EnglishEspañol
AI LawsLegal Information

AI Laws and Regulation in the United States (2026)

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of August 20, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed September 23, 202612 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 20, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 20, 2026. · 15 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

AI Laws and Regulation in the United States (2026)

The United States regulates AI through executive orders, targeted federal statutes, and state laws rather than a single federal framework. The TAKE IT DOWN Act (P.L. 119-12), signed May 2025, became the first federal law directly targeting AI-generated content, while 38 states enacted roughly 100 AI measures in 2025 alone.

Artificial intelligence regulation in the United States is evolving at an unprecedented pace. While Congress has not passed a comprehensive federal AI law, a patchwork of executive orders, targeted federal statutes, and aggressive state-level legislation is shaping how AI systems can be developed, deployed, and used across the country.

This guide covers the current state of AI regulation at every level of government, from federal executive orders and the NIST framework to state-specific laws governing everything from deepfakes to automated hiring decisions.

AI Regulation Timeline

Key milestones in AI development and regulation. Filter by category to focus on what matters to you.

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

Today

Timeline data is updated regularly. Click any milestone to expand details.

Federal AI Regulation

The federal approach to AI regulation has swung dramatically between administrations, leaving businesses and developers navigating an uncertain landscape.

Biden's AI Executive Order (2023)

On October 30, 2023, President Biden signed Executive Order 14110, titled "Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence." The order directed over 50 federal entities to take more than 100 specific actions across eight policy areas, including AI safety, innovation, worker protections, equity, and privacy.

Key provisions included requiring companies training AI models above certain computational thresholds to report to the federal government under Defense Production Act authority. The order directed NIST to develop safety guidelines and red-teaming standards, and required federal agencies to designate Chief AI Officers.

EO 14110 represented the most sweeping federal action on AI to date, but it remained an executive order rather than legislation, making it vulnerable to reversal by a future president.

Trump Revokes and Replaces (2025)

On January 23, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14179, "Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence," revoking Biden's EO 14110 on his first day in office. The new order declared U.S. policy to "sustain and enhance America's global AI dominance" and shifted the federal stance from safety oversight to deregulation and innovation.

Trump followed with EO 14365 on December 11, 2025, titled "Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence." This order directly targets state AI laws by:

  • Establishing a DOJ AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state AI laws on constitutional and preemption grounds
  • Directing the Secretary of Commerce to identify state laws deemed "problematic" within 90 days
  • Threatening to withhold federal broadband funding (BEAD Program) from states with conflicting AI rules
  • Directing the FTC and FCC to consider federal standards that could preempt state-level regulations

Legal scholars note that an executive order cannot override state law without congressional action or a court ruling. States retain their regulatory authority unless and until Congress acts or courts strike down specific laws.

Executive order document with official seal on desk, representing federal AI policy

TAKE IT DOWN Act (P.L. 119-12)

The TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed on May 19, 2025, is the first federal law directly regulating AI-generated content. The law criminalizes the nonconsensual publication of intimate images, including AI-generated deepfakes.

Criminal penalties under the Act:

OffenseAdultsMinors
Publishing intimate images/deepfakesUp to 2 yearsUp to 3 years
Threatening to publishUp to 18 monthsUp to 30 months

Covered platforms must establish notice-and-takedown processes and remove reported content within 48 hours. The platform compliance deadline is May 19, 2026 (one year from enactment). The FTC enforces violations as unfair or deceptive acts under the FTC Act.

One Big Beautiful Bill Act (July 2025)

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025, originally contained a 10-year moratorium on state and local AI regulation. The Senate stripped this provision in a 99-1 vote on July 1, 2025, preserving states' authority to regulate AI.

AI provisions that survived in the final law focus on defense and military applications. These include $450 million for naval shipbuilding AI and autonomous robotics, $250 million for AI ecosystem advancement through the Department of Defense, $250 million for Cyber Command AI expansion, and $200 million for DOD financial audit automation using AI.

NIST AI Risk Management Framework

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has published the most influential federal AI guidance through its voluntary framework:

DocumentPublishedStatus
AI RMF 1.0January 26, 2023Final
AI 600-1 (Generative AI Profile)July 26, 2024Final
IR 8596 (Cyber AI Profile)December 16, 2025Draft

The AI RMF 1.0 provides a voluntary framework for managing AI risks. Texas HB 149 gives it legal weight: a defendant is shielded from liability if it discovered the violation through an internal review process while substantially complying with the NIST Generative AI Profile or another nationally or internationally recognized AI risk management framework.

