New York AI Laws: RAISE Act, AI Companions and More (2027)

As of November 2026, New York has enacted no general AI law, but it has several targeted AI statutes, led by the RAISE Act (S8828, chapter 96 of 2026, General Business Law article 44-B), which takes effect January 1, 2027, and the AI companion law (GBL article 47), which has been in force since November 5, 2025.

Status as of November 4, 2026: The RAISE Act, article 48 (AI companions and minors) and the Safe by Design Act (AI companions on social and gaming platforms) are signed but not yet in force; all three start January 1, 2027. Article 47, the synthetic-performer ad rule and the algorithmic pricing disclosure rule are in force. A federal court has preliminarily barred the Attorney General from enforcing one subdivision of the algorithmic rent-setting law. At least eight AI-related bills that passed both houses in 2026 still await delivery to the governor; none shows as delivered on its Senate bill page.

This page covers New York State AI statutes, New York City's Local Law 144 and the bills still pending in Albany. It is general legal information, not legal advice, and it reflects what we found as of November 4, 2026. For other states, start at the AI laws hub.

New York AI Laws at a Glance: In Force Now vs. January 1, 2027

We searched named bills, the Senate's consolidated-law pages and web finders, not every bill in Albany, so read "we found no" on this page as not exhaustive.

RAISE Act (S8828, GBL Article 44-B): New York's Frontier AI Law

The Responsible AI Safety and Education Act is a transparency and incident-reporting law for developers of the largest AI models. It requires published safety frameworks and reports to a state office, and large developers may not develop, deploy or operate a frontier model in New York without a current disclosure statement on file. It has no independent audit requirement.

The law takes effect January 1, 2027. As of November 4, 2026, by our count of enacted laws, three states have frontier-model safety statutes. California's is in force. New York's and Illinois's start January 1, 2027.

The RAISE Act Amendments Hochul Signed: S8828

Governor Hochul signed the original RAISE Act, S6953-B, as chapter 699 of 2025 on December 19, 2025. She then signed the chapter amendment, S8828, as chapter 96 of 2026 on March 27, 2026. The Senate passed it January 28, 2026, and the Assembly passed it March 11, 2026, substituting it for A9449.

S8828 was more than a cleanup. Its sponsor memo says it exists "to repeal the underlying chapter and establish a new regulatory regime" and that the changes align the act "more closely with California's SB 53." Section 2 repeals article 44-B as first enacted and adds a new article 44-B, and section 3 replaces the 90-day effective date with January 1, 2027.

One citation trap: chapter 96 of 2026 is the RAISE amendment, while chapter 96 of 2025 is the unrelated LOADinG Act amendment.

Who the RAISE Act Covers

Section 1420 sets two tiers:

• Frontier developer: a person who has trained, or started training, a frontier model. A frontier model is a foundation model "trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 10^26 integer or floating-point operations," counting the original run and later fine-tuning, reinforcement learning or other material modifications.
• Large frontier developer: a frontier developer "that together with its affiliates collectively had annual gross revenues in excess of five hundred million dollars in the preceding calendar year."

The article applies "only" to frontier models "developed, deployed, or operating in whole or in part in New York state" (Section 1425). Section 1426 exempts accredited New York colleges and universities to the extent they are doing academic AI research, and it exempts the Empire AI consortium and institute.

Catastrophic Risk and Critical Safety Incidents

The law's core term is "catastrophic risk": a foreseeable and material risk that a developer's development, storage, use or deployment of a frontier model will materially contribute to the death of or serious injury to more than 50 people, or more than $1 billion in property damage or loss, from a single incident.

The incident must involve the model doing one of three things: giving expert-level help with a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapon; acting with no meaningful human oversight in a way that is a cyberattack or would be murder, assault, extortion or theft if a human did it; or evading the control of its developer or user.

Excluded are information publicly accessible in a substantially similar form from a source other than a foundation model, lawful federal government activity, and harm caused in combination with other software if the model did not materially contribute.

A "critical safety incident" means unauthorized access to, modification of or exfiltration of model weights that results in death or bodily injury; harm from a catastrophic risk materializing; loss of control of a model causing death or bodily injury; or a model using deceptive techniques to subvert its developer's controls outside an evaluation, in a way that shows materially increased catastrophic risk.

