No LawAI Laws in Massachusetts (MA)
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.
What companies in Massachusetts need to know about AI compliance
Massachusetts remains in the "no dedicated AI law" cohort as of 2026-07-02 — massachusetts legislature has not advanced substantive ai legislation. Operators across sectors in Massachusetts watch federal signals first.
Federal law still governs Cross-Sector AI in Massachusetts 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.
Massachusetts's immediate neighbors also lack AI-specific statutes, so operators defer primarily to federal frameworks until regional precedent emerges.
Because Massachusetts has no dedicated AI statute, regulatory obligations fall back to general consumer-protection statute (UDAP) and federal residual coverage layered with federal sector-specific rules.
The federal and neighboring-state framework that governs your AI operations. Cross-Sector operators in Massachusetts 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. No regional statute applies yet. Massachusetts legislature has not advanced substantive AI legislation. 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.
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 Massachusetts's concentration in its principal industries, core regulated activities deserve priority in your AI inventory.
Verified 2026-07-02. See https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/SD3007 for the Massachusetts Attorney General public record on Massachusetts AI policy.
No state AI law — but this federal framework still applies in Massachusetts
Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts 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.
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.
AI hiring and performance monitoring systems must accommodate individuals with disabilities. Must not eliminate essential job functions or require unnecessary testing.
AI credit and background check systems used in rental decisions must be transparent and non-discriminatory.
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.
Recent AI law developments in Massachusetts
Updated August 23, 2026Recent news coverage of AI regulation and policy in Massachusetts. Headlines are aggregated automatically; follow each link for the full story.
Coverage from PYMNTS.com on AI legislation and regulation relevant to Massachusetts.
Coverage from Crypto Briefing on AI legislation and regulation relevant to Massachusetts.
Coverage from WWLP on AI legislation and regulation relevant to Massachusetts.
Coverage from natlawreview.com on AI legislation and regulation relevant to Massachusetts.
Coverage from Stanford Law School on AI legislation and regulation relevant to Massachusetts.
AI bills moving through the Massachusetts legislature
Updated August 24, 2026AI-related bills currently tracked in the Massachusetts 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.
Senate, October 16, 2025 -- The committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity to whom was referred the petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 46) of Michael O. Moore and James B. Eldridge for legislation relative to the use of artificial intelligence and other software tools in hea…
Committee recommended ought to pass and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means
By Ms. Friedman, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 994) of Cindy F. Friedman and Julian Cyr for legislation to prohibit algorithmic rent setting. Housing.
Accompanied a new draft, see S2983
Accompanied a new draft, see S2983
Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on House Ways and Means
Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means
Accompanied a new draft, see H5222
Accompanied a study order, see H5178
Accompanied a study order, see H5073
Read; and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means
Accompanied a study order, see H5073
New draft substituted, see H5094
Accompanied a study order, see H5066
Reporting date extended to Wednesday, March 18, 2026
Read second and ordered to a third reading
Discharged to the committee on House Rules
By Mr. Barrett, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 187) of Michael J. Barrett for legislation to protect biometric information under the security breach law. Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure.
Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means
By Representative Farley-Bouvier of Pittsfield, a petition (accompanied by bill, House, No. 77) of Tricia Farley-Bouvier and others for legislation to regulate the use of artificial intelligence. Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity.
Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on House Ways and Means
Accompanied H97
By Representatives Rogers of Cambridge and Vargas of Haverhill, a petition (accompanied by bill, House, No. 97) of David M. Rogers and Andres X. Vargas relative to consumers interactions with artificial intelligence systems. Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity.
Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on House Ways and Means
Accompanied a new draft, see H4832
Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means
Referred to the committee on House Rules
By Mr. Montigny, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 1731) of Mark C. Montigny for legislation to promote transparency of facial recognition and driver's license photos. Public Safety and Homeland Security.
Accompanied a study order, see S2798
Accompanied a study order, see S2792
Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means
By Representatives Rogers of Cambridge and Vargas of Haverhill, a petition (accompanied by bill, House, No. 96) of David M. Rogers and Andres X. Vargas relative to the use of biometric recognition technology. Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity.
Accompanied a new draft, see H4746
By Representatives Ramos of Springfield and Rogers of Cambridge, a petition (accompanied by bill, House, No. 1946) of Orlando Ramos, Steven Owens and others for legislation to implement the recommendations of the special commission on facial recognition technology. The Judiciary.
Accompanied a new draft, see H4640
Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on House Ways and Means
By Ms. Creem, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 1053) of Cynthia Stone Creem, Joanne M. Comerford, Rebecca L. Rausch, Michael J. Barrett and others for legislation to implement the recommendations of the special commission on facial recognition technology. The Judiciary.
Hearing scheduled for 07/15/2025 from 01:00 PM-08:00 PM in A-2
By Mr. Fernandes, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 35) of Dylan A. Fernandes and Michael D. Brady for legislation to promote employee physical and mental health and wellbeing by limiting the use of electronic monitoring tools. Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity.
Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means
Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means
Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means
Accompanied a new draft, see S2630
Accompanied a new draft, see S2632
Accompanied a new draft, see S2633
Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means
Referred to the committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity
Referred to the committee on House Rules
Placed on file
Placed on file
Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means
Accompanied S43
Bill reported favorably by committee as changed and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means
Referred to the committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity
Referred to the committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity
Referred to the committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity
Referred to the committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity
Referred to the committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity
House concurred
House concurred
House concurred
House concurred
House concurred
House concurred
Senate concurred
Senate concurred
Senate concurred
Senate concurred
Senate concurred
Senate concurred
Senate concurred
House concurred
House concurred
House concurred
House concurred
Applicable laws
Massachusetts AI compliance by industry
AI compliance by company size
Jump to top-risk sectors for your company size
Quick resources for Massachusetts
Industry risk levels in Massachusetts
Do you also serve EU customers?
The EU AI Act applies to any company serving EU customers, even if you're based in Massachusetts. Penalties reach €35M or 7% of global revenue. Deadline: August 2, 2026.
Other states with active AI laws
Anchored to the primary government source (statute, bill text, or agency rule) and verified directly against it · Last verified Jul 2, 2026. See our methodology.
- ↗malegislature.govhttps://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/SD3007
- ↗mass.govhttps://www.mass.gov/news/ag-campbell-issues-advisory-providing-guidance-on-h…
- ↗mass.govhttps://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-artificial-intellig…