AI Laws in the US: State-by-State Tracker (2027)

AI laws in the US are the state statutes, agency rules, targeted federal statutes and executive orders that govern how artificial intelligence is built, sold and used, because there is no single federal AI law: as of November 4, 2026, we found no federal statute in the public laws of the 119th Congress that sets general rules for private AI systems or generally preempts state AI laws. Executive Order 14365, signed in December 2025, directed federal agencies to challenge or discourage state AI laws the administration views as conflicting with national policy, but the order itself does not declare any state law invalid.

Status as of November 4, 2026: Texas's TRAIGA (HB 149), California's SB 53 and Illinois HB 3773 are in force. January 1, 2027 is the next major date: Colorado's rewritten law (SB 26-189), New York's RAISE Act and Illinois SB 315 are scheduled to take effect, and California's automated-decision duties begin. A federal court order bars Colorado's Attorney General from starting enforcement for alleged violations that occurred or may occur on or before 14 days after a ruling on xAI's expected injunction request.

This tracker covers federal law, the states, the District of Columbia and New York City's Local Law 144, and we update it in place. It summarizes each topic and links the page that covers it in depth. It is general legal information, not legal advice.

AI Laws by State

The table lists enacted law only, by category, for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Pending, failed or vetoed bills appear only as a note beside a cell's status. "In force" means in force on November 4, 2026. "From" a date means enacted and scheduled to start on that date.

How to read the table:

• "None found" is a statement about our search, never a legal conclusion that a state has no such law. A bare "None found" means we keyword-searched an official set: the full Century Code for North Dakota, and session bills or enacted-law summaries for Alabama (2024 to 2026), Arkansas (2025 and 2026) and Georgia (2025 and 2026). Older laws outside those sets could be missed.
• "None found (title scan)" means we filtered titles, synopses or keywords on the official site, so a provision inside a broader bill could be missed.
• "None found (not exhaustive)" means we checked named bills and ran web searches, with no full sweep.
• "Not verified" means our research did not confirm this category for this state either way.
• In the Disclosure column, "None found" refers to general disclosure laws, meaning laws not limited to elections, to one sector or to chatbot safety.
• (election) marks an election synthetic-media law. It is not counted, and these entries are incomplete by design: other states' election laws are on our deepfake laws hub.
• (policy) marks an executive order or agency policy, not a statute. It is not counted.
• † means the item is unverified: we have not confirmed it on the official source.
• ‡ means the bill number or date is still to be confirmed on the official source.

We do not publish a total of "states with AI laws." The categories below measure different things, so they do not add up to one number.

Federal AI Law: Executive Orders, Preemption and Congress

As of November 4, 2026, we found no federal statute in the public laws of the 119th Congress that sets general rules for private AI systems or generally preempts state AI laws. In December 2025, Executive Order 14365 directed federal agencies to challenge or discourage state AI laws the administration views as conflicting with national policy, and called for a federal framework from Congress. The order itself does not declare any state law invalid.

The Justice Department formed an AI Litigation Task Force in January 2026, the White House issued legislative recommendations in March 2026, and the FTC proposed a policy statement in July 2026. Separately, in April 2026 the Justice Department intervened in a lawsuit against Colorado's AI law under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We did not find a published Commerce evaluation of state laws in the Federal Register or on ntia.gov, or a BEAD notice carrying the order's AI condition on NTIA's sites.

By our count of Federal Register documents through November 2, 2026, there are ten executive orders centered on AI, and our Trump AI executive orders page covers each one. EO 14148 revoked President Biden's EO 14110 on January 20, 2025. EO 14179, signed January 23, ordered an AI Action Plan and a review of actions taken under the revoked order.

The House passed a 10-year ban on enforcing state AI laws. The Senate recast it as a condition on broadband funds, then struck that version 99-1 on July 1, 2025. The enacted law, P.L. 119-21, contains neither, though it does carry other AI provisions.

An existing federal statute can still preempt a particular state law. In Kohls v. Bonta, a federal court declared in August 2025 that California's AB 2655, on election deepfakes on platforms, "violates and is preempted by" Section 230 (47 U.S.C. 230) as applied to X Corp. and Rumble, and that applying it to any such provider of an interactive computer service is preempted.

The injunction in that judgment runs to X Corp. and Rumble. A stipulated order bars enforcement against any such provider, and it ends if an appellate court vacates the judgment. California has appealed (9th Cir. No. 25-6138).

