# AI regulatory data brief — A 1-9 person AI investment-advice startup (name withheld)

*Generated 23 August 2026 · engine 2.0.0-phase2 · deterministic rules over retrieved records; no model in this path*

> Automated analysis of public legal data. This states what the data 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.

## Profile this brief was run against

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Sector | Finance & Banking (corpus risk band: Very High) |
| Size | 1-9 employees |
| US states | California |
| Other jurisdictions | none named |
| AI applications | AI claims to investors or in filings; Marketing claims about AI capability; Automated decision-making about people |
| Decision impacts | none named |
| Not supplied | bias_audit, ai_policy, ai_source, countries, decision_impacts |

## At a glance

| | |
|---|---|
| Instruments in force that reach this profile | 6 |
| Instruments enacted but not yet in force | 0 |
| Commencement dates in the next 12 months | 0 |
| Matched enforcement matters in the corpus held | 85 |
| Direction of matched enforcement activity | rising |
| Obligation areas in scope | 2 |
| …of those, with no matched matter in the corpus held | 0 |
| Share of the AI enforcement corpus matching this profile | 34.6% |
| Records in the corpus carrying this company name | 0 |
| Substantive instrument changes on record | 435 |
| Sources behind this brief (stale) | 28 (2) |

## 1. What reaches this company

### In force (6)

- **[SB 942 — AI Transparency Act](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB942)**  
California · in effect from 2 August 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 provided by the instrument:* $5,000 per violation; each day is a discrete violation  
> ⚖ This instrument's text contains a scale threshold — "over 1,000,000 monthly users". The threshold is reproduced as written; whether this company falls inside it is a question of its own numbers and is not determined here.  
*From the instrument's own text, read from the official source:*  
> **SB 942(a)** — “A covered provider shall offer the user the option to include a manifest disclosure in image, video, or audio content, or content that is any combination thereof, created or altered by the covered provider’s GenAI system that meets all of the following criteria:”  
> **SB 942(b)** — “A covered provider shall include a latent disclosure in AI-generated image, video, or audio content, or content that is any combination thereof, created by the covered provider’s GenAI system that meets all of the following criteria:”  
> **SB 942(c)(1)** — “If a covered provider licenses its GenAI system to a third party, the covered provider shall require by contract that the licensee maintain the system’s capability to include a disclosure required by subdivision”  
*Quoted from the instrument's text — wording unchanged, whitespace normalised. 3 of 62 provisions in the document matched; read the full instrument at the link above.*
- **[Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act § 1002 (Fair Lending)](https://www.consumerfinance.gov/fair-lending/)**  
United States (federal) · 15 U.S.C. § 1691 · Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Federal Reserve; OCC · no commencement date recorded in the corpus  
AI-based lending decisions cannot discriminate based on protected characteristics (race, color, religion, national origin, sex). Requires validation for disparate impact.  
*Penalty provided by the instrument:* Up to $100,000 per violation; individual damages; enforcement by CFPB  
*The instrument's text was read at analysis time — The source was read, but no provision in it both imposed a duty and mentioned the subject matter of this profile. See the source above for the full text.*
- **[Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)](https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/privacy-security/gramm-leach-bliley-act)**  
United States (federal) · 15 U.S.C. § 1681 · Federal Trade Commission; Consumer Financial Protection Bureau · in effect from 26 October 1970  
AI credit decisioning systems must be transparent, fair, and non-discriminatory. Consumers have the right to dispute AI-generated decisions and request explanations.  
*Penalty provided by the instrument:* Actual damages or $100–$1,000 per violation; Class action liability for systemic bias  
*The instrument's text was read at analysis time — The source was read, but no provision in it both imposed a duty and mentioned the subject matter of this profile. See the source above for the full text.*
- **[FINRA AI Governance Rules](https://www.finra.org/)**  
United States (federal) · FINRA Regulatory Notices (guidance, not enforceable rule) · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · no commencement date recorded in the corpus  
AI algorithms in trading, compliance monitoring, and customer service must be tested for bias, explainability, and accuracy. Requires human oversight and audit trails.  
*Penalty provided by the instrument:* Not directly enforceable; violations may trigger SEC/SRO enforcement for related consumer protection breaches  
*Source tier:* secondary  
*The instrument's text was read at analysis time — The source was read, but no provision in it both imposed a duty and mentioned the subject matter of this profile. See the source above for the full text.*
- **[Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)](https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/privacy-security/gramm-leach-bliley-act)**  
United States (federal) · 15 U.S.C. § 6801-6809 · Federal Trade Commission; OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC · in effect from 12 November 1999  
AI systems handling financial data must implement privacy safeguards and secure transmission. Non-public personal information (NPPI) cannot be shared with third parties without consent.  
*Penalty provided by the instrument:* Civil penalties up to $100,000 per violation; criminal penalties up to $15,000 and imprisonment  
*The instrument's text was read at analysis time — The source was read, but no provision in it both imposed a duty and mentioned the subject matter of this profile. See the source above for the full text.*
- **[Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5 (Insider Trading & Fraud)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-II/part-240/section-240.10b-5)**  
United States (federal) · 17 CFR § 240.10b-5 · Securities and Exchange Commission · no commencement date recorded in the corpus  
AI trading algorithms must not facilitate insider trading or market manipulation. Must disclose material AI risks and performance limitations to investors.  
*Penalty provided by the instrument:* Disgorgement of profits; civil penalties up to $5M; bar from securities industry  
*The instrument's text was read at analysis time — The source was read, but no provision in it both imposed a duty and mentioned the subject matter of this profile. See the source above for the full text.*

**Confidence: HIGH** — High — multiple records, primary sources

*Basis:* Rule-based resolution over the curated statute corpora. Every instrument is retrieved, never generated.

## 2. Dates on the record

No instrument reaching this profile has a future commencement date recorded in the corpus.

### Already in effect (3)

Commencement dates that have passed. This records when each instrument came into effect; it is not a statement about anything this company has or has not done.

| Date | Instrument | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|
| 2 August 2026 | [SB 942 — AI Transparency Act](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB942) | California |
| 12 November 1999 | [Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)](https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/privacy-security/gramm-leach-bliley-act) | United States (federal) |
| 26 October 1970 | [Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)](https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/privacy-security/gramm-leach-bliley-act) | United States (federal) |

### Applicable, no provable date (3)

Listed rather than dated. A commencement date is only printed where the corpus carries one.

