 14 | Enacted (2008) | In effect | Biometric data including AI face/voice recognition | Written consent + retention schedule + private right of action | $1,000 negligent / $5,000 intentional per violation |
| New York City | Local Law 144 | LL 144 | Enacted (2021) | In effect since July 2023 | Automated Employment Decision Tools (AEDT) | Annual bias audit + candidate notice + impact-ratio publication | $500 first / $500-1,500 per subsequent (per day) |
| New York State | RAISE Act | AB 6453B | Enacted (2025) | Phased | High-risk AI; large frontier models | Disclosure + risk assessment for frontier developers | NY AG enforcement |
| Utah | AI Policy Act (AIPA) | SB 149 | Enacted (March 2024) | In effect since May 1, 2024 | All commercial AI; high-impact = healthcare, mental health | Disclosure when consumer interacts with AI; safe harbor for compliant disclosure | UDAP penalties; sandbox available |
| Utah | AIPA Amendments | SB 226, SB 332 | Enacted (2025) | In effect | Mental health chatbots; sunset extension | Sector-specific mental health rules; AIPA sunset extended to July 1, 2027 | Same as AIPA |
| Tennessee | ELVIS Act | SB 2096 | Enacted (March 2024) | July 1, 2024 | AI voice and likeness cloning | Right of publicity protection against AI voice/likeness reproduction without consent | Civil suit; $25,000 statutory damages |
| Virginia | High-Risk AI Developer Act | HB 2094 | Vetoed by Gov. Youngkin (March 2025) | N/A | (Would have applied to high-risk AI deployers and developers) | (Would have required impact assessments and consumer disclosures) | (N/A — vetoed) |
The Virginia row is included to flag that an EU-AI-Act-style bill came within a governor’s signature of enacting in 2025. Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey all carried similar bills into 2026 sessions; expect at least one to enact this year.
The most consequential enacted state AI laws
Eight enacted state AI laws shape the national compliance baseline. We have published deep-dive coverage on the four most-cited; quick summaries below, with click-through for full compliance treatment where available.
Colorado AI Act (SB 24-205) — the closest US analog to the EU AI Act. Effective June 30, 2026. Imposes a reasonable-care duty on developers and deployers of high-risk AI used for consequential decisions in employment, lending, housing, insurance, healthcare, education, and government services. Requires algorithmic impact assessments and consumer disclosures. Notably, the Colorado Legislature is also considering a successor framework (the proposed Colorado KILO / ADMT Framework) that would replace SB 205 with a disclosure-driven model effective January 1, 2027 if passed.
Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA, HB 149) — signed June 22, 2025, effective January 1, 2026. Covers AI in state government and private high-risk deployment. AG-only enforcement with a 60-day cure period. The 60-day cure makes Texas the most defendant-friendly of the comprehensive state laws.
Illinois AI Employment Law (AIVICA + HB 3773) — three overlapping laws: AIVICA (video interview-specific, since 2020), HB 3773 (Illinois Human Rights Act amendment for AI in any employment decision, effective January 1, 2026), and BIPA (biometric, with private right of action and $1,000/$5,000 per-violation damages since 2008). Illinois has the strongest plaintiff posture of any US jurisdiction.
NYC Local Law 144 (AEDT) — in effect since July 2023. Annual bias audit + candidate notice + impact-ratio publication for AI hiring tools. The December 2025 NYS Comptroller audit found DCWP enforcement was “ineffective” — only 1 of 17 violations caught — but the law remains the most-cited municipal AI statute in the US, and DCWP is now scaling enforcement under public pressure.
California SB 53 (Frontier AI Transparency Act) — the first US law directly regulating frontier model developers. Effective January 1, 2026. The 10^26 FLOP threshold is forward-looking — no publicly known model meets it as of March 2026 — but the law sets a precedent that other large states (NY, IL) are studying.
The remaining three enacted comprehensive laws (Utah AIPA, Tennessee ELVIS Act, NY State RAISE Act) cover narrower ground and have less national impact, but each has compliance implications:
Utah AI Policy Act (SB 149) — disclosure-only for general commercial AI; sector-specific rules for mental health chatbots (added 2025); pioneered the AI regulatory sandbox concept that other states are now studying.
Tennessee ELVIS Act (SB 2096) — first US law explicitly protecting voice and likeness rights against AI cloning. Used in the Drake/Universal Music dispute over AI-generated tracks. Now influencing state right-of-publicity legislation in California, Tennessee, and Texas.
New York State RAISE Act (AB 6453B) — recent enactment (signed 2025) targeting high-risk AI and large frontier models. Phased effective dates. NY State complements NYC’s LL 144 with state-level scope.
Sector Heat Map — which sectors face the most state AI regulation?