In the cases on our preemption tracker, we found no decision holding a state AI law preempted by an executive order. Our state AI law preemption page lists those cases and the federal bills, including H.R. 5388, a 5-year moratorium bill in subcommittee. None of those bills is law.

Comprehensive AI Laws: Colorado, California and Texas

By our count of enacted laws as of November 4, 2026, and subject to the search limits shown in the table, no state has an EU-style comprehensive AI regime. Colorado is the only state we found with a cross-sector statute on automated decisions, with duties from January 1, 2027, and California reaches similar ground by regulation. Texas's TRAIGA applies across sectors but bars a short list of uses, so it is not an automated-decision regime.

Colorado AI Act: SB 24-205 and SB 26-189

SB 24-205 became law May 17, 2024, and SB 25B-004 moved its duties from February 1 to June 30, 2026. SB 26-189, signed May 14, 2026, repeals and reenacts it effective January 1, 2027, for decisions made on or after that date, apart from a few provisions effective on passage. A federal court order limits when the Attorney General can start enforcement, as described below.

The rewritten law reaches persons doing business in Colorado that develop or deploy covered automated decision-making technology that materially influences a consequential decision in seven domains: education, employment, residential real estate, financial or lending, insurance, health care and essential government services. It requires developer documentation, deployer notice, adverse-outcome disclosure within 30 days, data correction, meaningful human review "to the extent commercially reasonable," and three years of records.

The new text has no duty of reasonable care, risk program, impact assessment or NIST defense. The Attorney General enforces it through the Consumer Protection Act, with a 60-day cure period where the Attorney General deems cure possible, and it creates no private right of action. No cure period is required for knowing or repeated violations, and the cure subsection is repealed January 1, 2030. The act states no dollar figure; the Consumer Protection Act's general penalty runs up to $20,000 per violation.

January 1, 2027 is the effective date, not the date enforcement begins. In X.AI v. Weiser, a stipulated minute order of April 27, 2026 bars the Attorney General from starting enforcement, "including but not limited to the initiation of an investigation," for alleged violations "that occurred or may occur on or before 14 days after the date the Court issues a ruling" on xAI's forthcoming preliminary injunction motion. xAI must file that motion within 28 days after final rules are adopted. The court made no finding on the law's validity.

The Attorney General's rules (4 CCR 904-6) are still proposed: the hearing was October 26, 2026, and the rulemaking page showed no adoption as of November 4, 2026. See our Colorado AI laws page.

California: Regulations and Subject-by-Subject Statutes

California has no single comprehensive AI statute. It regulates by subject: frontier models, provenance, training data, chatbots, health care and the workplace, each covered in the sections below. Its broadest reach comes from two sets of rules. The CCPA regulations add automated decision-making duties from January 1, 2027, and the Civil Rights Council rules, in force since October 1, 2025, apply the state's employment anti-discrimination law to automated decision systems. See our California AI laws page.

TRAIGA: The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (HB 149)

HB 149 took effect January 1, 2026, and covers developers, deployers and government entities. Its core is a set of intent-based bans: manipulation to encourage self-harm, harm or crime; government social scoring and certain biometric identification; development with the sole intent to infringe constitutional rights; intent to unlawfully discriminate, where disparate impact alone is not enough; and certain sexual content.

The Attorney General enforces the act, after a 60-day notice and cure period, and the act creates no private right of action. Penalties are $10,000 to $12,000 per curable violation, $80,000 to $200,000 per uncurable violation, and $2,000 to $40,000 per day for a continued violation. After a person is found in violation of the act's prohibitions, and on the Attorney General's recommendation, a state licensing agency can also sanction a licensee, including by suspending or revoking a license or imposing up to $100,000. The law also creates a sandbox of up to 36 months and a seven-member advisory council.

Under Sec. 552.105(e), a defendant is not liable if another person used its system in a prohibited way, or if it discovers a violation through listed routes: feedback from another person, testing such as red-teaming, state agency guidelines, or an internal review process while substantially complying with NIST's Generative AI Profile or another recognized framework. We found no TRAIGA enforcement action as of November 4, 2026. The Attorney General's release on the October 2026 suit against OpenAI describes claims under the state's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, not TRAIGA. See our Texas AI laws page.

