🔴Illinois HB 3773IN EFFECTUp to ~$70K/violation|🔴Texas TRAIGA (HB 149)IN EFFECTAG-enforced|🔴Utah AI Policy ActIN EFFECT$2,500/violation|⚠️Colorado AI Act (SB 205)Jan 1, 2027AG-enforced|⚠️California SB 942Aug 2, 2026$5K/day|⚠️EU AI Act Art. 50Aug 2, 2026€35M or 7% revenue|⚠️New York RAISE ActJan 1, 2027AG civil penalties|
United States · AlaskaFlag of AlaskaNo Law

AI Laws in Alaska (AK)

No state AI law. Remote workforce considerations may affect AI hiring tool compliance.

Deadline: N/A
Last checked today🕐 26 Aug 2026, 12:17 UTC3 of 4 tracked Alaska records re-checked · last change Apr 22, 2026akleg.gov
4
Records tracked
4
AI bills in the legislature
Map showing the location of Alaska in the United States
Alaska within the United States
No state statute yet

What companies in Alaska need to know about AI compliance

As of 2026-04-22, Alaska has not enacted an AI-specific statute; the Alaska Attorney General office defers to no comprehensive privacy statute; UDAP coverage via Alaska Stat. sec. 45.50.471. Operators across sectors in Alaska watch federal signals first.

The practical effect for Alaska operators: AI compliance risk is driven by federal agencies first, with Alaska Attorney General acting on UDAP residual authority only when consumer harm surfaces.

Federal law still governs Cross-Sector AI in Alaska primarily through FTC Section 5 (15 USC 45) and NIST AI RMF 1.0. Adjacent federal authorities include Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) / NIST Cybersecurity Framework (15 U.S.C. § 6801-6809; NIST CSF 2.0); General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (for EU users) (EU Regulation 2016/679); Section 508 / ADA Title III (Digital Accessibility) (29 U.S.C. § 794(d); 42 U.S.C. § 12181). Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) / NIST Cybersecurity Framework (enforced by Federal Trade Commission; NIST) applies to saas platforms handling personal/financial data via ai must implement nist csf security standards: identify, protect, detect, respond, recover. Penalty exposure: ftc civil penalties up to $100,000/violation; private litigation for data breaches. FTC Operation AI Comply (Sep 2024) targeted five companies across sectors.

The federal and neighboring-state framework that governs your AI operations. Cross-Sector operators in Alaska operate under a federal-dominant framework anchored by FTC Section 5 (15 USC 45) and NIST AI RMF 1.0, with adjacent authorities Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) / NIST Cybersecurity Framework (15 U.S.C. § 6801-6809; NIST CSF 2.0); General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (for EU users) (EU Regulation 2016/679); Section 508 / ADA Title III (Digital Accessibility) (29 U.S.C. § 794(d); 42 U.S.C. § 12181). FTC Operation AI Comply (Sep 2024) targeted five companies across sectors. The practical risk they have to price in is cross-sector FTC Section 5 exposure and state UDAP liability, and the bellwether signal to monitor is NIST AI RMF 1.0 (Jan 2023) is cited as the federal baseline across 30+ agency guidance documents. California -- SB 942 — AI Transparency Act sets the de-facto regional floor. Alaska has not enacted comprehensive AI legislation; most critical AI use cases fall under federal frameworks such as FAA and NOAA guidance. Use this as a starting point; sector pages on this site go deeper into industry-specific obligations.

The enforcement surface for Cross-Sector centres on FTC, CFPB, State Attorneys General, and the statute operators most often under-document is General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (for EU users) (EU Regulation 2016/679) — a gap that surfaces in cross-sector FTC Section 5 exposure disputes. Build an evidence binder covering AI inventory, risk-tier register, incident-response runbook, and board-level AI risk report. Treat NIST AI RMF 1.0 (Jan 2023) is cited as the federal baseline across 30+ agency guidance documents as your leading indicator and escalate when the signal shifts.

Regional pressure comes largely from California, whose SB 942 — AI Transparency Act (Enacted; deadline August 2, 2026; penalty $5,000 per violation; each day is a discrete violation) now sets the practical compliance floor for multi-state operators headquartered in Alaska.

With 11-50 employees you can justify a half-time compliance lead and part-time external counsel on retainer. Small-stage Cross-Sector operators should deploy a named compliance lead, formal AI inventory, quarterly bias spot-checks, and a documented escalation path, with semi-annual internal audit with annual external review and ownership resting with a designated AI compliance lead reporting to the CEO. small-business budgets ($50K-$250K) justify a compliance lead plus a GRC tool such as Credo AI, Fairly, or Holistic AI. For Cross-Sector specifically, the sharpest exposure to manage is cross-sector FTC Section 5 exposure and state UDAP liability. Given Alaska's concentration in natural resources, remote healthcare, and logistics, autonomous marine systems and predictive maintenance for pipeline infrastructure deserve priority in your AI inventory.

Verified 2026-04-22. See https://www.akleg.gov/ for the Alaska Attorney General public record on Alaska AI policy.

Even without a Alaska-specific AI law, federal enforcement from the FTC, EEOC, CFPB, and HHS applies to AI-driven decisions in your state. The in-force federal framework is set out below; the industry pages further down cover sector-specific obligations.

No state AI law — but this federal framework still applies in Alaska

Alaska has not enacted its own AI-specific statute. That does not mean AI is unregulated here: the U.S. federal framework below is in force in Alaska exactly as it is in every other state. Each authority links to its official government source. This is the cross-sector baseline — see the federal AI tracker for bills moving through Congress, and the industry pages below for sector-specific obligations.