State AI Laws: A 50-State Patchwork

State legislatures have moved aggressively to regulate AI where Congress has not. In 2025, all 50 states plus Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands introduced AI legislation. Thirty-eight states enacted roughly 100 AI-related measures that year.

Colorado: First Comprehensive State AI Law

Colorado SB 24-205, the Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence Act, was signed on May 17, 2024. It was the first state law to broadly regulate AI systems that make "consequential decisions" affecting consumers.

The law defines high-risk AI as any system that makes or substantially factors into decisions about employment, education, financial services, healthcare, housing, insurance, or legal services.

Key requirements include:

  • Developers must use "reasonable care" to prevent algorithmic discrimination
  • Deployers must implement risk management policies and conduct annual impact assessments
  • Consumers must be notified when AI makes consequential decisions about them
  • Discovered algorithmic discrimination must be disclosed to the Attorney General within 90 days

The original CAIA was repealed before it ever took effect: Governor Polis signed SB 26-189 on May 14, 2026, replacing it with a narrower Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT) Act that takes effect January 1, 2027, with violations treated as deceptive trade practices under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The act creates no new private right of action, and it expressly provides that compliance with its requirements is not a defense to noncompliance with any other applicable law.

California: Multiple AI Laws Take Effect

California has enacted several targeted AI statutes rather than a single comprehensive law:

SB 53 (Frontier AI Safety): Signed September 29, 2025. Requires large frontier AI developers to publish safety frameworks, report critical safety incidents to the Office of Emergency Services within 15 days, and protect whistleblowers who disclose catastrophic risks. Civil penalties up to $1 million per violation.

SB 942 (AI Transparency Act): Operative August 2, 2026. AB 853, approved by the Governor October 13, 2025, delayed the chapter's original January 1, 2026 start date. Providers with over 1 million monthly California users must offer free AI detection tools and embed machine-readable disclosure metadata in AI-generated content. Penalties of $5,000 per violation per day. AB 853 also phases in added duties: large online platforms and generative AI system hosting platforms from January 1, 2027, and capture device manufacturers from January 1, 2028.

AB 2013 (Training Data Disclosure): Effective January 1, 2026. Developers must publicly document training datasets, including data types, copyright status, and whether personal information was used.

FEHA AI Employment Rules: Effective October 1, 2025. The California Civil Rights Department requires employers to audit AI tools used in hiring, preserve ADS-related records for four years, and maintains employer liability for discriminatory AI used by vendors or third parties.

Deepfake detection interface on smartphone, representing AI content verification tools

Texas: TRAIGA

Texas HB 149, the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act, took effect January 1, 2026. The law prohibits AI systems designed to manipulate human behavior, discriminate against protected classes, produce child exploitation material, or infringe constitutional rights.

Penalties range from $10,000 to $12,000 per curable violation and $80,000 to $200,000 per uncurable violation, with daily penalties of $2,000 to $40,000 for continuing violations. The Texas Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority.

The law also creates the Texas AI Council (7 members appointed by the governor) and a regulatory sandbox allowing 36-month testing periods. A defendant cannot be held liable if it discovered the violation through an internal review process while substantially complying with the NIST Generative AI Profile or another nationally or internationally recognized AI risk management framework.

Illinois: AI and Employment Discrimination

Illinois HB 3773 (Public Act 103-0804), effective January 1, 2026, amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to make it a civil rights violation to use AI that discriminates based on protected classes in employment decisions.

The law specifically prohibits using zip codes as a proxy for race in predictive analytics. Employers must notify employees and applicants when AI is used for employment decisions, including recruitment, hiring, promotion, and discharge.

New York City: Automated Hiring Tool Audits

NYC Local Law 144, enforced since July 5, 2023, requires employers using automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) to obtain independent bias audits annually, testing for disparate impact based on sex, ethnicity, and race.

Employers must notify candidates at least 10 business days before using an AEDT and disclose which job qualifications the tool assesses. Violations carry penalties of $500 for first offenses and $500 to $1,500 for subsequent violations, with each day of non-compliant use counted as a separate violation.