Frontier AI Safety Laws: SB 53, RAISE Act and SB 315

As of November 4, 2026, by our count of enacted laws, and subject to the search limits shown in the table: three states have frontier-model safety statutes, California in force, New York and Illinois from January 1, 2027. Connecticut has a frontier whistleblower provision only. All three statutes use a threshold of 10^26 training operations, and "large" developers are those above $500 million in revenue.

Illinois is the only one of the three that requires an annual third-party audit, starting no earlier than January 1, 2028. In all three states, the Attorney General's civil penalty reaches large frontier developers only, including for a missed incident report, even though every frontier developer must report.

The New York text now in place is not the 2025 version: S8828, signed March 27, 2026, repealed it and added a new article 44-B. New York's Department of Financial Services calls the new office DIGIT and said it would direct large frontier developers to register starting in November, with compliance beginning in January 2027.

Connecticut's PA 26-15 sec. 2 is whistleblower-only. California's earlier SB 1047 was vetoed on September 29, 2024. See our frontier AI safety laws page and our California, New York and Illinois pages.

AI Hiring Laws: NYC Local Law 144, Illinois HB 3773 and What Comes Next

As of November 4, 2026, by our count of enacted laws, and subject to the search limits shown in the table: New York City is the only place we found with a bias-audit requirement. In force today are Illinois (HB 3773, AI Video Interview Act), Maryland (facial recognition in interviews) and Connecticut (no defense, testing evidence, AI layoff disclosure); California and New Jersey apply existing anti-discrimination law by rule. Colorado, California and Connecticut add statutory duties in 2027, and Illinois adds limits on AI in public school teacher evaluations. See our AI hiring laws page.

NYC Local Law 144 requires a bias audit no more than one year before an automated employment decision tool is used, a public summary, and notice 10 business days before use to candidates and employees who reside in the city. The city began enforcing it July 5, 2023. It is a city law. A State Comptroller audit reported that the city's consumer agency reviewed 32 company websites, 22 of them employers, and found one instance of potential non-compliance in the bias audits; state auditors reviewing the same 22 employers' audits found at least 17.

Illinois HB 3773, in force since January 1, 2026, makes it a civil rights violation "for an employer to use artificial intelligence that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes under this Article or to use zip codes as a proxy for protected classes under this Article." It also requires notice to employees. The Illinois Department of Human Rights' proposed rules were withdrawn by June 26, 2026, per the Flinn Report, and we found no refiled proposal in the weekly Flinn Reports from July 6 through October 30, 2026.

Connecticut's PA 26-15 secs. 13-14, in force since October 1, 2026, say use of the technology "shall not be a defense," and the commission or court "may consider evidence of anti-bias testing." Sec. 26, in force the same day, requires an employer serving a federal WARN notice to tell the state Labor Department whether the layoffs relate to its use of AI or another technological change.

California's rules treat anti-bias testing as evidence, not a mandate. New Jersey's rule, N.J.A.C. 13:16, applying the state Law Against Discrimination, took effect December 15, 2025.

The next layer arrives in 2027. Colorado's SB 26-189 treats employment as one of its seven domains. California's workplace-surveillance and layoff-notice laws, AB 1883, AB 1331 and SB 951, start January 1, 2027, its CCPA duties reach employment the same day, and SB 947, which bars sole reliance on an automated system for discipline or termination, starts July 1, 2027. Connecticut's notice duties attach to technology deployed on or after October 1, 2027. Illinois's SB 2909 limits AI in public school teacher evaluations from January 1, 2027.

In the public laws of the 119th Congress, we found no federal statute on AI in hiring. EO 14281 makes it federal policy "to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible," but it repeals no statute. Mobley v. Workday, a federal case against the HR software company, is pending; its allegations are unproven, and a class certification hearing is noticed for March 9, 2027.

AI in Health Care Laws: Prior Authorization, Therapy and Disclosure

As of November 4, 2026, by our count of enacted laws, and subject to the search limits shown in the table: at least 22 states have enacted a law that names AI or automated processing in health care. They are Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Washington. Nineteen have a law in force today, all but Colorado, Georgia and Minnesota. Colorado's first law is in force only if no referendum petition was filed, which we have not confirmed, and Georgia's and Minnesota's start January 1, 2027. Minnesota's text says automated processing, so a strict count of laws naming AI is 21. See our AI in health care laws page.

Insurance bulletins are guidance, not statutes, and are not counted. These laws work in four different ways, so "health AI law" is not one thing.

