Plain-English coverage of every US state AI statute — headline rule, status, deadline, and penalty — plus the highest-risk industries to watch.
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 AI Law Tracker Editorial Team · Last verified
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."
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.
SB 942 — AI Transparency Act — effective August 2, 2026. Generative-AI providers with over 1,000,000 monthly users must offer a free AI-detection tool and embed a latent provenance disclosure in AI-generated image, video and audio content, plus an optional visible manifest disclosure. Operative August 2, 2026 (delayed from January 1, 2026 by AB 853).
Full California guide →SB 24-205 — Colorado AI Act (amended 2026 by SB 26-189) — effective January 1, 2027. The most comprehensive US state AI law. As amended by SB 26-189 (2026) it takes effect January 1, 2027 and centers on transparency/disclosure for consequential automated decisions (the original algorithmic-discrimination duty of care was repealed). Attorney General rulemaking is underway; no final rules have been published yet.
Full Colorado guide →HB 3773 — AI in Employment (amends the IL Human Rights Act) — effective January 1, 2026. Employers must notify employees when AI assists in hiring, reviews, promotions, or discipline, and may not use AI that discriminates against protected classes (including via ZIP-code proxies).
Full Illinois guide →NYC Local Law 144 — automated employment decision tools — effective In effect (LL144); RAISE Act effective January 1, 2027. NYC Local Law 144 requires annual independent bias audits for automated employment decision tools. Separately, the RAISE Act — signed December 2025, effective January 1, 2027 — imposes safety-protocol, incident-reporting, and oversight duties on large frontier-AI developers.
Full New York guide →TRAIGA — Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (HB 149, 2025) — effective January 1, 2026. Prohibits developing or deploying AI for intentional behavioral manipulation causing harm, unlawful discrimination, and unlawful synthetic media; applies to businesses and state agencies. Enforced exclusively by the Texas Attorney General with a 60-day cure period.
Full Texas guide →SB 149 — AI Policy Act (amended 2025 by SB 226 & SB 332) — effective In effect since May 1, 2024 (2025 amendments effective May 7, 2025; sunset July 2027). Suppliers using generative AI must disclose it up-front only in high-risk interactions (e.g., regulated professions or consequential advice) and otherwise only on a consumer's clear and unambiguous request; separately, AI mental-health chatbots must disclose they are not human and face data-sharing and advertising limits (HB 452).
Full Utah guide →No comprehensive AI law — high-risk AI bill (SB 2) died in 2024 and failed again in 2025; narrow provisions only (state-agency AI inventory; LLM training-data disclosure, eff. 2026). Connecticut has not enacted a comprehensive AI law — its high-risk AI bill (SB 2) passed the Senate but died in the House in 2024 and failed again in 2025. Narrow measures apply: a state-agency AI inventory, an automated-decision opt-out under the Connecticut Data Privacy Act, and (effective July 1, 2026) a duty to disclose when personal data is used to train large language models. Existing consumer-protection and anti-discrimination laws may also apply to AI.
Full Connecticut guide →No comprehensive private-sector AI law — state-government AI governance under SB 818 (AI Governance Act of 2024). Maryland has not enacted a comprehensive private-sector AI law. The Artificial Intelligence Governance Act of 2024 (SB 818) directs the Department of Information Technology to set policies for and inventory AI used by state-government units, but imposes no direct private-sector compliance duty. Existing anti-discrimination and consumer-protection laws may apply to AI-driven decisions.
Full Maryland guide →No comprehensive AI law — high-risk AI bill (HB 2157) died in committee; narrow measures only (companion chatbots, HB 2225; AI content disclosure, HB 1170). Washington has not enacted a comprehensive AI law — its high-risk AI bill (HB 2157) died in committee. Only narrow measures are law, including AI companion-chatbot safeguards (HB 2225) and AI content-provenance disclosure by large providers (HB 1170).
Full Washington guide →ELVIS Act — AI Voice/Likeness — effective July 1, 2024. An individual's voice is protected property. Unauthorised AI-generated voice or likeness replicas are actionable, as is distributing a tool whose primary purpose is producing them. Enacted as Public Chapter 588 (HB 2091 / SB 2096), in effect since July 1, 2024.
Full Tennessee guide →Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (Minn. Stat. ch. 325M) — automated-decision / profiling opt-out — effective In effect since July 31, 2025. Minnesota's Consumer Data Privacy Act lets consumers opt out of profiling and automated decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects, question the result of a profiling decision and learn how to change future outcomes, and requires controllers to complete data-protection assessments. No standalone Minnesota 'AI Transparency Act' exists.
Full Minnesota guide →No comprehensive AI law — narrow statutes enacted (AI in mental-health care, AB 406; election synthetic-media disclosure, AB 271). Nevada has not enacted a comprehensive AI law. Narrow AI statutes are in force: AB 406 restricts using AI to deliver mental or behavioral health care (civil penalties up to $15,000 per incident), and AB 271 requires disclosure of AI-generated 'synthetic media' in election and political advertising. Existing consumer-protection laws may also apply to AI-driven decisions.
Full Nevada guide →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.
HB 3773 — AI in Employment (amends the IL Human Rights Act) — status: In Effect, deadline January 1, 2026. Employers must notify employees when AI assists in hiring, reviews, promotions, or discipline, and may not use AI that discriminates against protected classes (including via ZIP-code proxies). Penalty exposure: IDHR/IHRC make-whole relief + tiered civil penalties up to ~$16,000–$70,000 per act per aggrieved party.
Illinois →LD 1727 — Transparency in Consumer Transactions Involving AI (10 M.R.S. §1500-DD) — status: In Effect, deadline Enacted June 12, 2025 (P.L. 2025, ch. 294). A person may not use an AI chatbot (or other computer technology) in trade or commerce in a way that could mislead a reasonable consumer into believing they are dealing with a human, unless the consumer is clearly and conspicuously notified that they are not. A violation is a violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. Enacted 2025 (P.L. 2025, ch. 294), codified at 10 M.R.S. §1500-DD. Penalty exposure: Enforced as a violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Maine →Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (Minn. Stat. ch. 325M) — automated-decision / profiling opt-out — status: In Effect, deadline In effect since July 31, 2025. Minnesota's Consumer Data Privacy Act lets consumers opt out of profiling and automated decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects, question the result of a profiling decision and learn how to change future outcomes, and requires controllers to complete data-protection assessments. No standalone Minnesota 'AI Transparency Act' exists. Penalty exposure: Up to $7,500 per violation.
Minnesota →Consumer 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 →ELVIS Act — AI Voice/Likeness — status: In Effect, deadline July 1, 2024. An individual's voice is protected property. Unauthorised AI-generated voice or likeness replicas are actionable, as is distributing a tool whose primary purpose is producing them. Enacted as Public Chapter 588 (HB 2091 / SB 2096), in effect since July 1, 2024. Penalty exposure: Civil damages.
Tennessee →TRAIGA — Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (HB 149, 2025) — status: In Effect, deadline January 1, 2026. Prohibits developing or deploying AI for intentional behavioral manipulation causing harm, unlawful discrimination, and unlawful synthetic media; applies to businesses and state agencies. Enforced exclusively by the Texas Attorney General with a 60-day cure period. Penalty exposure: AG-enforced (no private right of action); up to $100,000 per uncurable violation + $40,000/day.
Texas →SB 149 — AI Policy Act (amended 2025 by SB 226 & SB 332) — status: In Effect, deadline In effect since May 1, 2024 (2025 amendments effective May 7, 2025; sunset July 2027). Suppliers using generative AI must disclose it up-front only in high-risk interactions (e.g., regulated professions or consequential advice) and otherwise only on a consumer's clear and unambiguous request; separately, AI mental-health chatbots must disclose they are not human and face data-sharing and advertising limits (HB 452). Penalty exposure: Up to $2,500 per violation (administrative, Utah Div. of Consumer Protection).
Utah →SB 942 — AI Transparency Act — status: Enacted, deadline August 2, 2026. Generative-AI providers with over 1,000,000 monthly users must offer a free AI-detection tool and embed a latent provenance disclosure in AI-generated image, video and audio content, plus an optional visible manifest disclosure. Operative August 2, 2026 (delayed from January 1, 2026 by AB 853). Penalty exposure: $5,000 per violation; each day is a discrete violation.
California →SB 24-205 — Colorado AI Act (amended 2026 by SB 26-189) — status: Enacted, deadline January 1, 2027. The most comprehensive US state AI law. As amended by SB 26-189 (2026) it takes effect January 1, 2027 and centers on transparency/disclosure for consequential automated decisions (the original algorithmic-discrimination duty of care was repealed). Attorney General rulemaking is underway; no final rules have been published yet. Penalty exposure: AG-enforced (Colorado Consumer Protection Act); up to ~$20,000 per violation.
Colorado →SB 150 (2024) — Artificial Intelligence and Cybersecurity (state-agency AI inventory) — status: Enacted, deadline In effect since July 1, 2024 (agency inventories; provisions expire Dec 31, 2027). Indiana requires executive- and legislative-branch state agencies to inventory the AI systems they use or are developing and report them to the state Office of Technology and the AI Task Force. This is a government-governance law and imposes no direct private-sector compliance obligation. Penalty exposure: N/A (state-government governance).
Indiana →HB 7350 / SB 2195 (2026) — Artificial Intelligence (Commercial Law, General Regulatory Provisions) — status: Enacted, deadline 2027. Rhode Island enacted AI regulatory provisions under its commercial-law general-regulatory framework (HB 7350 / SB 2195), signed by the Governor and effective January 1, 2027. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Rhode Island →NYC Local Law 144 — automated employment decision tools — status: Partially In Effect, deadline In effect (LL144); RAISE Act effective January 1, 2027. NYC Local Law 144 requires annual independent bias audits for automated employment decision tools. Separately, the RAISE Act — signed December 2025, effective January 1, 2027 — imposes safety-protocol, incident-reporting, and oversight duties on large frontier-AI developers. Penalty exposure: $500-$1,500 per violation (LL144).
New York →Executive 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 →SB 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 →HB 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 →HB 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 →HB 312 — AI Transparency — status: Proposed, deadline August 1, 2026. Proposed mandatory disclosures when AI makes consequential decisions affecting Louisiana residents. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Louisiana →HB 4668 (2025-26) — Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security Transparency Act (proposed) — status: Proposed. Michigan has not enacted a comprehensive AI law. Proposed HB 4668 would require large developers of AI foundation models to implement safety and security protocols to manage critical risks, prescribe developer duties and whistleblower protections, and provide civil sanctions and remedies. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Michigan →A4115 — Automated Decision Systems — status: Proposed, deadline 2027. Requires impact assessments for automated decision systems affecting employment and housing. Penalty exposure: TBD.
New Jersey →AI in Government Act (proposed) — status: Proposed. Proposed transparency requirements for AI used in state services and employment. Penalty exposure: TBD.
New Mexico →HB 1598 (2023-24) — AI-generated content disclosure (reintroduced as HB 95, 2025-26) — status: Proposed. Would require clear and conspicuous disclosure of artificial-intelligence-generated content. Passed the PA House in 2024; not yet enacted (reintroduced as HB 95 in the 2025-2026 session). Penalty exposure: TBD.
Pennsylvania →H.341 — oversight of high-risk / 'inherently dangerous' AI systems (proposed) — status: Proposed, deadline N/A (in committee). Proposed bill H.341 (2025-2026) would impose safety and impact-assessment duties on developers and deployers of high-risk AI, create a Division of Artificial Intelligence within the Agency of Digital Services, and give the Attorney General enforcement authority. Not yet enacted. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Vermont →B25-0324 — AI Accountability — status: Proposed, deadline 2026. Comprehensive AI accountability bill covering employment, housing, and public services. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Washington D.C. →AI Governance Study Committee — status: Study Phase. Legislative study committee examining AI regulation needs for 2027 session. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Georgia →AI Working Group — status: Study Phase. AI working group established within Governor's office. Policy recommendations pending. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Kansas →AI Study Resolution — status: Study Phase. General assembly studying AI impacts. Regulation expected 2027 session. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Kentucky →HB 1004 (2023) — AI Study Committee — status: Study Phase. House Bill 1004 establishes the North Carolina Artificial Intelligence Study Committee to study AI and its uses and report to the General Assembly. Penalty exposure: TBD.
North Carolina →AI Task Force Recommendations — status: Study Phase. Voluntary AI principles adopted. Mandatory framework expected 2027. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Ohio →AI Study Committee — status: Study Phase. Study committee examining AI impacts on workforce and consumers. Penalty exposure: TBD.
Oklahoma →AI Task Force — status: Study Phase. Governor's AI task force issued recommendations. Legislation expected 2027. Penalty exposure: TBD.
South Carolina →Virginia'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 →Alaska has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state AI law. Remote workforce considerations may affect AI hiring tool compliance.
Alaska →Arkansas has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state-specific AI law. Federal laws apply. Legislature studying AI issues.
Arkansas →Connecticut has no dedicated AI statute on the books. Connecticut has not enacted a comprehensive AI law — its high-risk AI bill (SB 2) passed the Senate but died in the House in 2024 and failed again in 2025. Narrow measures apply: a state-agency AI inventory, an automated-decision opt-out under the Connecticut Data Privacy Act, and (effective July 1, 2026) a duty to disclose when personal data is used to train large language models. Existing consumer-protection and anti-discrimination laws may also apply to AI.
Connecticut →Florida has no dedicated AI statute on the books. Florida has no comprehensive AI statute, but narrow AI laws are in effect: political ads containing deceptive generative-AI depictions of real people must carry a prescribed AI disclaimer (Fla. Stat. 106.145), and creating AI-generated non-consensual intimate imagery is a felony (HB 757). Existing consumer-protection law may also apply to AI-driven decisions.