Deepfake Laws Across the States

Deepfake regulation has expanded faster than any other AI policy area. As of mid-2025, 47 states have enacted deepfake legislation. Only Alaska, Missouri, and Ohio lack deepfake laws. In 2025 alone, states enacted 64 new deepfake-related laws, a 23% increase over 2024.

State deepfake laws generally fall into two categories:

Sexually explicit deepfakes: 46 states address nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, up from 32 at the start of 2025. California leads with 18 deepfake-related statutes, followed by Texas (10), New York (8), and Utah (8).

Election deepfakes: 28 states regulate AI-generated content in political communications. The issue gained urgency in March 2026 when the National Republican Senatorial Committee released a fully AI-generated video of a Texas Senate candidate, intensifying the national debate over AI in elections.

Election ballot with magnifying glass, representing AI deepfake laws targeting political content

AI in Employment

AI-powered hiring tools, resume screeners, and employee monitoring systems are subject to growing regulation. Multiple jurisdictions now require employers to audit, disclose, or limit how AI factors into employment decisions.

JurisdictionLawEffectiveKey Requirement
New York CityLocal Law 144Jul 2023Annual independent bias audit
CaliforniaFEHA AI RulesOct 2025Bias testing, 4-year record retention
IllinoisHB 3773Jan 2026Civil rights violation for discriminatory AI
ColoradoSB 26-189 (ADMT Act, replaced SB 24-205)Jan 2027Consumer notice and disclosure for automated decision-making technology
TexasHB 149Jan 2026Prohibits intentional AI discrimination

California's rules are the most detailed, banning discriminatory automated decision systems in employment and requiring proactive bias testing, human oversight, and four-year record retention of AI audit data. Illinois takes a broader approach by treating AI discrimination as a standard civil rights violation under the Human Rights Act.

Resume with stamp mark and laptop showing candidate profile, representing AI in employment decisions

Healthcare AI Regulation

In 2025, 47 states introduced healthcare AI bills, making it the most legislatively active healthcare topic at the state level.

Texas leads with SB 1188 (effective September 1, 2025), requiring healthcare practitioners to disclose AI use in diagnosis and treatment and imposing civil penalties of $5,000 to $250,000 per violation.

California's AB 3030 (effective January 1, 2025) requires health facilities to notify patients when generative AI communicates clinical information, with specific formatting rules for written, chat, audio, and video communications. AB 489 (effective January 2026) prohibits AI systems from implying users are receiving care from licensed providers unless that oversight actually exists.

At the federal level, the FDA has authorized 1,451 cumulative AI/ML-enabled medical devices through 2025, with 2025 setting a record of 295 device clearances. Radiology accounts for 76% of all authorized AI medical devices.

Stethoscope beside tablet with diagnostic interface, representing AI regulation in healthcare

Federal vs. State: The Preemption Battle

The dominant AI policy story of 2025-2026 is the tension between federal deregulation and state regulation.

The Trump administration's December 2025 executive order (EO 14365) directly targets state AI laws, with the Colorado AI Act called out by name. The order creates mechanisms to challenge state laws through litigation, conditional funding, and potential federal standards that could override state rules.

However, executive orders cannot repeal state statutes. That requires either an act of Congress or a court ruling. The Senate's 99-1 vote in July 2025 to strip the AI moratorium from the Big Beautiful Bill demonstrates bipartisan resistance to federal preemption of state AI authority.

States continue to legislate aggressively despite the federal pressure. The result is a regulatory patchwork that creates compliance challenges for companies operating across state lines, but also ensures that AI oversight continues even without federal legislation.

AI in Government and the DOGE Controversy

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has deployed AI tools to review an estimated 200,000 federal regulations, claiming to recommend cuts to roughly 100,000 of them. The initiative claims a 93% reduction in labor hours for regulatory review.

Federal agencies including the GSA have deployed generative AI chatbots using models from Anthropic and Meta. However, House Democrats have raised concerns about unauthorized AI use, data security breaches, and the potential for AI systems to misinterpret statutes when making deregulatory recommendations.

The debate over AI in government operations highlights a broader tension: while AI can increase efficiency and reduce costs, deploying it for consequential government decisions raises questions about accountability, transparency, and due process.

What to Watch in 2026

Several developments will shape AI regulation through the rest of 2026:

Colorado's AI law, now the narrower Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT) Act under SB 26-189 after the original CAIA was repealed before taking effect, is set to begin enforcement January 1, 2027.