• Insurance review and prior authorization (12 states with a law on AI or automated processing). In force in eight: Alabama, California, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, Texas and Washington. Scheduled in four: Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota and Utah, with Colorado's start depending on no referendum petition having been filed. Most limit the role AI can play in a denial. Minnesota's text bars "any form of automated processing alone" for an adverse determination, without naming AI, and Utah's rule is disclosure only. Arizona's HB 2175 and North Dakota's SB 2280 are human-review rules that name neither AI nor automated processing, so they are not counted.
• Limits on AI delivering therapy (6 states). Illinois, Maine, Nevada, Rhode Island and Vermont, plus Colorado if no referendum petition was filed against its law. Illinois HB 1806 allows therapy only by licensed professionals, with penalties up to $10,000 per violation. Utah's HB 452 sets disclosure, data and advertising rules for mental health chatbots, and Tennessee's SB 1580 bars representing AI as a qualified mental health professional. Neither is a therapy ban.
• Titles and licensure. Delaware's HB 191, Oregon's HB 2748 and California's AB 489 limit nonhuman entities or AI systems from using licensed titles or implying licensure. New Mexico's HB 178 tells the Board of Nursing to set AI standards, and we found no such rule in published 16.12 NMAC.
• Patient disclosure. California's AB 3030 requires a disclaimer on generative AI patient communications, and Texas's SB 1188 says a practitioner who uses AI for diagnostic purposes "must disclose" that use to patients. Louisiana's Act 649 and a Rhode Island act cover AI used to record or document visits.

In the public laws of the 119th Congress, we found no federal statute that sets rules for AI in health care. We ran AI terms through the full text of all 136 public laws Congress.gov listed on November 4, 2026, and read the hits near health care terms. Two laws mention AI in health care without setting rules for it: P.L. 119-21, sec. 71401, lists AI among the technologies in one use of Rural Health Transformation Program funds, and P.L. 119-75, sec. 6216, orders a Comptroller General report on wearable medical devices that examines AI. A federal ONC final rule, effective December 28, 2026, removes the "model card" source-attribute requirements of 45 CFR 170.315(b)(11).

AI Chatbot and Companion Laws for Minors

As of November 4, 2026, by our count of enacted laws, and subject to the search limits shown in the table: twelve states have enacted dedicated companion or conversational AI safety laws, three already in force and nine starting in 2027. Five more have narrower provisions on chatbots. See our AI companion chatbot laws page.

• In force: California (SB 243), Hawaii (SB 3001, Act 248) and New York (GBL art. 47).
• Starting in 2027: Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington.
• Narrower provisions: Maine, New Hampshire, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

The laws differ on who can sue. California's SB 243 gives an injured person a private action for the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation. New York's article 47 is enforced by the Attorney General, at up to $15,000 per day, and article 48, signed October 28, 2026, bars listed unsafe companion features from January 1, 2027, unless the operator has used permitted age-check methods to determine the user is not a covered minor. New York's Safe by Design Act (GBL article 45-B), also from January 1, 2027, bars a covered platform's operator from offering an integrated AI companion without age assurance and turns it off by default for covered minors, subject to a parent's override. California's SB 1119 (Adam's Law) adds a child-safety regime, with its main duties from July 1, 2027. Colorado's HB 26-1263 has no enforcement subsection of its own; it sits in part 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, which from January 1, 2027 says nothing in that part "creates a new private right of action."

Attorneys general in Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska and West Virginia announced separate suits against OpenAI on October 14, 2026. Official releases from several of those states also name Kansas. These suits stand apart from the laws above: the claims are consumer protection and related law, not AI statutes. Texas's Attorney General announced a suit against OpenAI and its CEO on October 23, 2026, and the release describes claims under the state's Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Florida's attorney general sued OpenAI earlier, on June 1, 2026. Our AI chatbot lawsuits page tracks these government suits and the private injury and wrongful-death cases against chatbot companies.

Congress has bills pending and none is law: the GUARD Act (S. 3062) is on the Senate calendar, and the CHATBOT Act (S. 4407) was ordered reported with a substitute on August 5, 2026.