Last verified · Jul 5, 2026Sourced from official primary sources (linked below).
FTC Act Section 515 U.S.C. Section 45(a)
Enforced by Federal Trade Commission

Prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. AI-generated marketing content that deceives consumers — synthetic testimonials, undisclosed AI-created imagery, deceptive personalization, dark patterns amplified by AI — is actionable under Section 5.

Penalty exposure: Civil penalties up to $51,744 per violation (2024 CPI-adjusted); consumer redress; disgorgement; algorithmic model-deletion remedies as in the Rite Aid and Everalbum orders
Enforced by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

AI hiring and performance monitoring systems must accommodate individuals with disabilities. Must not eliminate essential job functions or require unnecessary testing.

Penalty exposure: Compensatory and punitive damages; back pay; injunctive relief; up to $100,000 in civil penalties
Enforced by Federal Trade Commission; Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

AI credit and background check systems used in rental decisions must be transparent and non-discriminatory.

Penalty exposure: Actual damages or $100–$1,000 per violation; Class action liability
NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0NIST AI 100-1 (Jan 26, 2023)
Enforced by National Institute of Standards and Technology

Voluntary framework organizing AI risk into Govern, Map, Measure, and Manage functions. A manufacturing-focused profile is under development. Framework is referenced in federal-contractor expectations and in agency best-practice guidance.

Penalty exposure: Not directly enforceable; cited in regulatory actions, contract requirements, and standard-of-care determinations in tort litigation
This is a cross-sector summary, not an exhaustive list. Federal coverage evolves — always confirm current requirements against each official source above and the federal AI bill tracker.
✓ Free · No email · 2 minutes
Does your Alaska business comply with AI laws?
Answer 4 quick questions → get your personalized risk score + action list.
● Live

Recent AI law developments in Alaska

Updated August 26, 2026

Recent news coverage of AI regulation and policy in Alaska. Headlines are aggregated automatically; follow each link for the full story.

The Alaska Story investigation: Another Anthropic connection, as Bill Hill taps Big AI moneyBernt Rostad · CC BY 2.0 · via flickr
The Alaska Story investigation: Another Anthropic connection, as Bill Hill taps Big AI money

Coverage from Alaska Story on AI legislation and regulation relevant to Alaska.

Alaska Story·
Opinion: Donors, distrust and the urgent case for AI regulationBernt Rostad · CC BY 2.0 · via flickr
Opinion: Donors, distrust and the urgent case for AI regulation

Coverage from Anchorage Daily News on AI legislation and regulation relevant to Alaska.

Anchorage Daily News·
Opinion : Artificial intelligence is moving fast while Alaska policy stands stillBold Frontiers · CC BY 2.0 · via flickr
Opinion : Artificial intelligence is moving fast while Alaska policy stands still

Coverage from adn.com on AI legislation and regulation relevant to Alaska.

adn.com·
Pa . attorney general joins states seeking answers from OpenAI after AI security breachweiss_paarz_photos · CC BY-SA 2.0 · via flickr
Pa . attorney general joins states seeking answers from OpenAI after AI security breach

Coverage from fox56.com on AI legislation and regulation relevant to Alaska.

fox56.com·
Map Shows Electricity Costs in Every State as AI Data Centers Surge PricesNeoSpire · CC BY 2.0 · via flickr
Map Shows Electricity Costs in Every State as AI Data Centers Surge Prices

Coverage from newsweek.com on AI legislation and regulation relevant to Alaska.

newsweek.com·
Live · Legislature

AI bills moving through the Alaska legislature

Updated August 26, 2026

AI-related bills currently tracked in the Alaska legislature, updated automatically from Open States and the state legislature's own official record. Follow each link for the official bill text, sponsors, and status history.

HCR 12Suspending Rules 24(c), 35, 41(b), and 42(e), Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature, concerning Senate Bill No. 64, relating to elections; relating to voters; relating to voting; relating to voter registration; relating to election administration; relating to the Alaska Public Offices Commission; relating to campaign contributions; relating to the crimes of unlawful interference with voting in the first degree, unlawful interference with an election, and election official misconduct; relating to synthetic media in electioneering communications; relating to campaign signs; relating to voter registration on permanent fund dividend applications; relating to the Redistricting Board; and relating to the duties of the commissioner of revenue.

(H) FAILED PASSAGE Y23 N16 E1

Open States·
HCR 3AI LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE

(H) FIN

Open States·
SB 2AI, DEEPFAKES, CYBERSECURITY, DATA XFERS

(S) STA

Open States·
SB 33SYNTHETIC MEDIA: LIABILITY; ELECTIONS

(S) STA

Open States·

Applicable laws

No AI-specific lawN/A
By industry

Alaska AI compliance by industry

By company size

AI compliance by company size

Jump to top-risk sectors for your company size

Shortcuts

Quick resources for Alaska

Exposure

Industry risk levels in Alaska

Risk by sector
🏥 HealthcareVery High
🏦 Finance & BankingVery High
💻 Tech & SaaSHigh
🛒 Retail & E-CommerceMedium-High
👔 HR & RecruitingVery High
⚖️ Legal ServicesHigh
📢 Marketing & AdvertisingMedium
🎓 EducationMedium-High
Risk levels based on Alaska AI law requirements and industry-specific regulations
Extraterritorial reach

Do you also serve EU customers?

The EU AI Act applies to any company serving EU customers, even if you're based in Alaska. Penalties reach €35M or 7% of global revenue. Deadline: August 2, 2026.

Elsewhere

Other states with active AI laws

Related resources
Editorial standards

Anchored to the primary government source (statute, bill text, or agency rule) and verified directly against it · Last verified Apr 22, 2026. See our methodology.

Primary sources · Alaska