State AI legislation concentrates in four sectors. The heat reflects both number of enacted laws and aggregate exposure (combined penalty caps, plaintiff access, audit requirements).
| Sector | Heat | States with enacted laws | Notable provisions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employment / Hiring | 🔴 Hottest | Illinois, NYC, Colorado, Maryland (LL144-style), New Jersey (LL144-style), 8+ deepfake-in-hiring laws | Bias audits, candidate notice, vendor liability under Workday class certification |
| Insurance Underwriting | 🟠 Hot | Colorado (Algorithm and Predictive Model Bulletin), 21+ NAIC model adoption states | NAIC Model Bulletin governs use of external consumer data + AI by insurers |
| Healthcare | 🟠 Hot | Texas (Pieces Technologies AG settlement), Utah (mental health chatbot rules), California (SB 1120) | Disclosure of AI use in clinical decisions; FDA SaMD framework parallel |
| Generative AI Content | 🟠 Hot | California (SB 942/AB 853), Tennessee (ELVIS), Texas (deepfake election laws), 30+ deepfake disclosure states | Content provenance + watermarking + likeness protection |
| Frontier Models | 🟡 Warming | California (SB 53), New York (RAISE Act) | Catastrophic risk reporting + transparency frameworks |
| Financial Services | 🟡 Warming | NY (DFS guidance), CA (CPPA ADMT), CO (Algorithm Bulletin) | Adverse action notices for AI credit decisions; algorithmic risk assessments |
| Education | 🟢 Emerging | Several states (TX, FL, OH) with student data + AI tutoring rules | Disclosure when AI grades or profiles students |
| Real Estate | 🟢 Emerging | Limited; mostly via FHA + Meta DOJ settlement | Algorithmic ad targeting subject to FHA |
| Law Enforcement | 🟢 Emerging | Several states banning facial recognition for police | Use restrictions; transparency reporting |
Employment is the hottest sector for three reasons: (1) the federal floor under EEOC and Title VII is uneven and subject to administration changes (the Trump administration removed AI guidance from the EEOC website in January 2025), (2) the Mobley v. Workday class certification (N.D. Cal. May 2025) extended liability to AI vendors as employer agents, multiplying the defendant pool, and (3) bias audits are administratively tractable in a way that, say, “AI safety” is not.
Pending bills to watch in 2026
Of the 1,561 introduced bills, fewer than 5% will become law. The bills below are the highest-probability enactments based on (1) committee progress as of March 2026, (2) governor’s signaling, and (3) similarity to existing enacted state laws. This list is not exhaustive — for a comprehensive view see MultiState or NCSL.
| State | Bill | Subject | Probability | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia | HB 713 / SB 365 (FAIR AI Act) | High-risk AI governance | Medium | Successor to vetoed HB 2094; revised to address gubernatorial concerns |
| Connecticut | SB 5 | Comprehensive AI governance (state agency + private) | Medium-High | Carried over from 2025; advanced through committee |
| Tennessee | HB 1898 | Sector AI governance | Medium | Active 2026 session |
| California | AB 1018 | Algorithmic Accountability Act for hiring | High | Strong sponsor support; aligned with Workday ruling |
| California | SB 420 | Automated decision systems in government | Medium-High | Companion to ADMT rules |
| California | AB 412 | AI training data transparency expansion | Medium | Builds on AB 2013 |
| California | SB 1786 | High-risk AI systems (general) | Medium | Newly introduced 2026 |
| Massachusetts | Multiple AI bills | Comprehensive + sector | Medium | Steptoe identifies MA as emerging leader |
| Maryland | LL144-style hiring AI | Bias audit for AEDTs | High | Multiple sessions of momentum |
| New Jersey | LL144-style + comprehensive | Hiring + general | Medium-High | Civil Rights and Technology Initiative active under AG Platkin |
| Utah | HB 286 | AIPA expansion | Medium | Active 2026 |
| Florida | Multiple deepfake + AI in elections | Sector | Medium | Election year urgency |
| Texas | TRAIGA technical amendments | Comprehensive | High | Cleanup amendments expected post-Jan 1 2026 effectiveness |
| Illinois | HB 3773 implementing rules | Employment AI | Confirmed | IHRA implementing rules expected 2026 |
| Colorado | KILO / ADMT Framework | Comprehensive (replaces SB 205) | Medium | Proposed April 2026; would replace SB 205 with disclosure model effective Jan 1, 2027 |
The Colorado KILO proposal is the highest-impact pending bill. If enacted, it would replace the SB 205 reasonable-care framework with an EU-DSA-style disclosure regime. Companies that have already begun SB 205 compliance work would need to recalibrate before the June 30, 2026 effective date.
Patterns and trends across state AI laws
Five patterns characterize the 2024-2026 state AI legislative wave:
-
Convergence on EU AI Act terminology. Colorado SB 205, Texas TRAIGA, and Virginia’s vetoed HB 2094 all use “high-risk AI system” framing borrowed directly from EU Annex III. State legislatures are not inventing AI risk categories — they are localizing the EU framework. This convergence makes EU AI Act compliance a useful baseline for US multi-state operations.
