California
EnactedSB 942 — AI Transparency Act — effective August 2, 2026. Businesses using AI for decisions must disclose AI involvement and provide opt-out mechanisms.
Full California guide →US AI laws — state-by-state compliance guide for all 51 jurisdictions
US AI regulation is fragmented and moves fast. There is no single federal AI act yet, so the rules that bind your business are mostly state-level — and they vary wildly. California's SB 942 forces generative-AI disclosure. Colorado's SB 205 is the most comprehensive AI consumer-protection regime in any US state. Illinois already enforces AI-in-employment notification under HB 3773. Texas leans on its Responsible AI Governance Act. Tennessee shields voice and likeness via the ELVIS Act. And roughly a third of states still have no dedicated AI law at all, leaving federal frameworks (FTC, EEOC, HIPAA, fair-lending overlays) to do the work.
This page is the front door to every US state-and-sector combination we cover — roughly 9,400 detail pages across 51 states + DC and 15 industries, with current penalties, effective dates, and plain-English summaries of what each statute actually requires. Use the table of contents below to jump to a specific state, or browse by industry or enforcement status.
By the AI Law Tracker Editorial Team · Last verified
How US AI law actually works
Most state AI statutes target one of four patterns: algorithmic-decision transparency (notify when AI is used in employment, lending, housing, or insurance), impact assessments (document risks before deploying high-stakes models), generative-content disclosure (label AI-generated images, audio, or text — especially in politics and advertising), and biometric and likeness protection (deepfake, voice-clone, and face-recognition rules). Colorado, Connecticut, and California pair these with consumer rights — opt-out, appeal, and the right to human review.
Penalty exposure spans three orders of magnitude. Mature regimes (Connecticut SB 2, Maryland HB 1339) cap fines at $10–25K per violation. Illinois and Utah cluster at $2,500–$5,000 per occurrence. New York City's LL144 hands the day-rate down to $500–$1,500. And willful or systemic violators in California can rack up $5,000 a day, per record, indefinitely. The compliance picture is rarely "which state has the harshest fine" — it's "which combination of state, industry, and AI use case applies, and what's the cumulative deadline calendar."
12 states in focus — where US AI law is most active
These are the jurisdictions producing the most enforcement activity, the most novel rules, or the largest economic footprint affected by AI compliance. Read the headline rule below, then click through for the full state-and-industry breakdown.
Colorado
EnactedSB 205 — AI Consumer Protection — effective June 30, 2026. Most comprehensive state AI law. Risk assessments, bias audits, consumer disclosures required.
Full Colorado guide →Illinois
In EffectHB 3773 — AI in Employment — effective January 1, 2026. Employers must notify employees when AI assists in hiring, reviews, promotions, or discipline.
Full Illinois guide →New York
Partially In EffectNYC Local Law 144 — effective In effect (LL144), 2027 (RAISE). Automated hiring tools require annual bias audits. RAISE Act expands to all AI decision-making.
Full New York guide →Texas
In EffectTRAIGA — Texas Responsible AI Governance Act — effective January 1, 2026. Prohibits AI for behavioral manipulation, unlawful discrimination. Government AI oversight focused.
Full Texas guide →Utah
In EffectSB 149 — AI Policy Act — effective May 1, 2024. Generative AI must disclose AI nature when asked. First comprehensive state AI law in US.
Full Utah guide →Connecticut
EnactedSB 2 — AI Accountability — effective October 1, 2026. Developers and deployers of high-risk AI must conduct impact assessments and disclose usage.
Full Connecticut guide →Maryland
EnactedHB 1339 — Automated Decision Systems — effective October 1, 2026. Employers must disclose AI use in hiring. Impact assessments required for high-stakes decisions.
Full Maryland guide →Washington
EnactedSB 5426 — AI Accountability Act — effective January 1, 2027. High-impact AI systems require impact assessments, transparency reports, and opt-out rights.
Full Washington guide →Tennessee
In EffectELVIS Act — AI Voice/Likeness — effective July 1, 2026. AI-generated voice and likeness replicas require consent. Strongest protections for artists.