TAKE IT DOWN Act platform compliance kicks in May 19, 2026, requiring social media platforms to establish deepfake removal systems.

EU AI Act transparency rules, including chatbot disclosure and deepfake labelling, take effect August 2, 2026. The Act's high-risk requirements were pushed back by the July 2026 Digital Omnibus to December 2, 2027 for Annex III systems and August 2, 2028 for AI built into regulated products, and both dates influence U.S. companies with global operations.

2026 midterm elections will test state deepfake laws as AI-generated campaign content becomes increasingly common.

Federal AI legislation may advance as the Trump administration issues legislative recommendations for a federal framework, though bipartisan consensus on the scope of federal AI law remains elusive.

State-by-State AI Laws

Select a state for its specific AI laws and regulations:

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a federal AI law in the United States?

There is no comprehensive federal AI law as of 2026. The TAKE IT DOWN Act (P.L. 119-12), signed May 2025, is the first federal law directly regulating AI-generated content, specifically nonconsensual intimate deepfakes. Federal AI policy is otherwise driven by executive orders and voluntary NIST frameworks rather than legislation.

Which states have AI laws?

All 50 states, Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have introduced AI legislation. In 2025, 38 states enacted roughly 100 AI-related measures. Colorado, California, Texas, Illinois, and New York have the most significant enacted AI laws, covering everything from algorithmic discrimination to deepfakes to AI in employment.

What is the Colorado AI Act?

Colorado SB 24-205, signed May 2024, was the first comprehensive state AI law in the United States. It would have regulated high-risk AI systems making consequential decisions in employment, education, healthcare, housing, insurance, and financial services, requiring algorithmic discrimination prevention, impact assessments, and consumer notification. It was repealed before ever taking effect: Governor Polis signed SB 26-189 on May 14, 2026, replacing it with a narrower Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT) Act focused on consumer notice and disclosure, effective January 1, 2027.

Can employers use AI for hiring decisions?

Employers can use AI in hiring, but face growing restrictions. NYC Local Law 144 requires annual independent bias audits of automated hiring tools. California FEHA rules (effective October 2025) require bias testing and four-year record retention. Illinois HB 3773 (effective January 2026) makes discriminatory AI use in employment a civil rights violation. Colorado's original AI Act would have required impact assessments for AI used in employment decisions, but that law was repealed before taking effect; its replacement (SB 26-189, effective January 1, 2027) requires consumer notice rather than impact assessments.

Are deepfakes illegal in the United States?

Deepfakes are regulated at both the federal and state level. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act criminalizes nonconsensual intimate deepfakes with up to 3 years imprisonment. At the state level, 47 states have enacted deepfake legislation: 46 states address sexually explicit deepfakes and 28 states regulate deepfakes in political communications.

What is the TAKE IT DOWN Act?

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (P.L. 119-12), signed May 19, 2025, is the first federal law targeting AI-generated content. It criminalizes the nonconsensual publication of intimate images, including AI deepfakes, with penalties of up to 2 years for adults and 3 years for minors. Platforms must remove reported content within 48 hours and establish notice-and-takedown systems by May 19, 2026.

Can the federal government override state AI laws?

An executive order alone cannot override state law. President Trump's December 2025 EO 14365 attempts to preempt state AI regulation through litigation, conditional funding, and federal standards, but states retain their regulatory authority unless Congress passes preemptive legislation or courts strike down specific state laws. The Senate voted 99-1 in July 2025 to reject a proposed 10-year federal moratorium on state AI regulation.

What is the NIST AI Risk Management Framework?

The NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0), published January 26, 2023, is a voluntary federal framework for managing AI risks. It has become influential because state laws build on it. Under Texas's TRAIGA (HB 149), a defendant is shielded from liability if it discovered the violation through an internal review process while substantially complying with the NIST Generative AI Profile or another recognized AI risk management framework. Colorado's replacement ADMT Act (SB 26-189) contains no comparable provision and states that compliance with it is not a defense to any other applicable law.

Updates

Corrected the start date of California's AI Transparency Act to August 2, 2026 after AB 853 delayed it, added AB 853's later phase-in dates, noted in the key takeaways that Colorado's original AI Act was repealed before taking effect, and removed an incorrect statement that Colorado's replacement law gives organizations a NIST-based affirmative defense.