AI Disclosure and Labeling Laws

In the public laws of the 119th Congress, we found no federal statute that requires labels on AI content. As of November 4, 2026, by our count of enacted laws, and subject to the search limits shown in the table: at least seven states have general AI disclosure or labeling laws, meaning laws not limited to elections, to one sector or to chatbot safety. They are California, Connecticut, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah and Washington. Their scope varies widely, and some, such as Maine's LD 1727 and Utah's SB 226, are narrow notices to people dealing with a chatbot or generative AI. Laws limited to elections, health care, companion or conversational AI chatbot safety, government agencies, employers, real estate licensees, data brokers or frontier model developers are outside the count, as are notices about automated decisions. Utah's SB 226 is a judgment call: it reaches only systems designed to simulate human conversation, but it is a disclosure rule for suppliers in consumer transactions, not a chatbot safety law, so we count it. Without it, Utah would count only on HB 276, and four of the seven would have a law in force. See our AI disclosure and labeling laws page.

The laws in force today are California's, Connecticut's, Maine's, New York's and Utah's. Pennsylvania's starts about December 21, 2026, and Washington's starts February 1, 2027. They differ by mechanism:

• Provenance data. California's AI Transparency Act (SB 942, as amended by AB 853 and SB 1000) has been operative since August 2, 2026. Since September 30, 2026, a covered provider is any person that creates a generative AI system publicly accessible in the state, and the former 1,000,000-user threshold is gone. Connecticut's sec. 15 and Washington's E2SHB 1170 keep a threshold of more than one million monthly users, and Utah's HB 276 uses one of over 1,000,000 monthly visitors or users from January 1, 2027.
• Telling consumers they are dealing with AI. Utah's SB 226 requires disclosure on a clear request and prominent disclosure in high-risk regulated services. Maine's LD 1727 requires clear and conspicuous notice when a chatbot or other computer technology is used in trade in a way that may mislead a reasonable consumer into thinking they are dealing with a human. California's bot law (Bus. & Prof. Code 17941), in force since July 1, 2019, makes it unlawful to use a bot online with the intent to mislead a person about its artificial identity, in order to knowingly deceive them about the content of the communication, to encourage a sale or influence a vote. A person who discloses that it is a bot is not liable under the section.
• Advertising. New York's GBL 396-b requires disclosure of synthetic performers by advertisers with actual knowledge. Pennsylvania's Act 99 of 2026 applies only where synthetic content creates a false perception about goods or services, so it is not a general AI ad label law.
• Training data. California's AB 2013 requires developers to post training-data documentation. A court denied a preliminary injunction on March 4, 2026, and Ninth Circuit argument in X.AI v. Bonta is set for November 18, 2026.

The FCC's February 2024 declaratory ruling treats AI-generated voices in calls as "artificial" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. That is a ruling on an existing statute, not an AI label.

Deepfake Laws: TAKE IT DOWN Act and State Counts

As of July 22, 2025, Ballotpedia counted 47 states with deepfake laws enacted since 2019, 45 of them covering sexually explicit deepfakes and 28 covering political ones. Alaska (HB 239, ch. 9 SLA 26) and Missouri (RSMo 573.570, L. 2026) enacted laws in 2026. Our deepfake laws hub covers each state.

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146, P.L. 119-12), signed May 19, 2025, makes it a crime to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, authentic or "digital forgery," on the statute's elements. Penalties run up to 2 years for adults and 3 years for minors. Platforms have had to run a notice-and-removal process since May 19, 2026, with removal "not later than 48 hours" after a valid request, and the FTC enforces that duty. The act covers intimate images only.

Two federal bills are not law. The DEFIANCE Act (S. 1837) passed the Senate and is held at the desk in the House. The NO FAKES Act of 2026 (S. 4591) is on the Senate calendar.

Courts have limited some state laws. California's AB 2839 is permanently enjoined against the named plaintiffs in Kohls v. Bonta, and Hawaii's Act 191 was permanently enjoined in Babylon Bee v. Lopez. On Minnesota's nudification law (HF 1606), the Eighth Circuit granted an injunction pending appeal in SpaceXAI v. Ellison on October 2, 2026, in a one-line order that states no reasons or scope.

AI Copyright: What the Courts Have Decided

In September 2026, two federal appeals courts ruled in AI cases: the Third Circuit in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS, on a non-generative tool, and the Ninth Circuit in Doe v. GitHub, on a DMCA claim. Neither decided whether training a generative model is fair use.

