California AI Transparency Act
$5,000 per violation; each day is a discrete violation
Primary source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗Track 1,306 regulatory records across 74 jurisdictions with binding AI law — source-linked, expert-audited, updated the day the law changes. Free to use: an API key in seconds, no account, no card.
74 jurisdictions with binding AI law · 7 jurisdictions with voluntary AI frameworks (the two overlap; we never add them) — how we count
Click any state for its status, deadline and penalty. Colour reflects the verbatim legal status we track.
The landmark laws and the dates they bite. Status, date and penalty on each card are transcribed from the statute’s primary government source. See every deadline we track →
$5,000 per violation; each day is a discrete violation
Primary source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗Up to €35M or 7% of global annual turnover
Primary source: digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu ↗AG-enforced (Colorado Consumer Protection Act); up to ~$20,000 per violation
Primary source: leg.colorado.gov ↗IDHR/IHRC make-whole relief + tiered civil penalties up to ~$16,000–$70,000 per act, per aggrieved party
Primary source: ilga.gov ↗AG-enforced (no private right of action); up to $100,000 per uncurable violation + $40,000/day
Primary source: capitol.texas.gov ↗$500–$1,500 per violation
Primary source: legistar.council.nyc.gov ↗The newest AI regulation and policy headlines from across all 50 states, aggregated automatically. Follow each link for the full story.
Coverage from Madison Daily Leader on AI legislation and regulation relevant to South Dakota.
Coverage from Fortune on AI legislation and regulation relevant to Washington.
Coverage from CNN on AI legislation and regulation relevant to South Carolina.
Coverage from Artificial Lawyer on AI legislation and regulation relevant to California.
Coverage from The Jerusalem Post on AI legislation and regulation relevant to Washington DC.
Coverage from Idaho Statesman on AI legislation and regulation relevant to Idaho.
Drawn from the ALT dataset — every figure below is a live count over our own primary-sourced corpus. Nothing here is estimated.
Penalty text is set by the enacting government and quoted as written; each row links to its official source.
/v1/us-law/taxonomy68.2% of records carry a substantive classification today; the remaining 10,139 sit in the `other_unclassified` placeholder while we work through them. Records link to the official text and do not reproduce it.
Every finding is computed deterministically from primary sources and linked to them. No language model interprets the law.
Regulatory Exposure Intelligence runs our AI-law and enforcement corpus against one company profile every week: which instruments reach it and from what date, which obligations commence next, which regulators are active in its sector, and what has been applied to comparable companies. Obligations are quoted word for word from the official source, with the citation and a link — not our summary of the duty, the duty as enacted.
Findings are computed, not generated. Every finding is derived deterministically from primary sources and linked to them. No language model is called at any point in producing this brief — it does not write the findings, and it does not phrase them either.
Two corpora, both maintained by us and both built from primary sources. The AI-law corpus holds statutes, regulations and bills collected from official legislature and agency sites. The enforcement corpus holds actions brought by regulators — federal agencies, state attorneys general, and named foreign authorities — each recorded with the agency, the instrument, the AI application, and a link to the announcement it came from. Nothing is entered from a secondary summary without being marked as such.
A profile carries a sector, the states it operates in, and the AI applications it runs. Instruments are resolved against it by rule — jurisdiction, layer, and whether the instrument is in force on a proven date. Enforcement matters are matched on four axes: AI application, the statute cited, the home jurisdiction, and sector. The first three are treated as strong signals and sector as a weak one, because a sector match alone describes an industry rather than a company.
When a brief is produced, the official source of each applicable instrument is read at that moment and is not stored. Provisions that impose an obligation and name the subject matter of the profile are quoted word for word, with the citation and a link to the document the words came from. Whitespace is normalised; nothing else is changed, and nothing is paraphrased.
A direction of travel for enforcement ("rising", "falling") is stated only when four conditions hold at once: enough dated matters, enough of them dated, enough distinct months, and comparable coverage across the two windows. That last condition exists because a collection lane going quiet looks exactly like enforcement declining. A monetary range is given only over matters that actually record an amount, and the count is printed beside it. A penalty recorded in a source that covers several matters is not attributed to any one of them. A provision whose citation is not unique in its document is dropped rather than guessed. Where a source could not be read, the brief says so instead of reporting an empty result.
No language model. Not to classify a matter, not to summarise a statute, not to phrase a finding. Every sentence in a brief is assembled from values the engine computed, by templates held in the codebase, and a test fails the build if a model call appears anywhere in the intelligence engine. This also means the brief contains no assessment of whether an obligation has been met, no prediction of enforcement, and no scoring of any individual person.
Regulatory Exposure Intelligence reports what the public legal record shows. It is not legal advice, not an assessment of whether any obligation has been met, and not a prediction of enforcement. Every finding links to its source. Decisions should be taken with qualified counsel.
Every law we track — US state & federal, EU, and other national regimes — as a versioned, source-linked JSON API, with an MCP server for agents. Free self-serve key, no account, no card.
curl https://ai-law-tracker.com/api/v1/laws?jurisdiction=california \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $ALT_API_KEY"{
"data": [
{
"id": "ca-sb-942",
"title": "California AI Transparency Act",
"jurisdiction": "california",
"scope": "state",
"status": "Enacted",
"in_force": false,
"effective_date": "2026-08-02",
"official_url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/…SB942"
}
],
"meta": { "count": 1, "source_linked": true }
}