Full Tennessee guide →Minnesota
EnactedHF 4654 — AI Transparency Act — effective August 1, 2026. Automated decision systems used in employment must disclose AI use and allow human review.
Full Minnesota guide →Nevada
EnactedSB 149 — AI Disclosure — effective October 1, 2026. AI-generated content used in elections and consumer interactions must be disclosed.
Full Nevada guide →Every state — quick read, ordered by enforcement
All 51 US jurisdictions, sorted by enforcement status — "In Effect" first, then "Enacted," "Proposed," "Study Phase," and "No Law" at the end. Each entry is 2–3 sentences: headline statute, what it requires, penalty exposure. Click any state for the deep coverage.
ILIllinois
In EffectHB 3773 — AI in Employment — status: In Effect, deadline January 1, 2026. Employers must notify employees when AI assists in hiring, reviews, promotions, or discipline. Penalty exposure: Up to $5,000 per violation (willful/repeated).
Illinois →MTMontana
In EffectConsumer Data Privacy Act (AI provisions) — status: In Effect, deadline October 1, 2024. Montana's CDPA includes AI-driven profiling opt-out rights for consumers. Penalty exposure: Up to $7,500 per violation.
Montana →TNTennessee
In EffectELVIS Act — AI Voice/Likeness — status: In Effect, deadline July 1, 2026. AI-generated voice and likeness replicas require consent. Strongest protections for artists. Penalty exposure: Civil damages.
Tennessee →TXTexas
In EffectTRAIGA — Texas Responsible AI Governance Act — status: In Effect, deadline January 1, 2026. Prohibits AI for behavioral manipulation, unlawful discrimination. Government AI oversight focused. Penalty exposure: Varies by violation type.
Texas →UTUtah
In EffectSB 149 — AI Policy Act — status: In Effect, deadline May 1, 2024. Generative AI must disclose AI nature when asked. First comprehensive state AI law in US. Penalty exposure: Up to $2,500 per violation.
Utah →CACalifornia
EnactedSB 942 — AI Transparency Act — status: Enacted, deadline August 2, 2026. Businesses using AI for decisions must disclose AI involvement and provide opt-out mechanisms. Penalty exposure: $5,000/day per violation.
California →COColorado
EnactedSB 205 — AI Consumer Protection — status: Enacted, deadline June 30, 2026. Most comprehensive state AI law. Risk assessments, bias audits, consumer disclosures required. Penalty exposure: Per-violation fines under CCPA framework.
Colorado →CTConnecticut
EnactedSB 2 — AI Accountability — status: Enacted, deadline October 1, 2026. Developers and deployers of high-risk AI must conduct impact assessments and disclose usage. Penalty exposure: Up to $25,000 per violation.
Connecticut →INIndiana
EnactedSB 0149 — AI Systems — status: Enacted, deadline July 1, 2026. State agencies must inventory and report AI systems. Private sector disclosure guidelines issued. Penalty exposure: Civil penalties.
Indiana →IAIowa
EnactedAI in Government Act — status: Enacted, deadline July 1, 2026. State agencies must disclose AI use. Private sector framework under development. Penalty exposure: Administrative.
Iowa →MDMaryland
EnactedHB 1339 — Automated Decision Systems — status: Enacted, deadline October 1, 2026. Employers must disclose AI use in hiring. Impact assessments required for high-stakes decisions. Penalty exposure: Up to $10,000 per violation.
Maryland →MAMassachusetts
EnactedAI Civil Rights Protection Act — status: Enacted, deadline 2026. Prohibits AI systems producing discriminatory outcomes in housing, employment, public accommodations. Penalty exposure: Civil penalties.
Massachusetts →MNMinnesota
EnactedHF 4654 — AI Transparency Act — status: Enacted, deadline August 1, 2026. Automated decision systems used in employment must disclose AI use and allow human review. Penalty exposure: Civil penalties.
Minnesota →NVNevada
EnactedSB 149 — AI Disclosure — status: Enacted, deadline October 1, 2026. AI-generated content used in elections and consumer interactions must be disclosed. Penalty exposure: Up to $5,000 per violation.