- [Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act § 1002 (Fair Lending)](https://www.consumerfinance.gov/fair-lending/) — the corpus carries no effective date for this instrument
- [FINRA AI Governance Rules](https://www.finra.org/) — the corpus carries no effective date for this instrument
- [Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5 (Insider Trading & Fraud)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-II/part-240/section-240.10b-5) — the corpus carries no effective date for this instrument

**Confidence: LOW** — Low — thin evidence, usable as a pointer only

*Basis:* Dates carried by finding 1. No date is asserted that the corpus does not carry or that the parser could not extract verbatim.

*Limits of this finding:*
- 3 applicable instrument(s) carry no provable commencement date and are listed separately rather than dated.

## 3. Enforcement activity in this area

### Direction

**RISING.** 23 matched matters in the 12 months to 23 August 2026, against 11 in the 12 months before that (change +12, 109.1%).


| Agency, current window | Matters |
|---|---|
| Austria data protection authority | 11 |
| France data protection authority (CNIL) | 4 |
| FTC | 3 |
| CourtListener (court docket) | 2 |
| New Jersey Attorney General | 2 |
| California Privacy Protection Agency | 1 |


| Agency, previous window | Matters |
|---|---|
| FTC | 6 |
| Austria data protection authority | 2 |
| France data protection authority (CNIL) | 1 |
| New Jersey Attorney General | 1 |
| Texas Attorney General | 1 |

### Sources present in only one window

These lanes contributed to one comparison window and nothing to the other. Where that happens, part of the difference between the two windows is which sources this product had collected, not what regulators did.

| Source | Last 12 months | Previous 12 months | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| CourtListener (court docket) | 2 | 0 | absent from the prior window |

*6% of the compared matters come from these one-sided lanes.*

### Total matched, all time

85 matched matters. A total across the whole corpus, with no time window. It shows how much matched enforcement EXISTS; it is not evidence of a change in activity and must never be read as one.

Of these, 83 carry a provable date and 2 do not; the dated ones run from 16 July 2015 to 4 August 2026 across 15 distinct months.


| Agency | Matters |
|---|---|
| Austria data protection authority | 37 |
| France data protection authority (CNIL) | 27 |
| FTC | 10 |
| New Jersey Attorney General | 3 |
| SEC | 3 |
| CourtListener (court docket) | 2 |
| California Attorney General | 1 |
| California Privacy Protection Agency | 1 |
| Texas Attorney General | 1 |


| AI application matched | Matters |
|---|---|
| automated_decision | 65 |
| deceptive_ai_claim | 17 |


| Type of matter | Matters |
|---|---|
| enforcement_action | 75 |
| administrative_proceeding | 7 |
| civil_litigation | 2 |
| investigation | 1 |

**Confidence: MEDIUM** — Medium — real records with a stated limitation

*Basis:* Matter counts from the enforcement corpus, windowed on the earliest proven date per matter. A trend is only graded when the reliability gate passes.

*Limits of this finding:*
- 6% of the compared matters come from sources present in only one of the two windows (CourtListener (court docket)), so part of the difference reflects source coverage rather than enforcement activity.

## 4. Actions brought against comparably positioned companies

### Monetary relief recorded

| | |
|---|---|
| Lowest | $175,000 |
| Median | $930,000 |
| Highest | $12,750,000 |
| Matters with an amount recorded | 7 of 85 matched |

*Covers the 7 matched matters that record a monetary amount, out of 85 matched. Matters recording no amount are not zero-valued; the corpus simply holds no figure for them. Duplicate rows are excluded, so no settlement is counted twice.*

### Kinds of relief imposed

| Relief | Times recorded |
|---|---|
| Monetary | 21 |
| Injunctive | 7 |

### Matters (25 of 85 shown)

#### [In the Matter of 1010 Digital Works LLC, a limited liability company](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/242-3033-1010-digital-works-llc-matter)
FTC · United States · administrative proceeding · status: pending · earliest recorded date 21 May 2026 · docket 242 3033

The FTC will require Cox Media Group, MindSift, and 1010 Digital Works to pay a total of $930,000 to settle allegations they deceived customers by falsely claiming to offer an AI-powered service that could target localized ads based on conversations captured from consumers’ smart devices and that consumers had opted into such targeting.

*Relief:* Monetary $930,000

*Matched on:* ai_role, sector (AI application: deceptive_ai_claim)

#### [In the Matter of CMG Media Corporation](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/242-3029-cmg-media-corporation-matter)
FTC · United States · administrative proceeding · status: pending · earliest recorded date 21 May 2026 · docket 242 3029

The FTC will require Cox Media Group, MindSift, and 1010 Digital Works to pay a total of $930,000 to settle allegations they deceived customers by falsely claiming to offer an AI-powered service that could target localized ads based on conversations captured from consumers’ smart devices and that consumers had opted into such targeting

*Relief:* Monetary $930,000

*Matched on:* ai_role, sector (AI application: deceptive_ai_claim)

#### [In the Matter of MINDSIFT LLC, a limited liability company](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/242-3030-mindsift-llc-matter)
FTC · United States · administrative proceeding · status: pending · earliest recorded date 21 May 2026 · docket 242 3030

The FTC will require Cox Media Group, MindSift, and 1010 Digital Works to pay a total of $930,000 to settle allegations they deceived customers by falsely claiming to offer an AI-powered service that could target localized ads based on conversations captured from consumers’ smart devices and that consumers had opted into such targeting.