The Supreme Court denied review in Thaler v. Perlmutter on March 2, 2026, with no opinion. The settlement in Bartz v. Anthropic received final approval on July 20, 2026, and class counsel reported on September 2, 2026, that the two appeals filed (9th Cir. Nos. 26-5391 and 26-5455, per the district docket) concern only the attorney's fee award. Summary judgment was argued in Concord v. Anthropic in October 2026, with no ruling on the docket through November 3, 2026. Our AI copyright laws page tracks each case.

Privacy Laws and Automated Decisions (ADMT)

California's CCPA regulations set duties for automated decision-making technology. Businesses already using it for significant decisions on financial or lending, housing, education, employment or health care must comply no later than January 1, 2027, and later users must comply whenever they use it. Insurance is not on that list.

Risk-assessment duties began January 1, 2026. Assessments of existing processing are due by December 31, 2027, and the first submissions are due April 1, 2028. Other state privacy acts carry profiling rights, which the table notes for Alabama, Delaware, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Rhode Island but does not count as AI laws.

For the wider picture, see AI and data privacy, facial recognition laws and, for note-takers and recording consent, AI meeting recording laws.

What Changes in 2027: AI Law Effective Dates

These are the scheduled dates we found, as of November 4, 2026. Anything on this list can still move by amendment, court order or agency delay. We recheck the list and update it in place.

Dates after 2027. January 1, 2028 brings Illinois's framework duty, with its audit from the later of that date or 90 days after a developer qualifies, plus California's and Utah's capture-device duties and SB 813's statutory deadline for agency setup. April 1, 2028 brings the first CCPA risk-assessment submissions and cyber audit reports, with further audit reports on April 1, 2029 and April 1, 2030. New York's LOADinG provisions on local and other covered entities (State Tech. Law secs. 401(3) and 402-a) and Civil Service Law 80(10) expire July 1, 2028 unless extended. The state agency duty in sec. 402 is not among them. The EU's Annex I high-risk rules apply August 2, 2028. January 1, 2029 is AB 1405's statutory deadline for California's AI auditor registry and the start of its bar on unregistered audits.

Pending with no set date, as of November 4, 2026:

• Final adoption of Colorado's rules, which starts xAI's 28-day clock.
• The Ninth Circuit's decision on the Section 230 holding on AB 2655, No. 25-6138.
• Summary judgment rulings in Concord v. Anthropic and In re OpenAI.
• A Commerce evaluation, an NTIA notice with the order's AI condition, an FCC proceeding under Section 6 of EO 14365, whose 90-day clock starts only when Commerce publishes, and a final FTC policy statement.
• New York's A9581-B/S8706-B, which would require annual reports to the Labor Department from covered businesses on AI's impact on hiring. The Assembly passed it June 3, 2026, and the Senate passed it 38 to 22 on June 4, 2026. The bill page read November 4, 2026 showed no delivery to the Governor and no signature, so it had not become law as of that read.
• The FY2027 defense bills. H.R. 8800 passed the House 216-212 on July 22, 2026, and was received in the Senate on September 14, 2026. A cloture motion on proceeding to S. 4784 failed 50-46 on July 14, 2026.

AI Law Timeline: Key Dates, 2023 to 2027

The table lists the main federal, state and international AI law events in date order, through dates already scheduled for 2027. Entries draw on primary sources where available, such as the Federal Register and legislature or court records. EU dates come from the European Commission and European Parliament pages, not the Official Journal text.

Change Log

• November 5, 2026: Added Nevada to the health care count (at least 22 states, 19 in force, a strict count of 21) and the AI therapy count (six states) after we confirmed AB 406 in the Legislature's bill record.
• November 4, 2026: Rewritten as a living state-by-state tracker with a table for every state and the District of Columbia. Corrected the order that revoked EO 14110 (EO 14148, not EO 14179), Colorado's status, the claim that multiple states require bias audits, California's AI Transparency Act threshold after SB 1000, and the deepfake counts. Removed unsourced tallies of state AI legislation. Added frontier safety, chatbot, disclosure, copyright and privacy sections and a 2027 calendar. After our state-by-state review closed, updated the state table, the health care count (at least 21 states, 18 in force) and the 2027 calendar, and restated the disclosure count test.

Related AI Law Pages

• Trump AI executive orders
• State AI law preemption
• NYC Local Law 144
• Deepfake laws by state
• TAKE IT DOWN Act
• AI copyright laws
• AI meeting recording laws
• AI and data privacy
• Facial recognition laws
• EU AI Act and data privacy
• AI in court: rules, sanctions and judges
• Can AI give legal advice?
• AI chatbot lawsuits

Frequently Asked Questions

What are AI laws?