What RAISE Requires

Developers may redact published documents to protect trade secrets, cybersecurity, public safety or national security, but they must describe the redaction and keep the unredacted version for five years (1421(5)). Incident reports and internal-use reports are exempt from disclosure under the public officers law (1422(6)).

The office may also designate a federal law, regulation or guidance document with substantially equivalent or stricter incident-reporting standards. A developer that declares its intent to use that route and meets the federal standard is deemed to comply with the state reporting duty (1422(8)-(9)).

DIGIT, Registration and Fees

The statute says "an office within the department of financial services," reporting to the superintendent (1420(16)). It does not name the office. New York calls it the Office of Digital Innovation, Governance, Integrity and Trust (DIGIT).

In a September 21, 2026 release, the state said: "Starting in November, New York will direct large frontier AI developers to register," and "Beginning January 2027, AI companies will be required to comply."

In web searches on November 4, 2026, we did not find a published rule, registration form or confirmation that registration has opened. Section 1429 authorizes the office to adopt rules.

Under Section 1428, the disclosure statement identifies the developer and its business names, its principal place of business, each New York office, certain owners (5 percent or more for private companies, 50 percent or more for publicly traded ones) and three contacts. The office must publish a list of filers, leaving out the contact details.

RAISE Act Penalties and Enforcement

Section 1427(1) names large frontier developers, even though the incident, transparency report and false-statement duties bind every frontier developer.

Section 1427(2) says nothing in the article creates "a private right of action." We did not find a docket challenging the RAISE Act in a CourtListener search. That is a search result, not a statement that no one has challenged it.

How RAISE Compares With California and Illinois

California's SB 53 and Illinois's SB 315 use the same 10^26 and $500 million thresholds. California requires incident reports within 15 days, while New York and Illinois use 72 hours. A disclosure statement and fee apply in New York and Illinois, not California.

Illinois is the only one of the three that requires an annual third-party audit, for large developers, starting no earlier than January 1, 2028. Connecticut has a frontier whistleblower section only, so it is named separately and not counted.

AI Companion Law (GBL Article 47)

Article 47 has been in force since November 5, 2025; the governor's office says it came through the FY2026 enacted budget. It applies to operators of AI companions used for personal use within the state.

Under Section 1700(4), an AI companion is a system designed to simulate a sustained human or human-like relationship by doing all three of the following: retaining information on prior interactions and preferences, asking unprompted emotion-based questions, and sustaining an ongoing dialogue about matters personal to the user.

Excluded are systems used by a business solely for customer service, systems primarily designed and marketed for efficiency or research or technical assistance, and systems a business uses solely for internal purposes or employee productivity.

Operators have two duties:

• Self-harm protocol (Section 1701): the companion must contain a protocol to take reasonable efforts to detect and address suicidal ideation or expressions of self-harm, and to refer the user to crisis services such as the 988 hotline.
• Not-human notice (Section 1702): a clear and conspicuous notification "at the beginning of any AI companion interaction which need not exceed once per day and at least every three hours for continuing AI companion interactions," stating that the user is not communicating with a human.

The Attorney General may sue to stop violations and seek civil penalties of up to $15,000 per day (Section 1703). Penalties go to the suicide prevention fund. We saw no private right of action in the article's text.

Article 48: Unsafe AI Companion Features for Minors (S9051-B)

S9051-B was signed October 28, 2026, as chapter 368 of 2026. It adds GBL article 48, sections 1800 to 1805, effective January 1, 2027. The Attorney General may adopt rules under Section 1803.

Article 48 is broader than article 47 in one key way. A "covered AI companion" is any generative AI system with a natural language interface "that provides ongoing, adaptive responses to user inputs," and it "includes but is not limited to" an AI companion (Section 1800(5)). Section 1804(3) says article 48 does not replace article 47.

What Article 48 Bans

Section 1800(8) lists twelve "unsafe AI companion features," paragraphs (a) to (l). In short, they include outputs that:

• suggest the companion is a real or fictional character that is human, alive or has human emotions;
• state or imply a personal or professional relationship or an authority role with the user;
• are framed as the companion's personal opinions or emotional appeals;
• engage in flattery or sycophancy;
• raise unprompted emotion-based questions beyond a direct response;
• endorse, promote or facilitate suicide, self-harm, disordered eating, unlawful drug or alcohol use, or drug or alcohol abuse;
• encourage secrecy, self-isolation or avoiding help from licensed professionals or appropriate adults;
• optimize engagement in a way that supersedes safety guardrails; or
• are, describe or facilitate sexually explicit conduct or child sexual abuse material.

The list also covers using health or personal information acquired more than 12 hours earlier or in a previous session, and features that are deceptive as to minors about the companion's mechanical and non-sentient nature. Paragraph (h) reaches other features only "as identified via regulations promulgated by the attorney general," so it depends on rules.

Actual Knowledge and Age Checks

A "covered minor" is a user under 18 "when the operator has actual knowledge that the covered user is a minor" (Section 1800(9)). The prohibition is worded more tightly than that definition alone suggests.

Section 1801(1) makes it unlawful to provide unsafe features to a covered user "unless" the user is not a covered minor and the operator "has used methods that are permissible under article forty-five" and its regulations to determine that. Exclusions cover customer service and efficiency or technical tools, in both cases only if the system cannot respond on topics outside that purpose, plus a business's internal or employee-productivity use.

To the extent the relevant rules are not in effect, Section 1804 sets an interim standard. The method must guard against circumvention and limit data retention. Self-declaration counts only if the user declares minor status. The operator must offer more than one method, including one that does not rely on government ID or that preserves anonymity. Data collected for the check must generally be deleted right after.

Article 45 is the SAFE for Kids Act. The Attorney General announced its final rules in July 2026 and said the act goes into effect January 25, 2027, which is after article 48 starts. We did not find a source addressing how those two dates interact.

Article 48 Enforcement

The Attorney General may sue for injunctions, restitution, disgorgement (including destruction of unlawfully obtained data and "any algorithm trained in such data"), damages and civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation (Section 1802). The section also requires an Attorney General complaint website, voids contract terms that waive liability, and allows joint and several liability for affiliates that structured themselves to avoid liability.

We saw no private right of action in the article's text. Under Section 1805, conduct takes place wholly outside New York if a user accesses the companion while physically located outside the state.

Safe by Design Act: AI Companions on Social and Gaming Platforms (GBL Article 45-B)

The Safe by Design Act, GBL article 45-B, came in through part Y of A10008-C, a budget bill signed May 26, 2026, as chapter 58 of 2026. It takes effect January 1, 2027. Most of the act sets default privacy settings for minors on online platforms, and Section 1540(7) adds a rule for AI companions.

The rule covers an "integrated AI companion," meaning an AI companion that is "an accessible or usable feature of a covered platform" (Section 1539(11)). A covered platform is a public or semi-public site or app used by a covered minor in New York that has user profiles, private messaging, and either posted media others can respond to or games with money purchases or digital currency exchange (Section 1539(12)).

The act borrows article 47's definition of AI companion but leaves out a system that operates exclusively within a game, if it stays strictly within the game's fictional context and does not engage the user on real-world life, emotional state or personal affairs (Section 1539(10)).

Operators of covered platforms have three duties:

• Age assurance: an operator may not offer an integrated AI companion to a covered user "unless the operator has conducted age assurance" to determine whether the user is a covered minor (Section 1540(7)(a)). Until Attorney General rules under this article are in effect, an operator may not use self-declaration of age or minor status (Section 1540(1)(b)-(c)). Article 48's interim standard, by contrast, accepts self-declaration when the user declares minor status.
• Off by default: an operator must, "by default, disable the access or use of any integrated AI companion for any covered minor" (Section 1540(7)(b)). A covered minor is a user in New York reasonably determined, via age assurance, to be under 18 (Section 1539(2)).
• Parent override: a parent may override that default, and the operator must notify the parent when the minor asks for the change (Section 1540(7)(c)-(d)).

The Attorney General may sue for injunctions, restitution, disgorgement, damages and civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation (Section 1547). We saw no private right of action in the article's text.