AI Act dates updated for the July 2026 Digital Omnibus (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744): high-risk obligations now apply 2 December 2027 for Annex III systems and 2 August 2028 for AI built into regulated products, while the 2 August 2026 transparency date is unchanged.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Updated Colorado AI Act coverage: SB 24-205 was repealed and replaced by SB 26-189 (2026) before taking effect.

Corrected: the original Colorado AI Act (SB 24-205) was repealed and reenacted by SB 26-189 (signed May 14, 2026) as a narrower Automated Decision-Making Technology Act, now effective January 1, 2027, not June 30, 2026.

Initial publication covering federal AI regulation (EO 14110, EO 14179, EO 14365, TAKE IT DOWN Act), state laws (Colorado, California, Texas, Illinois, NYC), deepfake legislation across 47 states, employment AI rules, healthcare AI regulation, and NIST frameworks.

Reviewed and approved by an editor

State-by-state comparison

Each state guide below is paired with the governing statute our editors adjudicated for it, held in our own legal record and verified against the official source.

StateStatute citedCourt citations
AlabamaCode of Alabama 1975, Title 17: Elections. § 17-5-16.1 — Distribution of Materially Deceptive Media to Influence an…—
AlaskaAlaska Statutes, Title 11: Criminal Law (Ch. 61, Offenses Against Public Order) § 11.61.122 — Possession of generated obscene child sexual abuse material—
ArizonaArizona Revised Statutes, Title 16 (Elections and Electors), Chapter 7 (PENAL PROVISIONS), Article 1 (General Provisions) § 16-1023 — Digital impersonation of candidate or other person; relief;…—
Arkansas——
CaliforniaCalifornia Business and Professions Code § 22757.12—
ColoradoColorado Revised Statutes, Title 6 (Consumer and Commercial Affairs), Article 1, Part 17: Automated Decision-Making Technology in Consequential Decisions § 6-1-1704 — Deployer disclosures - point-of-interaction notice - public…—
Connecticut——
DelawareDelaware Code, Title 29 (State Government), Chapter 090c (DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION) § 9041C — Purpose [Expires July 17, 2034, pursuant to 84 Del. Laws,…—
District of Columbia——
Florida——
GeorgiaOfficial Code of Georgia Annotated § 16-11-90 — Prohibition on nude or sexually explicit electronic…6 opinions · latest 2023
HawaiiHawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 711: OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER § 711-1110.9 — Violation of privacy in the first degree7 opinions · latest 2026
Idaho——
IllinoisIllinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 775, Act 5 (Illinois Human Rights Act) § 2-102 — Civil rights violations; employment—
IndianaIndiana Code, TITLE 35. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE § 35-45-4-8 — Distribution of an intimate image—
IowaIowa Code, Chapter 708: ASSAULT § 708.7 — Harassment.100 opinions · latest 2026
KansasKansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 21: CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS § 21-5510 — Sexual exploitation of a child.23 opinions · latest 2026
KentuckyKentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 42: FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION CABINET § 42.731 — Duties of Artificial Intelligence Governance Committee --…—
LouisianaLouisiana Revised Statutes § 14:73.13 — Unlawful deepfakes—
MaineMaine Revised Statutes, Title 10: COMMERCE AND TRADE, Part 3: REGULATION OF TRADE, Chapter 241: COMMUNICATIONS WITH CONSUMERS VIA ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE § 1500-DD — Required disclosure of use of artificial intelligence…—
MarylandMaryland Code, State Finance and Procurement Article § 3.5-804—
Massachusetts——
MichiganMichigan Compiled Laws § 168.932f — Distribution of materially deceptive media; prohibition;…—
MinnesotaMinnesota Statutes, Chapter 609: CRIMINAL CODE § 609.771 — USE OF DEEP FAKE TECHNOLOGY TO INFLUENCE ELECTION1 opinions · latest 2026
Mississippi——
MissouriRevised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII: Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders, Chapter 573 § 573.570 — Disclosure of an intimate digital depiction, offense of —…—
MontanaMontana Code Annotated, Title 2 § 2-10-204 — Right To Compute—
Nebraska——
Nevada——
New HampshireNew Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LXII CRIMINAL CODE, CHAPTER 638 FRAUD § 638:26-a — Fraudulent Use of Deepfakes.—
New JerseyNew Jersey Statutes (Unannotated) § 2C:21-17.8 — Definitions, "deepfake", deceptive audio, visual media,…—
New MexicoNew Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Chapter 1 § 1-19-26.8 — Prohibited use of materially deceptive media; disclaimers…—
New YorkNew York General Business Law § 1421 — Transparency requirements—
North CarolinaNorth Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 14: Criminal Law. § 14-190.5A — Disclosure of private images; civil action—
North Dakota——
OhioOhio Revised Code § 3301.24 — Artificial intelligence policy—
OklahomaOklahoma Statutes, Title 21: CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS § 1040.13b — Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual—
OregonOregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 260: Campaign Finance Regulation; Election Offenses § 260.268 — Campaign communication to disclose use of synthetic media;…—
PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) § 4101.1 — Digital forgery—
Rhode IslandRhode Island General Laws, Title 17: Elections, Chapter 17-30: Deceptive and Fraudulent Synthetic Media in Election Communications § 17-30-1 — Deceptive synthetic media—
South CarolinaSouth Carolina Code of Laws, Title 16: CRIMES AND OFFENSES § 16-15-332 — Disseminating intimate images without consent—
South DakotaSouth Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 12-26: OFFENSES AGAINST THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE § 12-26-33 — Deepfake--Use in election--Penalty.—
TennesseeTennessee Code Annotated, Title 47, Chapter 25, Part 11: Protection of Personal Rights (Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act of 2024) § 47-25-1105 — Unauthorized use prohibited10 opinions · latest 2019
TexasTexas Business & Commerce Code § 552.056 — UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION—
UtahUtah Code, Title 13: Commerce and Trade § 13-77-103 — Required disclosures.—
VermontVermont Statutes Annotated, Title 3: Executive, Chapter 69: Division of Artificial Intelligence § 5022 — Division of Artificial Intelligence—
VirginiaCode of Virginia, Title 18.2: Crimes and Offenses Generally § 18.2-386.2 — Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penalty—
WashingtonRevised Code of Washington § 9A.86.030 — Disclosing fabricated intimate images.—
West VirginiaWest Virginia Code § 61-8C-3 — Distribution and exhibiting of material depicting minors…1 opinions · latest 2009
WisconsinWisconsin Statutes, Chapter 11: Campaign Financing § 11.1303 — Attribution of political contributions, disbursements and…—
WyomingWyoming Statutes, Title 6 - Crimes and Offenses - Chapter 4: Offenses Against Morals, Decency and Family - Article 3: Obscenity § 6-4-307 — Unlawful distribution of nonconsensual synthetic sexual…—