AI laws are the statutes, regulations and court rulings that govern how artificial intelligence is built, sold and used. In the US they are mostly state statutes and agency rules on specific subjects, such as frontier models, hiring, health care, chatbots and deepfakes, plus a few targeted federal statutes and executive orders.

Is there a federal AI law in the United States?

There is no single federal AI law. As of November 4, 2026, we found no federal statute in the public laws of the 119th Congress that sets general rules for private AI systems or generally preempts state AI laws. Targeted federal statutes exist, such as the TAKE IT DOWN Act on intimate images.

Which states have AI laws?

It depends on the subject, so we do not publish one total. As of November 4, 2026, by our count of enacted laws, and subject to the search limits shown in the table, three states have frontier safety statutes, twelve have dedicated chatbot laws, at least seven have general AI disclosure laws, and at least 22 have a law naming AI or automated processing in health care. Colorado is the only state we found with a cross-sector statute on automated decisions.

What is the Colorado AI Act?

SB 24-205 is Colorado's 2024 high-risk AI law. It became law May 17, 2024, and SB 25B-004 moved its duties from February 1 to June 30, 2026. SB 26-189, signed May 14, 2026, repeals and reenacts it effective January 1, 2027, for decisions made on or after that date, apart from a few provisions effective on passage. A federal court order bars the Attorney General from starting enforcement for alleged violations on or before 14 days after a ruling on xAI's expected injunction request.

When does the Colorado AI Act take effect?

The rewritten law takes effect January 1, 2027, except a few provisions that took effect on passage. That is not the date enforcement begins, because a stipulated federal court order limits when the Attorney General can start enforcement.

What is TRAIGA?

TRAIGA is the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act, HB 149, in force since January 1, 2026. It rests on intent-based bans rather than risk-management duties. The Attorney General enforces it, and it creates no private right of action. On the Attorney General's recommendation, a state licensing agency can add sanctions against a licensee found in violation.

What is the RAISE Act?

The RAISE Act is New York's frontier AI safety law. S8828, signed March 27, 2026, repealed the 2025 text and added a new article 44-B of the General Business Law, which takes effect January 1, 2027.

What AI laws take effect January 1, 2027?

The main ones are Colorado's SB 26-189, New York's RAISE Act and article 48, Illinois SB 315, and California's CCPA automated-decision duties and platform provenance duties. Chatbot laws also start in Colorado, Connecticut, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington. Each date is as of November 4, 2026, and could change.

Did Trump's executive order cancel state AI laws?

EO 14365 does not itself declare any state law preempted or invalid. It directs agencies to act, creates a litigation task force and calls for a federal framework from Congress. In the cases on our preemption tracker, we found no decision holding a state AI law preempted by an executive order.

Can the federal government override state AI laws?

Congress can preempt state law, and an existing federal statute can preempt a particular state law. A federal court declared California's AB 2655 preempted by Section 230 as applied to X Corp. and Rumble and to any such provider of an interactive computer service, with an injunction running to those two companies, and California has appealed. As of November 4, 2026, we found no federal statute that generally preempts state AI laws.

Do any states require bias audits for AI hiring tools?

New York City's Local Law 144 is the only law we found that requires a bias audit of a hiring tool, and it is a city law. No state law we found requires one, as of November 4, 2026, subject to the search limits shown in the table. Illinois bars AI use with a discriminatory effect and requires notice to employees.

Is there a law that requires labels on AI content?

We found no federal statute that does. At least seven states have general AI disclosure or labeling laws, meaning laws not limited to elections, to one sector or to chatbot safety, as of November 4, 2026, by our count of enacted laws, and subject to the search limits shown in the table, and they work differently: provenance data, consumer notice or advertising rules.

Are deepfakes illegal in the US?

Not as a category. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act covers nonconsensual intimate images only. As of July 22, 2025, Ballotpedia counted 47 states with deepfake laws enacted since 2019, 45 of them covering sexually explicit deepfakes and 28 covering political ones, and Alaska and Missouri enacted laws in 2026.

What is the EU AI Act's next date?

New prohibitions and a legacy-system deadline apply December 2, 2026, and high-risk rules for Annex III systems apply December 2, 2027. Those dates come from the European Commission's AI Act Service Desk.