Nevada →OROregon
EnactedHB 4006 — AI in Public Services — status: Enacted, deadline January 1, 2027. State agencies using AI must disclose, document, and allow appeals. Private sector guidance pending. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Oregon →WAWashington
EnactedSB 5426 — AI Accountability Act — status: Enacted, deadline January 1, 2027. High-impact AI systems require impact assessments, transparency reports, and opt-out rights. Penalty exposure: Civil penalties up to $7,500/violation.
Washington →NYNew York
Partially In EffectNYC Local Law 144 — status: Partially In Effect, deadline In effect (LL144), 2027 (RAISE). Automated hiring tools require annual bias audits. RAISE Act expands to all AI decision-making. Penalty exposure: $500-$1,500 per violation (LL144).
New York →ALAlabama
Executive OrderExecutive Order on AI — status: Executive Order, deadline Ongoing. State agencies required to adopt AI governance policies. Private sector guidance pending. Penalty exposure: N/A (Executive).
Alabama →AZArizona
ProposedSB 1600 — AI Consumer Protection — status: Proposed, deadline January 1, 2027. Proposed requirements for AI transparency in consumer-facing applications and credit decisions. Penalty exposure: Civil penalties.
Arizona →DEDelaware
ProposedHB 390 — AI in Employment — status: Proposed, deadline January 1, 2027. Employers must disclose AI use in hiring. Human review option required for adverse decisions. Penalty exposure: Civil penalties.
Delaware →FLFlorida
ProposedAI regulatory framework (proposed) — status: Proposed. Multiple AI bills under consideration. Focus on deepfakes and AI in insurance. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Florida →HIHawaii
ProposedHB 1607 — AI Accountability — status: Proposed, deadline January 1, 2027. Proposed requirements for AI impact assessments in employment and public services. Penalty exposure: Civil penalties.
Hawaii →LALouisiana
ProposedHB 312 — AI Transparency — status: Proposed, deadline August 1, 2026. Proposed mandatory disclosures when AI makes consequential decisions affecting Louisiana residents. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Louisiana →MEMaine
ProposedLD 2174 — AI Consumer Protection — status: Proposed, deadline 2027. Proposed consumer notification when AI makes consequential decisions. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Maine →MIMichigan
ProposedHB 5891 — AI in Employment — status: Proposed, deadline 2027. Employers using AI for screening must disclose to candidates and provide appeal process. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Michigan →NJNew Jersey
ProposedA4115 — Automated Decision Systems — status: Proposed, deadline 2027. Requires impact assessments for automated decision systems affecting employment and housing. Penalty exposure: TBD.
New Jersey →NMNew Mexico
ProposedAI in Government Act (proposed) — status: Proposed. Proposed transparency requirements for AI used in state services and employment. Penalty exposure: TBD.
New Mexico →PAPennsylvania
ProposedHB 1307 — AI Disclosure Act — status: Proposed. AI-generated content disclosure required for political advertising and consumer communications. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Pennsylvania →RIRhode Island
ProposedH7272 — AI Transparency — status: Proposed, deadline 2027. Proposed disclosure requirements for AI-generated content and automated decision systems. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Rhode Island →VTVermont
ProposedS.0018 — AI Oversight — status: Proposed, deadline July 1, 2026. Proposed AI oversight board and mandatory impact assessments for high-risk systems. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Vermont →DCWashington D.C.
ProposedB25-0324 — AI Accountability — status: Proposed, deadline 2026. Comprehensive AI accountability bill covering employment, housing, and public services. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Washington D.C. →WIWisconsin
ProposedAI Governance Act (proposed) — status: Proposed. Proposal covers transparency and accountability for high-risk AI in consumer services. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Wisconsin →GAGeorgia
Study PhaseAI Governance Study Committee — status: Study Phase. Legislative study committee examining AI regulation needs for 2027 session. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Georgia →KSKansas
Study PhaseAI Working Group — status: Study Phase. AI working group established within Governor's office. Policy recommendations pending. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Kansas →KYKentucky
Study PhaseAI Study Resolution — status: Study Phase. General assembly studying AI impacts. Regulation expected 2027 session. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Kentucky →NCNorth Carolina
Study PhaseAI Study Commission — status: Study Phase. Study commission reporting to legislature. Regulation expected 2027. Penalty exposure: TBD.