Each statute shown is the same adjudicated anchor its state guide renders, independently verified against primary sources. A dash means not yet adjudicated in our record — never that no law exists.

Sources and References

  1. Executive Order 14110 on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy AI(nist.gov).gov
  2. Executive Order 14179: Removing Barriers to American Leadership in AI(whitehouse.gov).gov
  3. EO 14365: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for AI(federalregister.gov).gov
  4. TAKE IT DOWN Act (S.146)(congress.gov).gov
  5. NCSL: Artificial Intelligence 2025 Legislation(ncsl.org)
  6. Colorado SB 24-205: Consumer Protections for AI(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  7. California SB 53: Frontier AI Safety(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
  8. California SB 942: AI Transparency Act(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
  9. California AB 2013: Training Data Disclosure(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
  10. Texas HB 149: Responsible AI Governance Act(capitol.texas.gov).gov
  11. NYC Automated Employment Decision Tools(nyc.gov).gov
  12. NIST AI Risk Management Framework(nist.gov).gov
  13. California AB 3030: Healthcare AI Disclosure(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
  14. FDA AI/ML Software as Medical Device(fda.gov).gov
  15. State Deepfake Legislation Tracker(news.ballotpedia.org)
  16. 47 States Introduced Healthcare AI Bills in 2025(beckershospitalreview.com)
  17. Colorado SB 26-189 (Automated Decision-Making Technology Act — repeals and reenacts SB 24-205)(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  18. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 of 8 July 2026 amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Digital Omnibus on AI), OJ L 2026/1744, 24.7.2026(eur-lex.europa.eu).gov
  19. California AB 853 (2025): delays the California AI Transparency Act to August 2, 2026 and phases in platform and capture-device duties(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
  20. Texas HB 149 (enrolled), Responsible AI Governance Act, Sec. 552.105 civil penalties and NIST-conditioned liability shield(capitol.texas.gov)
Share: