Introduction
The evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) legislation in the United States is marked by a complex interplay of federal and state initiatives. These efforts aim to balance innovation with regulation, addressing the diverse applications and implications of AI technologies.
Description
The Republican-held Congress may or may not prioritize AI legislation [2], with many proposed bills focusing on voluntary guidelines and best practices to encourage innovation while avoiding strict regulations [2]. The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act includes provisions for reviewing AI in aviation [2], while the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 mandates the Department of Defense to oversee AI activities [2].
The White House Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights outlines five principles for the equitable use of AI systems [2], although the Trump Administration may not actively pursue these principles [2]. Leading AI companies have committed to safe and transparent development practices [2], including security testing and risk management [2].
Public hearings in the US Senate have discussed potential AI regulations [2], including licensing requirements and the creation of a federal regulatory agency [2]. The SAFE Innovation AI Framework offers bipartisan guidelines for AI development [2], while various proposed acts aim to regulate generative AI in political advertisements [2], employee surveillance [2], and unauthorized use of likenesses [2].
At the state level [1], legislatures are rapidly advancing AI governance legislation [3], particularly in response to the rise of generative AI [3]. Over 900 AI-related bills were introduced in 2023 [1] [2], marking a record pace for state-level legislation. States like Virginia and Texas are adopting a pro-innovation approach, favoring growth over stringent regulations. Texas has revised its “Texas Responsible AI Governance Act,” shifting focus from algorithmic discrimination in high-risk cases to broader regulation of AI systems [1]. In contrast [1], Colorado’s recent AI law has faced criticism for being overly rigid and vague [1], prompting calls for significant revisions [1]. The Colorado AI Act imposes duties on developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems [2], focusing on bias and discrimination in automated decision-making [2], and serves as a model for other states considering similar legislation [2]. California has introduced several bills [2], including the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act [2], the Use of Likeness: Digital Replica Act [2], and the California AI Transparency Act [2], which impose various requirements on AI systems and their deployment [2]. The Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act mandates disclosure of generative AI use in consumer communications [2].
A tracker has been established to monitor cross-sectoral AI governance bills that specifically impact private sector organizations [3], categorizing obligations related to different types of AI systems [3], such as generative AI and automated decision-making systems [3]. Resources are available for privacy and AI governance professionals [3], including analysis on AI’s intersection with privacy and a global overview of AI governance laws and policies [3].
The Federal Communications Commission has ruled that AI-generated human voices fall under the restrictions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act [2]. The Federal Trade Commission is taking an aggressive stance on AI regulation [2], warning against discriminatory impacts and unsubstantiated claims related to AI tools [2].
Rite Aid must maintain a comprehensive monitoring program for AI facial recognition technology and allow consumer complaints [2]. The Colorado Attorney General has rule-making authority under the Colorado AI Act [2], with violations considered unfair trade practices [2]. California’s Senate Bill 942 and Assembly Bill 3030 outline penalties and enforcement mechanisms for non-compliance with AI regulations [2]. Existing laws [2], including privacy and intellectual property regulations [2], apply to AI technologies [2], but there is currently no comprehensive federal legislation specifically regulating AI [2]. State laws often have extra-territorial effects [2], and enforcement of AI-related issues falls under existing legal frameworks [2]. Recommendations for improving AI regulations include modernizing frameworks to accommodate diverse AI technologies [1], collaborating with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to establish best practices [1], and creating rules that promote AI adoption while minimizing compliance burdens that could hinder innovation [1].
Conclusion
The ongoing development of AI legislation in the United States reflects a dynamic effort to address the challenges and opportunities presented by AI technologies. While federal and state initiatives strive to create a balanced regulatory environment, the implications of these efforts will significantly impact innovation, privacy [2] [3], and the ethical deployment of AI systems across various sectors.
References
[1] https://www.pymnts.com/artificial-intelligence-2/2025/ai-regulations-in-states-shift-to-pro-innovation-not-risk-mitigation/
[2] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ai-watch-global-regulatory-tracker-5219703/
[3] https://iapp.org/resources/article/us-state-ai-governance-legislation-tracker/