North Carolina →OHOhio
Study PhaseAI Task Force Recommendations — status: Study Phase. Voluntary AI principles adopted. Mandatory framework expected 2027. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Ohio →OKOklahoma
Study PhaseAI Study Committee — status: Study Phase. Study committee examining AI impacts on workforce and consumers. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Oklahoma →SCSouth Carolina
Study PhaseAI Task Force — status: Study Phase. Governor's AI task force issued recommendations. Legislation expected 2027. Penalty exposure: TBD.
South Carolina →VAVirginia
VetoedVirginia's lead AI proposal, HB 2094 — High-Risk AI Developer and Deployer Act (vetoed 2025-03-24), was vetoed and is not in force. HB 2094 would have required high-risk AI developers to implement safeguards against algorithmic discrimination. Governor Youngkin vetoed the bill on March 24, 2025; no dedicated AI law currently in effect.
Virginia →AKAlaska
No LawAlaska has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state AI law. Remote workforce considerations may affect AI hiring tool compliance.
Alaska →ARArkansas
No LawArkansas has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state-specific AI law. Federal laws apply. Legislature studying AI issues.
Arkansas →IDIdaho
No LawIdaho has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state AI law. Business-friendly stance. Federal regulations apply.
Idaho →MSMississippi
No LawMississippi has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state-specific AI law. Federal laws apply. Monitoring federal AI Act developments.
Mississippi →MOMissouri
No LawMissouri has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state-specific AI law. Federal laws apply. Missouri AG monitors AI-driven consumer protection violations under the Merchandising Practices Act.
Missouri →NENebraska
No LawNebraska has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state AI law. Existing consumer protection laws may apply to AI-driven decisions.
Nebraska →NHNew Hampshire
No LawNew Hampshire has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state AI law. Legislature monitoring federal developments.
New Hampshire →NDNorth Dakota
No LawNorth Dakota has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state AI law. Energy sector AI use monitored.
North Dakota →SDSouth Dakota
No LawSouth Dakota has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state AI law. Legislature reviewing AI impacts on agricultural sector.
South Dakota →WVWest Virginia
No LawWest Virginia has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state AI law. Existing laws cover some AI-related activities.
West Virginia →WYWyoming
No LawWyoming has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state AI law. Business-friendly regulatory environment.
Wyoming →5 highest-risk industries
Most enterprise compliance questions are state × industry. These five sectors face the most concentrated AI rule-making across the US and the EU, and they're where penalty exposure compounds fastest. Click through for the cross-state breakdown.
Healthcare
Very HighHIPAA applies to AI processing patient data. States mandate disclosures when AI assists diagnosis, billing, or scheduling.
Healthcare across all states →Finance & Banking
Very HighFair lending laws plus state AI requirements. AI credit decisions need documented bias testing.
Finance & Banking across all states →HR & Recruiting
Very HighHighest-risk area. Multiple states mandate bias audits for AI hiring tools. Employee notification required before AI evaluation.
HR & Recruiting across all states →Insurance
Very HighAI underwriting faces fairness requirements. Multiple states investigating AI discrimination in insurance pricing.
Insurance across all states →Government Contractor
Very HighFederal AI guidance plus state laws create complex compliance landscape. FAR AI provisions apply.
Government Contractor across all states →How we track this
Every state entry on AI Law Tracker links back to primary sources — state legislature bill pages, attorney-general guidance, and reputable law-firm analysis. We re-verify each statute when bill numbers change, deadlines slip, or governors veto. Status fields ("In Effect," "Enacted," "Proposed," "Vetoed") match the official legislative calendar, not press-release optimism. When data shifts (e.g., Virginia HB 2094's 2025 veto), we update the page within days and note the change in the audit trail.
Nothing on this site is legal advice. It is a navigational reference designed for compliance leads, founders, product managers, and in-house counsel to scope which jurisdictions and statutes warrant outside review.
Other ways to navigate
Multi-jurisdictional businesses also need EU, UK and Canada coverage. The EU AI Act's high-risk deadline lands August 2, 2026, with penalties up to €35M or 7% of global turnover.