Short answer: The United States has no single state AI code. As of August 16, 2026, states are using a patchwork of laws and proposals covering high-impact decisions, chatbots, deepfakes, elections, health care, employment, government procurement and frontier models. California, Colorado, New York, Texas, Utah and Washington have the most consequential enacted private-sector frameworks identified by the IAPP, while 11 states have enacted chatbot laws. The status below was checked through August 16, 2026; legislative positions can change after publication.
NCSL’s database tracks AI-related legislation introduced from 2025 onward and is updated monthly. Its broad universe is not directly comparable with the IAPP’s private-sector tracker, which excludes government-only and many narrow sectoral measures. The Future of Privacy Forum (FPF), using another methodology, counted 210 private-sector-impacting bills introduced in 2025 and 16 enacted laws, plus two awaiting gubernatorial action.
![AI Law and Policy: [Connected eBook]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41Y7jOay2eL._SL160_.jpg)
How to read this roundup
Enacted means signed or otherwise made law. Effective means its operative date has arrived or is specified. Pending means still moving; introduced means filed but not necessarily advanced. Inactive includes failed, withdrawn, vetoed or expired measures. A study or task force does not itself impose broad operating duties. Always check the final statute, amendments, rules and official bill record before relying on a status.
The national picture
- Broad private-sector frameworks: California, Colorado, New York, Texas, Utah and Washington are the principal states identified by IAPP with enacted cross-sector or broadly applicable commercial AI rules. Their laws differ materially in definitions, thresholds, actors and remedies.
- Sectoral regulation dominates: Many measures address a particular use—health care, employment, elections, children, chatbots, synthetic media or government procurement—rather than AI generally.
- Bill counts are not interchangeable: NCSL includes legislation relating to AI policy, including studies and government use. IAPP narrows its chart to private-sector governance. FPF’s 2025 count uses its own inclusion rules.
- Federal interaction remains unsettled: Congress or federal agencies could preempt, limit or complement state requirements. Until federal law clearly displaces a state rule, organizations should assume applicable state duties remain relevant.
Enacted broad or cross-sector frameworks
| State | Measure | Main scope | Covered actors and duties | Status and enforcement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | AB 2013; SB 942; SB 53 | Training-data transparency, generative-AI disclosures, and frontier-model safety and transparency | Obligations vary by model or product definition; duties can include disclosures, documentation and safety processes | SB 53 is identified as enacted by IAPP. Effective dates, thresholds and enforcement depend on each statute. |
| Colorado | SB 205 (Colorado AI Act) | High-impact automated decisions | Developers and deployers; risk management, impact assessments, notices, discrimination mitigation, human review and correction or appeal mechanisms | Enacted; confirm operative and enforcement dates and any amendments in the official Colorado record. |
| New York | A 6453B; other proposals | Frontier-model safety plus proposed foundation-model, transparency and high-impact-decision rules | Scope differs by proposal; pending bills are not current obligations | A 6453B is listed as enacted by IAPP. Other measures remain subject to legislative change. |
| Texas | HB 149, Responsible AI Governance Act, plus sectoral laws | Prohibited uses, government obligations, enforcement, cure provisions and a regulatory-sandbox concept | Requirements differ for deployers, developers, public bodies and specified sectors | Enacted framework; verify code sections, effective dates and final enforcement language. |
| Utah | SB 149; SB 226; HB 452 | Generative-AI transparency, high-risk consumer interactions, chatbot and mental-health measures; developer protections | Disclosures and consumer safeguards, with an affirmative-defense or liability-protection approach in HB 452 | SB 149 and SB 226 are enacted in IAPP’s tracker; each measure has separate scope and dates. |
| Washington | HB 1170 | Private-sector AI governance, alongside separate deepfake, election, biometric and automated-decision proposals | Obligations depend on the covered system and actor | HB 1170 is listed as enacted by IAPP; several related proposals were inactive in its April chart. |
These are not interchangeable “AI Acts.” A company can be a deployer under one law, an operator under another and outside scope of a third because of a threshold, sector exemption or system definition.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems#1 Best Overall
Chatbot laws are a distinct national trend
IAPP reported enacted chatbot laws in 11 states as of June 2026: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington. Hawaii had a similar measure awaiting the governor’s signature in July 2026; do not treat it as enacted without an official confirmation.
