Conn. Senate Passes AI Bill as U.S. House Seeks Halt in States' Regulation

The Connecticut Senate passed SB-2 by a 32-4 vote late Wednesday after Democratic leadership expressed support for a transparent and accountability-focused AI bill (see 2505140067). Sen. James Maroney (D), who authored the bill, earlier said that states need to regulate AI because they can’t wait for a federal solution (see 2502260035).

“With this legislation, we are taking a big step forward to protect our communities from the risks of artificial intelligence, promote innovation that reflects our values, and empower every resident with the skills they need to thrive,” Maroney said in a press release. “This bill positions us as a national leader in responsible innovation -- ensuring that AI works for everyone and that no one is left behind in our rapidly evolving economy.”

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont (D) is “reviewing the amended legislation that passed in the Senate and appreciates all the work that went into Sen. Moroney’s proposal," the governor's spokesperson said in an email to Privacy Daily on Thursday. "The Governor believes in legislation that encourages innovation and moves our economy forward, while ensuring our laws protect individual rights and cover evolving technologies.” Lamont has recommended his own AI bill, SB-1249 (see 2502260035). SB-2 still needs the state House's approval before it can go to Lamont.

But Tuesday in the U.S. Congress, the House Commerce Committee approved language that would impose a 10-year moratorium blocking states from enforcing AI regulations (see 2505120067 and 2505140059).

However, on the same day that the Connecticut Senate passed its AI bill, Colorado Gov. Polis supported federal preemption of his state's AI law. “The Governor has said all along that a strong national policy governing AI consumer protection that supersedes state law would be the best course of action, as a state-by-state patchwork creates a challenging regulatory environment, and would leave consumers worse off overall,” a Polis spokesperson emailed Privacy Daily. “Governor Polis is supportive of pre-empting state law for several years to give Congress time to figure this out and create a true 50-state solution to smart AI protections for consumers while driving innovation."

California AG Rob Bonta (D) disagreed. “Innovation is critical for our economy, businesses, and residents,” a Bonta spokesperson said in an email Wednesday. “Allowing states to be responsive and adopt new protections while still nurturing innovation is an important form of innovation itself that strives to serve both industry and consumers. Innovation and regulation go hand in hand -- they are not diametrically opposed.”

“We oppose any effort to block states from developing commonsense regulation; states must be able to respond to emerging and evolving AI technology,” the spokesperson added.

The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) penned a letter Monday to the U.S. House Commerce Committee urging that its members reject the moratorium language. "The Enforcement Moratorium’s sweeping provisions could rob millions of Americans of rights they already enjoy," wrote CPPA Executive Director Tom Kemp. "States have been the laboratories of our democracy, innovating to protect consumers as new harms emerge. When we block responsible safeguards in the face of rapid technological change, we make ourselves -- and future generations -- less safe from privacy harms."

Some members of a multi-state AI policy working group also oppose the moratorium, while federal senators appear split on the language (see 2505130069).

In addition, the National Association of State Chief Information Officers said it was “concerned” about prohibiting states from enforcing AI regulations and statutes. In a press release Tuesday, it said, "States have not had the luxury of waiting for federal action on AI policy.” NASCIO continued, “As a result, they have forged ahead in creating their own AI standards that meet their unique needs, in consultation with the stakeholders and citizens who will be most directly impacted. Language in the reconciliation measure preventing them from enforcing these provisions undermines their efforts to deliver services to their citizens and ensure responsible data protections.” Another state group, the National Conference of State Legislatures, also opposed a moratorium.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation rejected the possible moratorium in a blog post Wednesday. “Stopping states will stop progress,” EFF said. “As the big technology companies have done (and continue to do) with privacy legislation, AI companies are currently going all out to slow or roll back legal protections in states.”

“Given how different the AI industry looks now from how it looked just three years ago, it’s hard to even conceptualize how different it may look in ten years,” added EFF. While “many state AI proposals struggle to find the right balance between innovation and speech, on the one hand, and consumer protection and equal opportunity, on the other…stopping states from acting at all puts a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of companies.”

However, ACT|The App Association said in a letter to the Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday that it "would welcome proposals to preempt state proposals and laws that specifically target AI." Such policies shouldn't "eliminate the enforcement of state laws of general applicability or that target harmful conduct regardless of whether it occurs with the use of or marketing about AI services. There is no AI-shaped hole in existing laws that prohibit harmful conduct."

"The over 1,000 AI measures pending in state legislatures greatly increase [the] possibility that AI development and diffusion in the U.S. is unnecessarily hobbled and could take us several steps back from our current leading position on AI."

Michael Justus, an AI attorney with Katten Muchin, said that even though there are conflicting political beliefs around AI, governance remains critical. "Bottom line: while there may be a trend toward softening AI regulation in some areas, this is not a universal truth, and enterprise AI governance remains essential," he said in a blog post Wednesday.