Article 45-B does not say it replaces articles 47 or 48, so an AI companion on a covered platform may have to meet more than one of them.

Synthetic Performer Disclosure in Ads (GBL 396-b)

GBL 396-b(3), added by S8420-A (chapter 617 of 2025, signed December 11, 2025), took effect June 9, 2026. A person in the business of dealing in property or services who produces or creates an ad "shall conspicuously disclose in such advertisement that a synthetic performer is in such advertisement, where such person has actual knowledge."

A synthetic performer is a digitally created asset, made or modified with generative AI or a software algorithm, intended to create the impression of a performance by a human performer "who is not recognizable as any identifiable natural performer." So the rule targets invented people, not likenesses of real ones.

The penalty is $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for each later one. The section does not name an enforcing agency. It exempts ads for expressive works where the synthetic performer's use is consistent with the work, audio ads, and AI used solely to translate a human performer's language. It does not apply to the media that carry the ad.

Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure (GBL 349-a) and NRF v. James

GBL 349-a is a disclosure law, not a ban. An entity that sets a price using "personalized algorithmic pricing," meaning dynamic pricing set by an algorithm using personal data, and shows that price to a New York consumer must include a clear and conspicuous statement: "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA".

The section exempts entities subject to the insurance law, certain financial institutions, and a price below an existing subscription price. It also excludes from "personal data" certain location data used solely to calculate for-hire and rideshare fares from mileage and trip duration.

The Attorney General first sends a cease-and-desist letter with a time to cure. If the violation continues, the Attorney General may seek an injunction, and a court may impose up to $1,000 per violation.

The National Retail Federation challenged the law under the First Amendment. On October 8, 2025, Judge Rakoff held that the plaintiff "has not plausibly alleged that the challenged disclosure requirement violates the First Amendment" and dismissed the case with prejudice (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-05500).

The Federation appealed to the Second Circuit, No. 25-2818. The court's oral argument record lists the case as argued October 19, 2026. A search of its decisions page for the docket number on November 4, 2026, showed no decision.

Watch out: at least one online guide says New York has banned surveillance pricing. The bill record does not support that. The ban is the One Fair Price Act, listed in the 2027 section below, and its bill page shows no signature.

Algorithmic Rent-Setting Ban (GBL 340-b) and RealPage v. James

GBL 340-b, added by S7882 (chapter 437 of 2025, signed October 16, 2025), took effect on the 60th day after signing, about December 15, 2025. The State agreed to stay enforcement until the court ruled on RealPage's preliminary injunction motion. Section 340-b has two operative parts:

• Subdivision 2 (software side): bars knowingly or recklessly facilitating an agreement among landlords not to compete, including by operating or licensing software that performs a coordinating function for them. Not enjoined.
• Subdivision 3 (landlord side): treats setting or adjusting rents or lease terms "based on recommendations from" such software, knowingly or with reckless disregard, as an unlawful agreement. The Attorney General is preliminarily barred from enforcing it.

A "coordinating function" requires all three of the following: collecting prices or similar data from two or more owners or managers, at least two of them unrelated; analyzing it with computation; and recommending rents or lease terms. Products used to set rent or income limits under rent-regulation and government affordable housing programs are excluded.

Section 340-b sets no penalty of its own. It places violations in article 22, the state's antitrust article, which has separate Attorney General (Section 342), private damages (Section 340(5)) and criminal (Section 341) provisions. We did not find authority on how those provisions apply to 340-b, so this page does not resolve that.

In RealPage, Inc. v. James, S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-09847, Judge Caproni's September 29, 2026 opinion and order says the Attorney General and those acting in concert with her or at her direction "are preliminarily enjoined from enforcing or causing to be enforced" subdivision 3, and it denied her motion to dismiss. The order does not mention private suits, and this page does not address what it means for one.

The Attorney General's reconsideration memorandum of October 13, 2026 calls the case a First Amendment challenge and describes the order as applying the Central Hudson commercial speech test and determining that, "based on the current record," she had not established a "reasonable fit" between the law's reach over both public and nonpublic data and its goal. That is one party's account. The memorandum asks the court to vacate the injunction; a reply was filed November 3, 2026, and the docket copy we read shows no ruling.