Common requirements include telling users they are interacting with AI, enhanced disclosures to minors, restrictions on sexual or manipulative content involving minors, self-harm safeguards and, in some jurisdictions, escalation or crisis-response procedures. The public-facing operator generally carries the duty even when another company supplies the underlying model. Colorado, Idaho, Iowa and Nebraska use the broader definition described by IAPP, covering publicly accessible conversational systems primarily simulating human conversation rather than only relationship or companion bots.
What state laws regulate
High-impact decisions
Employment, housing, credit, insurance, education and access to essential services can trigger impact assessments, nondiscrimination controls, notice, human review, correction or appeal rights. Colorado is the clearest enacted example in the available trackers.
Generative and synthetic content
Disclosure or labeling rules address AI-generated text, images, audio and video. Election and sexual-deepfake laws may turn on dissemination, intent, timing, consent or attribution rather than on the model itself.
Frontier and foundation models
California SB 53 and New York A 6453B illustrate a focus on powerful models, safety protocols and transparency. Definitions and thresholds matter; neither should be read as regulating every AI developer.
Health care and mental health
States are restricting autonomous diagnosis or treatment, requiring professional oversight, or regulating mental-health and companion applications. Illinois HB 1806, for example, addresses licensed professionals’ use of AI, prohibiting specified independent diagnostic or treatment functions while allowing defined administrative uses. Nevada AB 406 addresses health-care and mental-health applications.
Government use and procurement
Measures can require impact assessments, public notice, procurement controls or limits on automated decisions by agencies. Arkansas and Kentucky enacted targeted government-use measures; Montana SB 212 and HB 178 address infrastructure and government use. These laws can affect vendors indirectly through contract and documentation requirements.
Ownership, liability and experimentation
Arkansas enacted measures involving ownership of AI-generated content. Utah HB 452 and Texas’ sandbox approach show a different policy choice: encourage development through defenses or controlled experimentation rather than impose identical duties on every system.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteState-by-state roundup
Alabama
Status: No comprehensive private-sector law identified. IAPP listed SB 129 as inactive, addressing generative-AI transparency and related duties. Check NCSL for separate deepfake, election, government-use or criminal measures.
Alaska
Status: No major AI-specific statewide law identified in the tracker under this article’s criteria. That does not establish that no AI-related proposal exists.
Arizona
Pending: IAPP’s April chart listed HB 4098 (broad AI systems and systems trained on personal data) and SB 1786 (generative AI) as active. Verify committee, floor and governor status in the Arizona Legislature.
Arkansas
Enacted: 2025 targeted measures address government automated decision-making and ownership of AI-generated content. They are not a single comprehensive governance code.
Recommended Free Tools
Rank #2
California
Enacted: AB 2013 covers training-data transparency; SB 942 covers generative-AI transparency; SB 53 establishes a frontier-model safety and transparency framework. Additional 2026 proposals should be checked in NCSL and official records. California has a collection of statutes, not one unified AI code.
Colorado
Enacted: SB 205 covers consequential automated decisions and places duties on both developers and deployers. A company can be covered as a deployer even when it did not build the model. Confirm enforcement dates, amendments and rulemaking requirements.
Connecticut
Enacted and pending: Connecticut has automated-decision and personal-data measures and is among the 11 states with enacted chatbot laws. Chatbot requirements should not be treated as a comprehensive AI statute.
Delaware
Status: Check NCSL for employment, deepfake, election and government-use measures. Privacy legislation should not be labeled AI regulation unless AI is expressly covered.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Florida
Status: IAPP listed SB 482/HB 1395 as inactive, involving government use, political deepfakes, consumer protection and limits on local regulation. A 2026 Senate filing shows additional AI-related proposals were introduced; verify final status in the Florida Legislature.
Georgia
Enacted: Georgia is among the 11 states with chatbot laws. The public-facing operator generally bears compliance responsibility, regardless of the underlying model provider. Check election, education and deepfake measures separately.
Hawaii
Pending/volatile: A chatbot measure was reported as awaiting the governor’s signature in July 2026. IAPP’s April chart also listed SB 59, SB 2967 and HB 2500 as active private-sector proposals. Confirm signature and final text.