*Relief:* Monetary $930,000

*Matched on:* ai_role, sector (AI application: deceptive_ai_claim)

#### [When It Comes to Data Privacy, Consumers Must Be in the Driver’s Seat: Attorney General Bonta, Partners Secure $12.75 Million General Motors Privacy Settlement](https://privacy.ca.gov/2026/05/when-it-comes-to-data-privacy-consumers-must-be-in-the-drivers-seat-attorney-general-bonta-partners-secure-12-75-million-general-motors-privacy-settlement/)
CPPA · California · enforcement action · status: unknown · earliest recorded date 8 May 2026

OAKLAND, CA — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, together with San Francisco County District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman, Napa County District Attorney Allison Haley, and Sonoma County District Attorney Carla Rodriguez, and with support from the California Privacy Protection Agency (CalPrivacy), today announced a settlement with General Motors (GM) regarding its illegal sale of hundreds of thousands of Californians’ location and driving data to two data brokers in violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and California’s Unfair Competition Law. The settlement, which is subject to court approval, includes $12.75 million in civil penalties and strong injunctive terms, including restrictions on its use of consumer driving data and a ban on such data being sold to data brokers. “General Motors sold the data of California drivers without their knowledge or consent and despite numerous statements reassuring drivers that it would not do so. This trove of information included precise and personal location data that could identify the everyday habits and movements of Californians,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Today

*Cited:* California Consumer Privacy Act; CCPA; Delete Act

*Relief:* Monetary $12.75 Million

*Matched on:* home_jurisdiction

#### [ACCESSIBE INC., a corporation, and ACCESSIBE LTD., a limited liability company.](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/2223156-accessibe-inc)
FTC · United States · administrative proceeding · status: pending · earliest recorded date 3 January 2025 · docket 2223156

In January 2025, the FTC announced a complaint and proposed order require software provider accessiBe to pay $1 million to settle allegations that it misrepresented the ability of its AI-powered web accessibility tool to make any website compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) for people with disabilities. The Commission approved the order as final in April 2025.

*Relief:* Monetary $1 million

*Matched on:* ai_role, sector (AI application: deceptive_ai_claim)

#### [SEC: Global Predictions Inc. — settled](https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-36)
SEC · federal · enforcement action · status: consent order · earliest recorded date 18 March 2024

SEC · settled · Global Predictions Inc. · $175,000 · 2024-03-18

*Cited:* Investment Advisers Act (Marketing Rule)

*Relief:* Monetary $175,000

*Matched on:* ai_role, sector (AI application: deceptive_ai_claim)

*Withheld pending data cleanup:* forum_name — the matter is reported in full otherwise.

#### [SEC: Rimar Capital USA Inc., Rimar Capital LLC — Itai Liptz, Clifford Boro — settled](https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-167)
SEC · federal · enforcement action · status: consent order

SEC · settled · Rimar Capital USA Inc., Rimar Capital LLC — Itai Liptz, Clifford Boro · $310,000 toplam ceza · 2024-10-10

*Cited:* Federal securities laws antifraud provisions

*Relief:* Monetary $310,000 toplam ceza

*Matched on:* ai_role, sector (AI application: deceptive_ai_claim)

*Withheld pending data cleanup:* forum_name — the matter is reported in full otherwise.

#### [Wistisen v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited (1:26-cv-06654)](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73716399/wistisen-v-alibaba-group-holding-limited/)
COURTLISTENER · federal · civil litigation · status: pending · earliest recorded date 4 August 2026 · docket 1:26-cv-06654

District Court, S.D. New York · 1:26-cv-06654 · filed 2026-08-04 · 850 Securities/Commodities

*Cited:* 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

*Matched on:* statute (statute: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5 (Insider Trading & Fraud))

#### [Yappi v. Wix.com Ltd. (1:26-cv-08852)](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73670545/yappi-v-wixcom-ltd/)
COURTLISTENER · federal · civil litigation · status: pending · earliest recorded date 24 July 2026 · docket 1:26-cv-08852

District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1:26-cv-08852 · filed 2026-07-24 · 850 Securities/Commodities

*Cited:* 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

*Matched on:* statute (statute: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5 (Insider Trading & Fraud))

#### [Délibération de la formation restreinte n°SAN-2026-008 du 26 mai 2026 concernant la société IQVIA OPERATIONS FRANCE](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/cnil/id/CNILTEXT000054136834)
FR-CNIL · France · enforcement action · status: closed · earliest recorded date 26 May 2026 · docket SAN-2026-008

*Matched on:* ai_role (AI application: automated_decision)

#### [Acting AG Davenport Demands Immediate Action from xAI to Stop Production of Nonconsensual Intimate Images and Child Sexual Abuse Material](https://www.njoag.gov/acting-ag-davenport-demands-immediate-action-from-xai-to-stop-production-of-nonconsensual-intimate-images-and-child-sexual-abuse-material/)
NJ-AG · New Jersey · enforcement action · status: unknown · earliest recorded date 26 January 2026

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ module_class=”press-rel” _builder_version=”4.5.0″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.5.0″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” custom_margin=”-3vh||||false|false” custom_margin_tablet=”” custom_margin_phone=”-4vh||5vh||false|false” custom_margin_last_edited=”on|phone”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.27.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”] Bipartisan Multistate Coalition Tells Grok It Must Stop Abusive and Illegal AI Images [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”1_2,1_2″ _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin_tablet=”” custom_margin_phone=”||5vh||false|false” custom_margin_last_edited=”on|phone”][et_pb_column type=”1_2″ _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_text content_last_edited=”off|desktop” admin_label=”2026-OAG” _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default” text_font_size=”14px” text_line_height=”1.4em” header_5_font_size=”14px” header_6_font=”|700|||||||” header_6_font_size=”15px”] For Immediate Release: January 26, 2026 Office of the Attorney General – Jennifer Davenport, Acting Attorney General [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″ _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_text content_tablet=” For Further Information: Media Inquiries- Allison Inserro OAGpress@njoag.gov ” content_phone=” For Further Information: Media Inquiries- Allison Inserro OAGpress@njoag.gov ” content_last_edited=”on|desktop” admin_label=”2026 – Allison Inserro” _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”||||||||” text_font_size=”14px” text_line_height=”1.3em” header_line_height=”1.2em” header_6_font_size=”15px” text_orientation=”right”] For Further Information: Media Inquiries- Allison Inserro OAGpress@njoag.gov [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default” ul_text_color=”#3e3e3e”] View Letter TRENTON – Acting Attorney General Jennifer Davenport announced today that she is partnering with a bipartisan coalition of 35 attorneys general to demand immediate answers from platform xAI on how it intends to stop the widespread production of deepfake nonconsensual intimate images, including intimate images of young children, that are generated by xAI’s AI chatbot and then shared on social media. In the letter, Acting Attorney General Davenport and the coalition of attorneys general explain that Grok, the AI chatbot on X, has produced and enabled the dissemination of disturbing intimate images of real people, including children. The attorneys general are demanding that the company take immediate measures to halt the production of nonconsensual intimate images and child sexual abuse material. As the letter explains, Acting Attorney General Davenport and the coalition are troubled by reports of deepfake intimate images that continue to proliferate on the platform—notwithstanding xAI’s attempts to assure the public that it is addressing the problem. “Protecting our children, including on social media and other online platforms, is a top priority for my office. It is frankly sickening that xAI has enabled the widespread production and distribution of intimate or sexually explicit images, including of young children,” said Acting Attorney General Davenport. “xAI must take immediate action to put a halt to the deeply disturbing behavior they have enabled on their platform. Let me be clear: As Acting Attorney General, I will hold tech companies accountable when they violate the law and put profits over the well-being of our children.” As the chief law enforcement officers of their states, the attorneys general raise serious concerns that Grok’s outputs may violate state and federal civil and criminal laws governing nonconsensual intimate images, the creation and distribution of child sexual abuse material, and the legal remedies available to victims. The coalition asks xAI to promptly inform the attorneys general how it intends to: Take all necessary measures to ensure that Grok is no longer capable of producing NCII (including nonconsensual images that fall short of depicting full nudity or graphic sexual conduct but depict people in bikinis, underwear, revealing clothing, or suggestive poses) and child sexual abuse material (CSAM); Eliminate such content that has already been produced; Suspend users that have created these materials; Where applicable, report these creators and users to the relevant authorities; Grant X users control over whether their content can be edited by Grok, including at a minimum the ability to easily prohibit the @Grok account from responding to their posts or editing their images when prompted by another user; and Ensure that safeguards recently announced by xAI do not merely place the creation of nonconsensual intimate images behind a paywall, but actually mitigate its production throughout X and the Grok platform. Governor Mikie Sherrill and Acting Attorney General Davenport are deeply committed to ensuring that New Jersey remains a national leader in protecting children. On her first day in office, Governor Sherrill signed an executive order that creates a new office within the Department of Health to coordinate efforts to keep kids safe online and directs all state agencies with jurisdiction over issues pertaining to children and their interaction with technology platforms to prioritize children’s mental health outcomes. The letter to xAI builds on other ongoing efforts to protect New Jerseyans from harm online. Building on a bipartisan letter sent by the office in December 2025 to 13 major tech companies, Acting Attorney General Davenport is also co-leading a bipartisan multistate coalition of attorneys general demanding that these tech companies stop their AI-powered chatbots and software from engaging in harmful interactions with users following reports of chatbots having sexually explicit conversations with children, encouraging self-harm, spurring violence, and more. In addition to New Jersey, the letter to xAI was signed by the Attorneys General of North Carolina, Connecticut, Utah, and Pennsylvania, as well as American Samoa, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, U.S. Virgin Islands, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. ### [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

*Matched on:* ai_role, sector (AI application: deceptive_ai_claim)

#### [Datenschutzbehörde 2026-0.018.391](https://ogd.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Dsk&Dokumentnummer=DSBT_20260109_2026_0_018_391_00)
AT-DSB · Austria · enforcement action · status: closed · earliest recorded date 9 January 2026 · docket 2026-0.018.391

*Matched on:* ai_role (AI application: automated_decision)

#### [Délibération de la formation restreinte n° SAN-2025-017 du 30 décembre 2025 concernant la société X](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/cnil/id/CNILTEXT000053391342)
FR-CNIL · France · enforcement action · status: closed · earliest recorded date 30 December 2025 · docket SAN-2025-017

*Matched on:* ai_role (AI application: automated_decision)

#### [Datenschutzbehörde 2025-0.395.497](https://ogd.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Dsk&Dokumentnummer=DSBT_20251215_2025_0_395_497_00)
AT-DSB · Austria · enforcement action · status: closed · earliest recorded date 15 December 2025 · docket 2025-0.395.497

*Matched on:* ai_role (AI application: automated_decision)

#### [Délibération de la formation restreinte n° SAN – 2025-014 du 11 décembre 2025 concernant la société MOBIUS SOLUTIONS LTD](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/cnil/id/CNILTEXT000053048614)
FR-CNIL · France · enforcement action · status: closed · earliest recorded date 11 December 2025 · docket SAN-2025-014

*Matched on:* ai_role (AI application: automated_decision)

#### [AG Platkin Leads Bipartisan Coalition Demanding That Tech Companies Put a Stop to Harmful AI Chatbots](https://www.njoag.gov/ag-platkin-leads-bipartisan-coalition-demanding-that-tech-companies-put-a-stop-to-harmful-ai-chatbots/)
NJ-AG · New Jersey · enforcement action · status: unknown · earliest recorded date 10 December 2025

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ module_class=”press-rel” _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”-2vh||||false|false” custom_margin_tablet=”” custom_margin_phone=”||3vh||false|false” custom_margin_last_edited=”on|phone”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default”] AG Platkin Leads Coalition of 42 AGs Calling on Tech Leaders to Implement Critical Safeguards to Protect Consumers from Harmful AI Chatbot Software [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”1_2,1_2″ _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_column type=”1_2″ _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_text content_last_edited=”off|desktop” admin_label=”2025-OAG” _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default” text_font_size=”14px” text_line_height=”1.4em” header_5_font_size=”14px” header_6_font=”|700|||||||” header_6_font_size=”15px”] For Immediate Release: December 10, 2025 Office of the Attorney General – Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″ _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_text content_tablet=” For Further Information: Media Inquiries- Allison Inserro, OAGpress@njoag.gov ” content_phone=” For Further Information: Media Inquiries- Allison Inserro, OAGpress@njoag.gov ” content_last_edited=”on|phone” admin_label=”2023 – OAG-Allison-Inserro-Release Right” _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”||||||||” text_font_size=”14px” text_line_height=”1.3em” header_line_height=”1.2em” header_6_font_size=”15px” text_orientation=”right”] For Further Information: Media Inquiries- Allison Inserro, OAGpress@njoag.gov [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.5.0″ _module_preset=”default”] View Letter TRENTON – Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin announced today that he is leading a bipartisan coalition of 42 attorneys general in demanding that 13 tech companies stop their AI-powered chatbots and software from engaging in harmful interactions with users following reports of chatbots having sexually explicit conversations with children, encouraging self-harm, spurring violence, and more. “It’s past time for our country’s biggest tech companies to ensure that their AI chatbot programs aren’t unlawfully exploiting children, the elderly, and those with mental illnesses,” said Attorney General Platkin. “As the chief law enforcement officers in our states, we must take action to protect the public from sycophantic and delusional behavior by software that risks breaking a host of criminal and civil laws. I’m proud to be leading a bipartisan coalition of 42 attorneys general in standing up for our residents, demanding answers from major tech companies, and ensuring that they don’t put profits over the well-being of our residents.” As the letter explains, AI chatbots may suffer from the problems of sycophancy and delusional outputs. Sycophancy refers to when an AI model single-mindedly pursues human approval, and may produce overly flattering or agreeable responses, validating doubts, fueling anger, urging impulsive actions, or reinforcing negative emotions in unintended ways. Delusional output refers to an output that is either false or likely to mislead the user, and includes anthropomorphic, or human-like, outputs. The letter cites the tragic case of Thongbue Wongbandue, a 76-year-old resident of Piscataway, who died on March 28, 2025, as a result of complications suffered from a fall while attempting to travel to New York City after an AI chatbot convinced him he was talking to a real woman over a series of conversations on Facebook Messenger, owned by Meta Platforms. The AI chatbot invited Wongbandue to “meet” at a fake New York City address. The attorneys general also noted other cases in their states, including the death of a 35-year-old Florida resident; the suicide of a 14-year-old Florida resident; the murder-suicide of a 56-year-old Connecticut resident and his 83-year-old mother; the suicide of a 16-year-old California resident; domestic violence incidents; incidents of poisoning; hospitalizations for psychosis; and other delusional spirals. These incidents have affected children, the elderly, and those with existing mental illness. Today’s letter from a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general was sent to Anthropic, Apple, Chai AI, Character Technologies, Google, Luka, Meta, Microsoft, Nomi AI, OpenAI, Perplexity AI, Replika, and xAI. The letter outlines numerous safeguards that should be implemented by these companies to protect the public, including robust safety testing, recall procedures, and clear warnings to consumers. The attorneys general request a response from these companies by January 16, 2026. In addition to Attorney General Platkin, the letter was co-sponsored by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday, and West Virginia Attorney General John B. McCuskey. Other states and territories signing onto the letter are Alaska, Alabama, American Samoa, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming. ### [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

*Matched on:* ai_role, sector (AI application: deceptive_ai_claim)

#### [Datenschutzbehörde 2025-0.317.107](https://ogd.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Dsk&Dokumentnummer=DSBT_20251114_2025_0_317_107_00)
AT-DSB · Austria · enforcement action · status: closed · earliest recorded date 14 November 2025 · docket 2025-0.317.107

*Matched on:* ai_role (AI application: automated_decision)

#### [Datenschutzbehörde 2025-0.923.556](https://ogd.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Dsk&Dokumentnummer=DSBT_20251114_2025_0_923_556_00)
AT-DSB · Austria · enforcement action · status: closed · earliest recorded date 14 November 2025 · docket 2025-0.923.556

*Matched on:* ai_role (AI application: automated_decision)

#### [Datenschutzbehörde 2025-0.914.457](https://ogd.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Dsk&Dokumentnummer=DSBT_20251110_2025_0_914_457_00)
AT-DSB · Austria · enforcement action · status: closed · earliest recorded date 10 November 2025 · docket 2025-0.914.457

*Matched on:* ai_role, sector (AI application: automated_decision)

#### [Datenschutzbehörde 2025-0.682.914](https://ogd.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Dsk&Dokumentnummer=DSBT_20251103_2025_0_682_914_00)
AT-DSB · Austria · enforcement action · status: closed · earliest recorded date 3 November 2025 · docket 2025-0.682.914

*Matched on:* ai_role, sector (AI application: automated_decision)

#### [Datenschutzbehörde 2025-0.119.280](https://ogd.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Dsk&Dokumentnummer=DSBT_20251027_2025_0_119_280_00)
AT-DSB · Austria · enforcement action · status: closed · earliest recorded date 27 October 2025 · docket 2025-0.119.280

*Matched on:* ai_role (AI application: automated_decision)

#### [Datenschutzbehörde 2025-0.818.263](https://ogd.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Dsk&Dokumentnummer=DSBT_20251015_2025_0_818_263_00)
AT-DSB · Austria · enforcement action · status: closed · earliest recorded date 15 October 2025 · docket 2025-0.818.263

*Matched on:* ai_role (AI application: automated_decision)

#### [Datenschutzbehörde 2025-0.328.963](https://ogd.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Dsk&Dokumentnummer=DSBT_20251014_2025_0_328_963_00)
AT-DSB · Austria · enforcement action · status: closed · earliest recorded date 14 October 2025 · docket 2025-0.328.963

*Matched on:* ai_role, sector (AI application: automated_decision)

#### [Datenschutzbehörde 2025-0.355.103](https://ogd.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Dsk&Dokumentnummer=DSBT_20250925_2025_0_355_103_00)
AT-DSB · Austria · enforcement action · status: closed · earliest recorded date 25 September 2025 · docket 2025-0.355.103

*Matched on:* ai_role, sector (AI application: automated_decision)

#### [Datenschutzbehörde 2025-0.271.604](https://ogd.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Dsk&Dokumentnummer=DSBT_20250905_2025_0_271_604_00)
AT-DSB · Austria · enforcement action · status: closed · earliest recorded date 5 September 2025 · docket 2025-0.271.604

*Matched on:* ai_role, sector (AI application: automated_decision)

**Confidence: MEDIUM** — Medium — real records with a stated limitation

*Basis:* Real matters with source URLs, de-duplicated to one row per source document.

*Limits of this finding:*
- 3 entr(y/ies) have one or more display fields withheld pending cleanup; the matter itself is unaffected.

## 5. Obligation areas with no matched matter on record

Read this as a statement about the record, in one direction only: these are areas this profile sits in where the enforcement corpus this product holds contains no matched matter. It is neither an assurance nor a warning — an area can be empty because little has been brought, or because our coverage of it is thin.