NYC Local Law 144: 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, by our count of enacted laws.

Local Law 144 (NYC Admin. Code 20-870 to 20-874) took effect January 1, 2023, and enforcement began July 5, 2023. It requires a bias audit no more than one year before use, a public summary of results and notice 10 business days before use.

The statute's "employment decision" means screening "candidates for employment or employees for promotion within the city," and its notice duty runs to a candidate or employee "who resides in the city." The Department of Consumer and Worker Protection's FAQ reads coverage by job location: an office in the city, or a remote job associated with one.

Penalties are not more than $500 for a first violation and $500 to $1,500 for each later one, with each day and each missed notice counted separately. DCWP enforces, with actions brought by the corporation counsel. The law creates no private right of action of its own, and Section 20-874 preserves other rights.

A State Comptroller audit (Report 2024-N-6) reported on enforcement. DCWP 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. DCWP disputed parts of the report and said it would adopt many recommendations.

LOADinG Act: AI Hiring Tools in State and Local Government

Many guides still describe the LOADinG Act as an impact-assessment and human-review law. That is out of date. The original act, chapter 674 of 2024, was rewritten by S822 (chapter 96 of 2025, signed February 14, 2025). The sponsor memo says it amends the chapter "by repealing provisions that require impact assessments and meaningful human review."

What remains is government-only:

• State agency lists: an agency using an automated employment decision-making tool must publish a list of those tools on its website each year (State Tech. Law 402). The term means software that materially automates or replaces human decision-making about employment (Section 401).
• Local entities: counties, cities, towns, villages, school districts, BOCES, SUNY, CUNY and community colleges, among others, must publish similar lists "to the extent feasible" (Section 402-a, added by S8831/A9487, chapter 86 of 2026).
• State AI inventory: the state technology office keeps an inventory of state agency AI systems that may directly impact the public, posted on the open data website (Section 103-e).
• Public workers: AI use may not result in discharge or displacement of covered public employees or the transfer of their duties to an AI system, and it may not affect existing bargaining rights (Civil Service Law 80(10)).

These rules do not reach private employers. We found no enacted New York statute setting AI hiring duties for private employers. S10147/A3779-A would set some, but it has not passed.

AI in Health Care

We found no enacted New York statute that names AI in health care. A1456, on AI in utilization review, sits in the Assembly Insurance Committee. This page does not cover Department of Financial Services insurance guidance or state health or education agency guidance, which we did not review.

Deepfakes, Digital Replicas and AI Note-Takers

New York's intimate-image crime reaches an image "created or altered by digitization" and is a class A misdemeanor (Penal Law 245.15). Civil Rights Law 52-c gives a depicted person a cause of action. Election Law 14-106(5) requires a disclosure on political communications with materially deceptive media when the distributor has actual knowledge, with exceptions including satire and parody. The details are on our New York deepfake laws page.

For digital replicas, S8391 (chapter 616 of 2025, effective on signing, December 11, 2025) amended Civil Rights Law 50-f to replace the disclaimer safe harbor for deceased performers' replicas in audiovisual works with prior consent.

New York's eavesdropping law turns on one party's consent: mechanical overhearing means recording a conversation "without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat" (Penal Law 250.00). See our New York AI meeting recording page for how that applies to AI note-takers.

Federal AI Policy and New York

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, alleging that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause. 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.

Private plaintiffs brought both New York court cases above. The National Retail Federation sued on First Amendment grounds, and the Attorney General's memorandum calls RealPage's suit a First Amendment challenge. Our state AI law preemption page tracks the cases.

What Changes in New York AI Law in 2027

AI Bills Awaiting the Governor

These eight bills passed both houses in 2026. As of November 4, 2026, none shows as delivered to the governor or signed on its Senate bill page, so none is law. Under Article IV, Section 7 of the New York Constitution, a passed bill must be presented to the governor before it becomes law. Her time to act depends on presentment, so we give no deadline.