Idaho
Enacted: Idaho’s chatbot law uses one of the broadest definitions, covering publicly accessible conversational AI primarily simulating human conversation. It addresses disclosure, minors, self-harm and manipulative engagement.
Illinois
Sectoral and pending: Illinois addresses health care, psychotherapy, generative-AI transparency, employment, education, consumer and biometric uses. IAPP listed SB 1929, SB 1792, SB 2203, SB 2995, SB 3180, SB 3263, SB 3261/HB 4705, SB 3312, SB 3444, HB 3506, HB 4711, HB 4799 and HB 4988 as active in April; that snapshot does not prove advancement. HB 1806 is an enacted example involving licensed professionals.
Indiana
Status: No specific broad framework is identified here; use NCSL to separate enacted government, election, health-care or employment rules from introduced bills.
Iowa
Enacted: Iowa has a chatbot law with the broad conversational-system definition described by IAPP. HF 2048 and HB 406 were listed as inactive in April.
Kansas
Status: Check NCSL for active or enacted measures; no broad private-sector framework is identified in the supplied IAPP chart.
Kentucky
Enacted: FPF identifies SB 4 as a high-risk AI-in-government measure. It is targeted government regulation, not a general commercial AI law.
Louisiana
Status: Check NCSL for AI-related criminal, election, government or sectoral measures; no broad framework is identified in the supplied trackers.
Maine
Enacted: FPF identifies LD 1727 as a chatbot-transparency measure.
Maryland
Status: IAPP listed HB 712 as inactive. Check NCSL for automated-decision, employment, housing, insurance or government-use measures. An inactive bill creates no current duty.
Massachusetts
Pending: IAPP listed HB 94, HB 97 and S 2630 as active, covering proposals such as employment monitoring, AI governance, election deepfakes, health care and AI-generated child sexual-abuse material. Pending bills are not requirements until enacted and effective.
Michigan
Status: Check NCSL for current deepfake, election, employment and government-use proposals; no broad enacted framework is identified in the supplied IAPP chart.
Minnesota
Pending: IAPP listed SF 1886 as active, involving automated-decision and transparency obligations. Verify whether it advanced, died or was carried over.
Mississippi
Status: No major broad AI law is identified in the supplied trackers; consult NCSL for sectoral or criminal measures.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Missouri
Status: Check NCSL for active measures, particularly elections, government use and consumer protection; no broad framework is identified here.
Montana
Enacted: FPF identifies SB 212 as a right-to-compute and critical-infrastructure measure and HB 178 as a government-use measure.
Nebraska
Enacted: Nebraska has a broad chatbot law covering publicly accessible conversational systems. LB 1083 and LB 642 were listed as inactive.
Nevada
Enacted: FPF identifies AB 406 as addressing AI use by health-care providers and mental-health applications.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Rank #4
New Hampshire
Pending: IAPP listed HB 1725 as active, involving automated decision-making and broader AI governance. Confirm current text and stage.
New Jersey
Pending: IAPP listed S 1802 as active with broad governance and automated-decision provisions. Determine whether duties fall on developers, deployers or both from the latest text.
New Mexico
Status: IAPP listed HB 28 and HB 141 as inactive. Check NCSL for enacted deepfake, election, government-use or health-care measures.
New York
Enacted and pending: A 6453B is listed as enacted and addresses frontier-model safety. FPF identifies 2025 budget measure S-3008C as addressing AI companions. IAPP listed A 768/S 1962, A 3265, A 3356, A 3411/S 934, A 6540/S 6954, A 6578A, A 8884/S 1169 and A 9654 as active in April. New York City Local Law 144 is a local employment-related automated-decision rule, not a statewide statute.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
North Carolina
Status: Check NCSL for current employment, election, health-care and government-use bills; no broad enacted framework is identified in the supplied IAPP chart.
North Dakota
Status: Check NCSL for current measures; no broad private-sector framework is identified here.
Ohio
Status: Check NCSL for active or enacted sectoral measures; no broad framework is identified in the supplied trackers.
Oklahoma
Pending: IAPP listed HB 1916 as active with broad developer and deployer obligations. Verify whether it passed, stalled or was replaced.