-
Penalty structures vary by 100x. California’s SB 53 caps frontier-model penalties at $1M per violation. Illinois BIPA generates $5,000 per-violation damages with class-action multipliers reaching nine figures. Tennessee ELVIS provides $25,000 statutory damages per right-of-publicity violation. The same conduct can produce dramatically different exposure depending on which state’s law applies.
-
Effective dates cluster around January 1. Six of the eight comprehensive enacted laws take effect on January 1 of a given year (Colorado is the exception, with June 30, 2026). This creates a natural compliance calendar: Q4 of each year is the high-pressure preparation window for the following year’s effective laws.
-
Cure periods are the negotiation point. Texas TRAIGA gives 60 days, Colorado SB 205 gives 60 days, California ADMT gives 0 days (cure period eliminated 2023). The cure period is where industry lobbyists win or lose. Expect cure-period extensions to be a key amendment vector in 2026 cleanup bills.
-
Federal preemption is the wildcard. The March 9, 2026 Trump executive order created an AI Litigation Task Force in the DOJ and directed Commerce to survey state AI laws for legal challenge. The FTC AI Policy Statement (March 11, 2026) signals that some state-mandated AI bias corrections may themselves be deceptive under federal law. The 36-state AG coalition (March 2026) has already signed a letter opposing federal preemption. This conflict will produce major federal court rulings in 2026-2027.
For comparative perspective on how this state-level fragmentation compares to the EU’s centralized approach, see EU vs US AI Regulation: The Definitive Comparison. For the federal layer that operates alongside state laws, see the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, White House AI Framework 2026, and FTC Operation AI Comply. For US AI liability theories that travel across state lines, see AI Liability in the US.
How this tracker is maintained
This tracker updates monthly. Each refresh includes: (1) new enactments confirmed against the official state legislature record, (2) effective-date changes, (3) governor’s vetoes or amendments, and (4) re-verification of the pending-bills “to watch” list against committee status. The next scheduled refresh is May 29, 2026.
Primary sources cross-checked each month:
- State legislatures (official bill text and status pages)
- National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) — AI legislation database
- MultiState — state AI legislation tracker (the single most-current third-party tracker)
- IAPP US State AI Governance Tracker — quarterly snapshot
- Steptoe State AI Legislative Tracker — quarterly PDF
- Brennan Center AI Legislation Tracker — federal cross-reference
State AG enforcement actions are added to our US AI Enforcement Tracker within 30 days. For real-time monitoring between monthly refreshes, set a Google Scholar alert for ("artificial intelligence" OR "automated decision") + (your state) + statute.
Sources
- MultiState. “State AI Legislation Tracker 2026.” Retrieved April 2026. https://www.multistate.ai/artificial-intelligence-ai-legislation
- IAPP. “US State AI Governance Legislation Tracker 2026.” March 3, 2026. https://iapp.org/resources/article/us-state-ai-governance-legislation-tracker/
- Steptoe. “2026 State Artificial Intelligence Legislative Tracker.” March 16, 2026. https://www.steptoe.com/a/web/4zxSrWaUM8xMAmwUeqq3GZ/steptoe-state-ai-legislative-tracker_mar16-2026.pdf
- Orrick. “U.S. State AI Law Tracker — All States.” Updated monthly. https://ai-law-center.orrick.com/us-ai-law-tracker-see-all-states/
- AI Laws by State. “AI Compliance Tracker: All 50 States.” Retrieved April 27, 2026. https://www.ailawsbystate.com/
- Colorado General Assembly. “SB 24-205 Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence.” May 2024. https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-205
- California CPPA. “ADMT Final Rules — Notice of Approval.” September 23, 2025. https://cppa.ca.gov/announcements/2025/20250923.html
- California Office of the Governor. “Governor Newsom Signs SB 53.” September 29, 2025. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/09/29/governor-newsom-signs-sb-53-advancing-californias-world-leading-artificial-intelligence-industry/
- California Legislature. “AB 2013: Generative AI: Training Data Transparency.” 2024. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2013
- Texas Legislature. “HB 149 — Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA).” June 22, 2025.
- Illinois General Assembly. “HB 3773 — Illinois Human Rights Act AI Amendment.” 2024.
- Illinois General Assembly. “AIVICA — Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act, 820 ILCS 42.” 2020.
- New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. “Local Law 144 of 2021.” Effective July 5, 2023. https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/about/automated-employment-decision-tools.page
- New York Office of the Comptroller. “Audit: Enforcement of Local Law 144.” December 2, 2025. https://www.osc.ny.gov/state-agencies/audits/2025/12/02/enforcement-local-law-144-automated-employment-decision-tools
- Utah Legislature. “SB 149 — Utah AI Policy Act.” Signed March 2024.
- Tennessee General Assembly. “SB 2096 — ELVIS Act.” Signed March 2024.
- White House. “Executive Order: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” December 2025; March 9, 2026 amendment.
- FTC. “AI Policy Statement on Section 5 Application.” March 11, 2026.
Reg Intel is not a law firm and does not provide legal services. This article is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Consult qualified counsel for your specific compliance situation.