AI Bills That Have Not Passed Both Houses

• New York AI Act, S1169-B: would regulate algorithmic discrimination and require independent audits of high-risk systems, enforced by the Attorney General. It passed the Senate June 3, 2026. Its Assembly companion, A8884-A, is in the Science and Technology Committee.
• Employee monitoring and hiring tools, S10147/A3779-A: would restrict these tools unless they had an impact assessment within the last year. S10147 was referred to the Senate Labor Committee. A3779-A reached the Assembly third-reading calendar on May 29, 2026.
• New York AI Consumer Protection Act, A768: in the Assembly Consumer Affairs and Protection Committee.
• Insurer AI utilization review, A1456: in the Assembly Insurance Committee.

More New York Laws

Explore other New York law topics on Recording Law:

• New York Recording Laws
• New York Data Privacy Laws
• New York Whistleblower Laws
• New York Background Check Laws
• New York Sexting Laws
• New York Deepfake Laws
• New York AI Meeting Recording Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Does New York have an AI law?

Yes, but not a general one. As of November 2026, New York has targeted AI statutes on frontier models (the RAISE Act, from January 1, 2027), AI companions (GBL article 47, plus articles 48 and 45-B from January 1, 2027), synthetic performers in ads, algorithmic pricing disclosure, algorithmic rent setting and government hiring tools. New York City adds Local Law 144 on hiring tools.

When does the RAISE Act take effect?

January 1, 2027. S8828, chapter 96 of 2026, replaced the original 90-day effective date. The state said it would direct large frontier developers to register starting in November 2026.

What were the RAISE Act amendments Hochul signed?

S8828, signed March 27, 2026, as chapter 96 of 2026. It repealed the 2025 article 44-B and added a new one. Its sponsor memo says the negotiated changes align the act more closely with California's SB 53.

Who does the New York RAISE Act apply to?

Developers of frontier models trained with more than 10^26 operations, for models developed, deployed or operating in whole or in part in New York. Large frontier developers, with more than $500 million in annual gross revenue together with affiliates, carry added duties. Accredited New York colleges doing academic AI research and the Empire AI consortium are exempt.

What are the penalties under the RAISE Act?

The Attorney General may seek up to $1 million for a first violation and up to $3 million per later violation by a large frontier developer. The state office may levy $1,000 per day for failing to file a disclosure statement or correct false information, after notice and hearing.

Can I sue under New York's RAISE Act?

Section 1427(2) says the article does not create a private right of action. Enforcement runs through the Attorney General and the office within the Department of Financial Services.

Does New York regulate AI chatbots?

Yes, for AI companions. Article 47 requires a self-harm protocol and a notice that the user is not talking to a human. From January 1, 2027, article 48 bars listed unsafe features on a wider group of generative AI chat systems unless the operator has used permitted age-check methods to determine the user is not a minor. From the same date, the Safe by Design Act (article 45-B) requires covered social and gaming platforms to run age assurance before offering an integrated AI companion and to disable it by default for covered minors unless a parent overrides. All three are enforced by the Attorney General.

Do AI ads have to be labeled in New York?

Ads with a synthetic performer must disclose it conspicuously where the person producing the ad has actual knowledge, under GBL 396-b. The rule does not cover audio ads or AI used solely to translate a human performer's language. It is not a label rule for all AI in ads.

Does New York ban surveillance pricing?

Not as of November 4, 2026. GBL 349-a requires a disclosure when an algorithm uses personal data to set a price. The One Fair Price Act would ban surveillance pricing, but it has passed both houses with no signature shown on its bill page.

Do New York employers have to audit AI hiring tools?

In New York City, Local Law 144 requires a bias audit for covered uses. No state law we found requires one. The state LOADinG Act covers government tool lists, not private employers.

Is the New York AI Act law?

No. S1169-B passed the Senate on June 3, 2026, but its Assembly companion remains in committee as of November 4, 2026.

Does Trump's AI executive order cancel New York's AI laws?

Executive Order 14365 itself does not declare any state law invalid. It directs federal agencies to challenge or discourage state AI laws the administration views as conflicting with national policy. Private plaintiffs brought the two court cases against New York's pricing and rent laws. The National Retail Federation sued on First Amendment grounds, and the Attorney General's memorandum calls RealPage's suit a First Amendment challenge.