Florida →Idaho has no dedicated AI statute on the books. Idaho has no comprehensive AI law but has enacted narrow statutes: it criminalizes AI-generated child sexual abuse material and non-consensual explicit deepfakes, lets a misrepresented candidate sue over deceptive AI 'synthetic media' in election ads (H0664), and — effective July 2027 — will require conversational-AI operators to disclose that users are interacting with a machine (SB 1297).
Idaho →Iowa has no dedicated AI statute on the books. Iowa has not enacted a comprehensive AI law. Narrow AI statutes apply: effective July 1, 2027, operators of public-facing conversational AI must disclose that users are interacting with AI, protect minors, and adopt self-harm protocols (SF 2417); and 2024 laws criminalize AI-generated non-consensual intimate imagery and child sexual abuse material. Existing consumer-protection laws may also apply to AI-driven decisions.
Iowa →Maryland has no dedicated AI statute on the books. Maryland has not enacted a comprehensive private-sector AI law. The Artificial Intelligence Governance Act of 2024 (SB 818) directs the Department of Information Technology to set policies for and inventory AI used by state-government units, but imposes no direct private-sector compliance duty. Existing anti-discrimination and consumer-protection laws may apply to AI-driven decisions.
Maryland →Massachusetts has no dedicated AI statute on the books. Massachusetts has not enacted a comprehensive AI law: a bill barring discriminatory automated decision systems in employment and other areas (SD.3007) remains in committee, and the state currently relies on Attorney General Campbell's April 2024 advisory that existing anti-discrimination and consumer-protection laws already apply to AI.
Massachusetts →Mississippi has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state-specific AI law. Federal laws apply. Monitoring federal AI Act developments.
Mississippi →Missouri 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 →Nebraska has no dedicated AI statute on the books. Nebraska has no comprehensive AI law; it criminalized AI/computer-generated child sexual abuse material under LB 383 (2025), while a broad AI Consumer Protection Act (LB 642) and an election-deepfake bill (LB 615) remain pending. Existing consumer-protection laws may also apply to AI-driven decisions.
Nebraska →Nevada has no dedicated AI statute on the books. Nevada has not enacted a comprehensive AI law. Narrow AI statutes are in force: AB 406 restricts using AI to deliver mental or behavioral health care (civil penalties up to $15,000 per incident), and AB 271 requires disclosure of AI-generated 'synthetic media' in election and political advertising. Existing consumer-protection laws may also apply to AI-driven decisions.
Nevada →New Hampshire has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state AI law. Legislature monitoring federal developments.
New Hampshire →North Dakota has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state AI law. Energy sector AI use monitored.
North Dakota →Oregon has no dedicated AI statute on the books. Oregon has not enacted a comprehensive AI law. Its one binding AI statute, SB 1571 (2024), requires disclosure of AI-generated 'synthetic media' in campaign communications (up to $10,000 per instance). An AI Task Force report and 2024 Attorney General guidance apply existing consumer-protection and privacy law to AI but are not new binding rules.
Oregon →South Dakota has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state AI law. Legislature reviewing AI impacts on agricultural sector.
South Dakota →Washington has no dedicated AI statute on the books. Washington has not enacted a comprehensive AI law — its high-risk AI bill (HB 2157) died in committee. Only narrow measures are law, including AI companion-chatbot safeguards (HB 2225) and AI content-provenance disclosure by large providers (HB 1170).
Washington →West Virginia has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state AI law. Existing laws cover some AI-related activities.
West Virginia →Wisconsin has no dedicated AI statute on the books. Wisconsin has not enacted a comprehensive AI law. Under 2023 Wisconsin Act 123, political advertisements containing AI-generated 'synthetic media' must disclose that they 'Contain content generated by AI.' A 2024 Legislative Council Study Committee on the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence reviewed broader AI regulation and recommended future legislation.
Wisconsin →Wyoming has no dedicated AI statute on the books. No state AI law. Business-friendly regulatory environment.
Wyoming →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.
HIPAA applies to AI processing patient data. States mandate disclosures when AI assists diagnosis, billing, or scheduling.
Healthcare across all states →Fair lending laws plus state AI requirements. AI credit decisions need documented bias testing.
Finance & Banking across all states →Highest-risk area. Multiple states mandate bias audits for AI hiring tools. Employee notification required before AI evaluation.
HR & Recruiting across all states →AI underwriting faces fairness requirements. Multiple states investigating AI discrimination in insurance pricing.
Insurance across all states →Federal AI guidance plus state laws create complex compliance landscape. FAR AI provisions apply.
Government Contractor across all states →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.
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.