### Matched matters on record (2)

- **Automated decision-making disclosure** — 65 matched matters, listed in section 4.
- **AI capability claims (marketing and investor)** — 17 matched matters, listed in section 4.

### What this was measured against

Corpus held on the run date: 246 matters, of which 85 matched this profile and 83 of those carry a provable date. Computed against the enforcement corpus this product holds, on the run date. It is not a statement about US enforcement in general, and absence here is absence of a record, not absence of risk.

**Confidence: MEDIUM** — Medium — real records with a stated limitation

*Basis:* Set difference between the obligation areas this company is in and the areas with a matched matter in the corpus we hold.

## 6. This company in the AI enforcement corpus

No matter in the AI enforcement corpus carries this name. The corpus holds 246 AI matters, so this is a statement about that corpus and not about the company's litigation history generally.

**Confidence: NONE** — Not established — see the limits below

*Basis:* Tiered name match against published organisation parties and matter captions in the AI enforcement corpus.

*Limits of this finding:*
- no records under this finding

## 7. How much of AI enforcement sits in this area

**85 of 246 matters (34.6%)** in the AI enforcement corpus match this profile.

Within those, Austria data protection authority accounts for 37 of 85 matched matters (43.5%); the most-represented AI application among them is automated_decision (65 of 85).


| Agency | Matters | Share of matched |
|---|---|---|
| Austria data protection authority | 37 | 43.5% |
| France data protection authority (CNIL) | 27 | 31.8% |
| FTC | 10 | 11.8% |
| New Jersey Attorney General | 3 | 3.5% |
| SEC | 3 | 3.5% |
| CourtListener (court docket) | 2 | 2.4% |
| California Attorney General | 1 | 1.2% |
| California Privacy Protection Agency | 1 | 1.2% |


| AI application | Matters | Share of matched |
|---|---|---|
| automated_decision | 65 | 76.5% |
| deceptive_ai_claim | 17 | 20% |


| Jurisdiction | Matters | Share of matched |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 37 | 43.5% |
| France | 27 | 31.8% |
| United States | 9 | 10.6% |
| federal | 6 | 7.1% |
| New Jersey | 3 | 3.5% |
| California | 2 | 2.4% |
| Texas | 1 | 1.2% |


| Type of matter | Matters | Share of matched |
|---|---|---|
| enforcement_action | 75 | 88.2% |
| administrative_proceeding | 7 | 8.2% |
| civil_litigation | 2 | 2.4% |
| investigation | 1 | 1.2% |

*All-time, with no time dimension. It shows how the matched matters are distributed, not whether activity is increasing. The flow question belongs to finding 3, which has its own reliability gate.*

*Computed over the 246 canonical matters this product holds on the run date. A share here reflects both what regulators have done and what this corpus covers; the two cannot be separated from inside the data, and neither is reported as the other.*

**Confidence: HIGH** — High — multiple records, primary sources

*Basis:* Share of matched matters over the canonical AI enforcement corpus. Stock, not flow.

## 8. What moved in these instruments

435 substantive revisions in the jurisdictions on this profile. A further 0 revisions touched only our own metadata (source URL, cached payload) and are excluded as records of re-reading rather than of legal change.

### Substantive revisions (30 of 435 shown)

| Instrument | Jurisdiction | What changed | Now | Date of record | Seen by us |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [AB 1651 — State Bar of California: artificial intelligence.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1651) | California | legislative status, lifecycle stage, in-force flag, record date | Chaptered · in_force | 22 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [AB 1018 — Automated decision systems.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1018) | California | record date | Amended Senate · pending | 21 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [SB 1000 — California AI Transparency Act.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1000) | California | record date | Amended Assembly · pending | 21 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [AB 2713 — California AI Transparency Act: system provenance data.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2713) | California | legislative status, record date | Amended Senate · pending | 21 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [SB 903 — Mental health professionals: artificial intelligence.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB903) | California | record date | Amended Assembly · pending | 21 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [SB 947 — Employment: automated decision systems.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB947) | California | record date | Amended Assembly · pending | 21 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [AB 2392 — Public postsecondary education: generative artificial intelligence systems: procurement standards: training.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2392) | California | record date | Amended Senate · pending | 21 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [AB 2575 — Health care services: artificial intelligence.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2575) | California | record date | Amended Senate · pending | 21 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [AB 2392 — Public postsecondary education: generative artificial intelligence systems: procurement standards: training.](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2392) | California | legislative status, record date, summary | Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading. · pending | 21 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [SB 903 — Mental health professionals: artificial intelligence.](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB903) | California | legislative status, record date, summary | Ordered to third reading. · pending | 21 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [SB 947 — Employment: automated decision systems.](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB947) | California | legislative status, record date, summary | Ordered to third reading. · pending | 21 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [AB 1018 — Automated decision systems.](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1018) | California | legislative status, record date, summary | Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading. · pending | 21 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [AB 2575 — Health care services: artificial intelligence.](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2575) | California | legislative status, record date, summary | Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading. · pending | 21 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [AB 1018 — Automated decision systems.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1018) | California | record date | Amended Senate · pending | 21 August 2026 | 22 August 2026 |
| [SB 903 — Mental health professionals: artificial intelligence.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB903) | California | record date | Amended Assembly · pending | 21 August 2026 | 22 August 2026 |
| [AB 2575 — Health care services: artificial intelligence.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2575) | California | record date | Amended Senate · pending | 21 August 2026 | 22 August 2026 |
| [AB 2713 — California AI Transparency Act: system provenance data.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2713) | California | legislative status, record date | Amended Senate · pending | 21 August 2026 | 22 August 2026 |
| [SB 1000 — California AI Transparency Act.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1000) | California | record date | Amended Assembly · pending | 21 August 2026 | 22 August 2026 |
| [SB 947 — Employment: automated decision systems.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB947) | California | record date | Amended Assembly · pending | 21 August 2026 | 22 August 2026 |
| [AB 2392 — Public postsecondary education: generative artificial intelligence systems: procurement standards: training.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2392) | California | record date | Amended Senate · pending | 21 August 2026 | 22 August 2026 |
| [AB 1609 — Customer service chatbots.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1609) | California | record date | Amended Senate · pending | 20 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [AB 1979 — Health care services: artificial intelligence.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1979) | California | record date | Amended Senate · pending | 20 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [SB 1159 — Artificial intelligence: transparency and governance.](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1159) | California | legislative status, record date, summary | Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 37. Noes 0.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. · pending | 20 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [AB 2504 — Community colleges: artificial intelligence: pilot program.](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2504) | California | legislative status, record date, summary | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. · pending | 20 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [AB 1979 — Health care services: artificial intelligence.](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1979) | California | legislative status, record date, summary | Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading. · pending | 20 August 2026 | 23 August 2026 |
| [AB 1609 — Customer service chatbots.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1609) | California | record date | Amended Senate · pending | 20 August 2026 | 22 August 2026 |
| [AB 1979 — Health care services: artificial intelligence.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1979) | California | record date | Amended Senate · pending | 20 August 2026 | 22 August 2026 |
| [SB 1159 — Artificial intelligence: transparency and governance.](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1159) | California | legislative status, record date, summary | Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 37. Noes 0.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. · pending | 20 August 2026 | 22 August 2026 |
| [AB 2575 — Health care services: artificial intelligence.](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2575) | California | legislative status, record date, summary | Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading. · pending | 20 August 2026 | 22 August 2026 |
| [AB 1979 — Health care services: artificial intelligence.](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1979) | California | legislative status, record date, summary | Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading. · pending | 20 August 2026 | 22 August 2026 |

*observed_at is when THIS PRODUCT saw the revision, not when the change was made. It is reported as such and no rate or trend is derived from it. Ordering uses the instrument's own record_date where one exists.*

*The revision log was read up to 4000 rows, most-recently-observed first, and that ceiling was reached. Older revisions exist and were not examined, so this is the recent tail of the log rather than its whole history.*

**Confidence: MEDIUM** — Medium — real records with a stated limitation

*Basis:* Substantive-field revisions only (status, lifecycle, in-force, dates, text). Metadata churn excluded.

*Limits of this finding:*
- The revision log was read up to 4000 rows, most-recently-observed first, and that ceiling was reached. Older revisions exist and were not examined, so this is the recent tail of the log rather than its whole history.

## 9. Freshness of the data behind this brief

28 sources cover the jurisdictions on this profile. 26 are reading normally; 2 are past their own silence threshold and 2 have never returned a successful read. Findings drawn from a stale or never-read source are limited by that, and the affected sources are named below rather than averaged into a single freshness figure.

### Sources not reading normally

| Source | Authority | Jurisdiction | State | Last successful read | Recorded reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CourtListener / RECAP federal dockets | courtlistener | federal | never succeeded | never | enforcement adapter not implemented: courtlistener-recap — add an entry to ENF_ADAPTERS in scripts/enforcement/lib/enf-adapters.mjs |
| SEC EDGAR filings | SEC | federal | never succeeded | never | HTTP 404 |

### Sources reading normally that carry nothing for this profile

These feeds are being read successfully and have produced no matter matching this profile. That is a measured absence, not a gap in collection — the distinction matters, because an empty section states neither.

| Source | Authority | Last successful read |
|---|---|---|
| CFPB — Enforcement Actions | CFPB | 23 August 2026 |
| DOJ press releases (term-scoped archive) | DOJ | 23 August 2026 |
| EEOC — newsroom | EEOC | 23 August 2026 |

*In scope: 28 sources. Healthy 26 · stale 2 · never succeeded 2 · reading but carrying nothing for this profile 3. A further 234 sources cover jurisdictions not on this profile and 119 are disabled; neither group is shown.*

**Confidence: MEDIUM** — Medium — real records with a stated limitation

*Basis:* Per-source ingest health, using the silence threshold each source declares for itself in the database.

*Limits of this finding:*
- 2 in-scope source(s) are past their own silence threshold, and findings drawn from them are limited by that.
- 3 in-scope source(s) are reading normally and carry no matter matching this profile — a measured absence rather than a collection gap, listed by name.
- 2 in-scope source(s) have never returned a successful read, so the jurisdictions they cover may be under-represented throughout this brief.

## 10. This sector against the others

Finance & Banking carries 30 of 246 canonical matters (12.2%), placing it 4 of 15 mapped sectors. Matters count toward every sector they touch, so these shares overlap.

| Sector | Matters | Share of corpus |
|---|---|---|
| Tech & SaaS | 197 | 80.1% |
| Legal Services | 167 | 67.9% |
| Retail & E-Commerce | 31 | 12.6% |
| Finance & Banking ← | 30 | 12.2% |
| Insurance | 30 | 12.2% |
| Healthcare | 23 | 9.3% |
| Marketing & Advertising | 16 | 6.5% |
| Media & Entertainment | 7 | 2.8% |

**Confidence: MEDIUM** — Medium — real records with a stated limitation

*Basis:* Share of the canonical enforcement corpus attributable to each sector, by law-domain branch.

*Limits of this finding:*
- A matter counts toward every sector it touches, so these shares overlap and do not sum to 100%.

## 11. Where the exposure sits

| State | Binding now | Commencing | Matched matters | State’s matters in corpus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 |

*Federal instruments reach every state on this profile and are counted once here rather than repeated per state. Federal instruments reaching this company: 5.*

**Confidence: MEDIUM** — Medium — real records with a stated limitation

*Basis:* State-layer instruments from finding 1, matched matters by the matter's own jurisdiction. Federal instruments counted once, not per state.

## 12. Where federal and state authority overlap

5 federal and 1 state instrument(s) reach this company at the same time. That is an overlap of authority, not a finding of conflict: whether two instruments conflict, and which would prevail, is a legal conclusion a court reaches and is not something this data can establish.

**Federal instruments**

- [Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act § 1002 (Fair Lending)](https://www.consumerfinance.gov/fair-lending/)
- [Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)](https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/privacy-security/gramm-leach-bliley-act)
- [FINRA AI Governance Rules](https://www.finra.org/)
- [Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)](https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/privacy-security/gramm-leach-bliley-act)
- [Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5 (Insider Trading & Fraud)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-II/part-240/section-240.10b-5)

**State instruments**

- [SB 942 — AI Transparency Act](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB942) — California

**Confidence: LOW** — Low — thin evidence, usable as a pointer only

*Basis:* Instrument layer within the applicable set. No per-application mapping is invented.

*Limits of this finding:*
- Overlap of authority is established; whether the instruments CONFLICT, and which would prevail, is a legal conclusion this data cannot reach.

## 13. What is moving

0 dated commencement(s) and 354 bill(s) whose status moved. Every row is something that already exists and already carries the date or status shown — none of it is a forecast.

| When | Kind | Instrument | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9 July 2025 | in legislature | [AB 1405 — Artificial intelligence: auditors: enrollment.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1405) | California |
| 17 July 2025 | in legislature | [SB 833 — Critical infrastructure: artificial intelligence systems: hum](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB833) | California |
| 4 September 2025 | in legislature | [SB 503 — Health care services: artificial intelligence.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB503) | California |
| 5 September 2025 | in legislature | [AB 1018 — Automated decision systems.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1018) | California |
| 20 March 2026 | in legislature | [AB 1898 — Workplace artificial intelligence tools.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1898) | California |
| 9 April 2026 | in legislature | [AB 2027 — Worker data: prohibitions: artificial intelligence.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2027) | California |
| 21 April 2026 | in legislature | [AB 2583 — Office of Small Business Advocate: artificial intelligence.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2583) | California |
| 23 April 2026 | in legislature | [AB 2169 — Social media platforms: artificial intelligence models.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2169) | California |
| 23 April 2026 | in legislature | [AB 2653 — State contracts: report: modern foundation models and associ](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2653) | California |
| 11 June 2026 | in legislature | [SCR 82 — Public higher education: artificial intelligence usage.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SCR82) | California |
| 25 June 2026 | in legislature | [SB 1159 — Artificial intelligence: transparency and governance.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1159) | California |
| 30 June 2026 | in legislature | [AB 2545 — Report: labor force impact: artificial intelligence.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2545) | California |
| 30 June 2026 | in legislature | [AB 2504 — Community colleges: artificial intelligence: pilot program.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2504) | California |
| 30 June 2026 | in legislature | [AB 412 — Generative artificial intelligence: training data: copyrighte](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB412) | California |
| 30 June 2026 | in legislature | [AB 2392 — Public postsecondary education: generative artificial intell](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2392) | California |
| 1 July 2026 | in legislature | [AB 2656 — Public employees: notice: artificial intelligence performing](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2656) | California |
| 2 July 2026 | in legislature | [SB 1106 — Agentic artificial intelligence.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1106) | California |
| 2 July 2026 | in legislature | [SB 947 — Employment: automated decision systems.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB947) | California |
| 2 July 2026 | in legislature | [AB 1979 — Health care services: artificial intelligence.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1979) | California |
| 2 July 2026 | in legislature | [SB 903 — Mental health professionals: artificial intelligence.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB903) | California |
| 5 August 2026 | in legislature | [AB 1651 — State Bar of California: artificial intelligence.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1651) | California |
| 13 August 2026 | in legislature | [SB 813 — California Artificial Intelligence Standards and Safety Commi](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB813) | California |
| 13 August 2026 | in legislature | [AB 2575 — Health care services: artificial intelligence.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2575) | California |
| 13 August 2026 | in legislature | [SCR 82 — Relative to artificial intelligence in public higher educatio](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SCR82) | California |
| 13 August 2026 | in legislature | [SB 867 — Toys: companion chatbots.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB867) | California |

*Nothing in this table is a forecast. Each row reports a date or a status already on the record; a bill that is moving may never become law.*

**Confidence: MEDIUM** — Medium — real records with a stated limitation

*Basis:* Future-dated commencements from finding 2 plus pending bills whose status moved. Nothing here forecasts an outcome.

*Limits of this finding:*
- 354 row(s) are bills that have NOT become law and may never; only the movement is a fact.

---

## Method and limits

**No AI guesswork. Every finding is computed deterministically from primary sources and linked to them. No language model interprets the law.**

This brief is generated by rule from records held in the AI Law Tracker corpora. deterministic rules over retrieved records; no model in this path. Findings are reproducible: the same profile against the same data produces the same brief.

### Methodology

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.

**Where the data comes from.** 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.

**How a company is matched to the record.** 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.

**How the instrument text is read.** 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.

**When the engine declines to answer.** 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.

**What is not in the pipeline.** 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.


**Scope**

- Corporate only. Nothing in this engine scores, profiles or evaluates an individual person.
- Company and case questions are answered from the AI enforcement corpus, which is scoped to AI matters and is not a general litigation search.
- Coverage is the United States plus the foreign jurisdictions named in the profile, limited to the AI-law corpus this product maintains.
- Enforcement findings are computed against the matters this product holds on the run date, which is not the universe of US enforcement.

**Enforcement corpus state at run time**

- Read: live
- Matters held: 246; matched to this profile: 85; duplicate rows excluded: 0
- Match axes available: ai_role, statute, home_jurisdiction, sector
- The statute axis matches the verbatim citation_text on each matter, not its linked corpus record: matter_laws links resolve only to USC title level, which is too coarse to establish that two parties were charged under the same provision.

**Data sources available to this run**

- AI enforcement matters: available — alt-enforcement · v_public_matters and its export views
- Curated AI statute corpus: available — src/data/laws.js and src/data/federalContext.js
- Instrument change history: available — main ALT · legal_records_history
- Source health ledger: available — alt-enforcement · v_source_health
- US case-law party lookup: available. AI-vertical opinion corpus: 37 opinions confirmed against their own full text, 431 recorded citations, and 7 further row(s) held back for review because their text carries no AI term. Identified from CourtListener cluster metadata, so it covers cases whose metadata names the subject — it is not a complete index of every US opinion touching AI.

**What this product does not do**

- No risk score, rating, ranking or profile of an identified or identifiable natural person.
- No score, tier or rate factor intended to price or select an insurance risk.
- No sale, export or onward supply of personal data, and no building of a person-keyed dataset.
- No unsolicited approach to a LAWYER or firm offering to sell what the engine found in a specific matter they are acting in. Telling a COMPANY what the public record shows about its own sector, its own states, and its own matters is ordinary marketing and is allowed.

> Automated analysis of public legal data. This states what the data 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.