Oregon
Enacted: Oregon is among the 11 states with enacted chatbot laws. Check NCSL separately for election, employment and government-use provisions.
Pennsylvania
Status: Check NCSL for active measures; no broad enacted framework is identified in the supplied IAPP chart.
Rhode Island
Enacted: Rhode Island is among the 11 states with enacted chatbot laws. The chatbot statute should be analyzed separately from any general AI proposal.
South Carolina
Pending: IAPP listed S 963 as active and focused on automated decision-making. Confirm its covered decisions, actors and stage.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
South Dakota
Status: Check NCSL for current election, government-use or sectoral measures; no broad framework is identified here.
Tennessee
Pending: IAPP listed HB 1898 as active, involving foundation-model or generative-AI obligations. Also check synthetic-media, voice-cloning, election and music-related protections.
Texas
Enacted: HB 149 is a broad framework with prohibited-use rules, government obligations, enforcement, cure provisions and a sandbox concept. Texas also has separate health-care, government-use, generative-AI and child-safety laws; do not collapse them into HB 149.
Utah
Enacted: SB 149 and SB 226 combine transparency, high-risk consumer-interaction, chatbot and mental-health provisions. HB 452 illustrates a developer-oriented affirmative-defense or liability-protection approach.
Vermont
Pending: IAPP listed HB 340, HB 341, H 792 and HB 821 as active, covering governance, automated decisions, transparency and liability. Bills may be consolidated or amended.
Virginia
Status: IAPP listed HB 713 as inactive. Check NCSL for separate deepfake, election, education and government-use measures.
Washington
Enacted and inactive proposals: HB 1170 is listed as enacted. IAPP listed HB 1168, SB 6120/HB 2157, HB 2503 and SB 6284/HB 2667 as inactive in April; later session action must be checked.
West Virginia
Status: Check NCSL for current measures; no broad framework is identified in the supplied IAPP chart.
Wisconsin
Status: Check NCSL for current election, employment, health-care or government-use proposals; no broad framework is identified here.
Wyoming
Status: No major AI-specific statewide law is identified under the supplied tracker criteria. Verify NCSL before treating that as a complete statement.
District of Columbia
Status: The supplied state trackers do not establish a comprehensive District AI statute. Check the District Council for local automated-decision, employment, election and consumer measures.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What a multistate business should do now
- Inventory systems and uses: Record models, vendors, data, users and every deployment, including internal tools.
- Map geography and roles: Identify residents served and whether your organization is a developer, deployer, distributor or public-facing operator.
- Classify risk: Flag employment, housing, credit, insurance, education, health care, essential services, minors, chatbots, synthetic media and frontier-model functions.
- Build controls: Implement AI disclosures, labeling, human review, correction and appeal routes, age protections and crisis escalation where required.
- Preserve evidence: Maintain impact assessments, risk-management records, training-data documentation, incident logs and model-change history.
- Review contracts: Allocate responsibilities and information-sharing duties between model providers, deployers, cloud vendors and public-facing operators.
- Track dates: Separate signature, effective, enforcement and rulemaking dates; monitor amendments and emergency clauses.
Common mistakes
- Counting introduced bills as enacted law.
- Using an April “active” label after a session ended.
- Confusing a governor’s signature with the effective date.
- Calling a chatbot, health-care or deepfake rule a general AI law.
- Assuming the model provider, rather than the deployer or operator, is responsible.
- Assuming disclosure alone satisfies discrimination, safety or human-review duties.
- Counting city rules as state statutes.
- Assuming a state law applies only to companies headquartered there.
- Claiming a private right of action, penalty, cure period or exemption without checking the final statutory text.
Where to verify changes
- NCSL Artificial Intelligence Legislation Database
- IAPP U.S. State AI Governance Legislation Tracker
- IAPP tracker PDF (April 28, 2026)
- IAPP chatbot-law analysis
- Future of Privacy Forum 2025 State AI Legislation Report
- Florida Senate 2026 filed bill text
The Bottom Line
State AI regulation is a patchwork of different actors, uses, dates and remedies—not one national-style code. Treat the six broad-framework states and the 11 chatbot-law states as starting points, then verify each customer, employee, patient and product use against the latest official statute and bill record.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallQuick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
