In this crossover episode of The Good Bot and Regulatory Oversight, Brett Mason, Gene Fishel, and Chris Carlson discuss the latest state laws targeting AI, especially in health care. They break down new legislation in Colorado, Utah, California, and Texas, highlighting differences in scope and enforcement. They also cover how state attorneys general are using consumer protection and anti-discrimination laws to regulate AI, even in states without AI-specific statutes.
What Happened
Last week, Colorado lawmakers held a special session that culminated in a decision to delay the implementation of the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (CAIA) until June 30, 2026, extending the timeline beyond its original February 2026 start date. That delay gives businesses a brief window to prepare, but the law remains in effect, requiring companies to build governance programs and perform regular impact assessments of high-risk AI systems.
On June 18, Arizona Attorney General (AG) Kris Mayes, in partnership with the Better Business Bureau (BBB), announced a new consumer educational campaign aimed at teaching Arizona residents how to avoid falling victim to a variety of scams. The education campaign targets consumers lacking awareness of such scams, especially senior citizens. The series of video public service announcements (PSAs) aims to enable Arizona consumers to spot and avoid scams on their own. According to the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center, Arizona residents lost approximately $392 million due to consumer fraud in 2024. The AG’s office received almost 22,000 consumer complaints, answered more than 28,000 phone calls, and reviewed more than 23,000 emails from consumers regarding potential fraud during this time.
On July 23, President Trump announced efforts to position the U.S. at the forefront of the global artificial intelligence (AI) race. “Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan” details how the federal government will advance the AI industry and was issued pursuant to the president’s January 23 Executive Order (EO) 14179, “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence.”
The United States is navigating a new era of regulatory oversight and the balance of power between federal and state regulators following the 2024 election cycle. As federal agencies retreat from and/or realign their regulatory enforcement priorities, state attorneys general (AGs) are increasingly taking the lead in policing companies — especially those that are consumer-facing — bridging perceived gaps left by shifting federal priorities, and in some cases, emboldened to expand regulatory enforcement into relatively new arenas.
One of many provisions in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, would place a 10-year “temporary pause” on states’ ability to regulate artificial intelligence (AI). Initially called a moratorium, Senate Republicans changed the characterization of the prohibition to ensure the provision’s passage during the reconciliation process. The changes were at least partially successful, as the proposed “temporary pause” overcame a procedural hurdle when the Senate parliamentarian concluded that it satisfies the “Byrd Rule” and may remain in the bill. The bill now heads to the Senate floor. If enacted, the temporary pause would mark the most significant federal action (or inaction) related to AI.
In this episode of the Regulatory Oversight podcast, Stephen Piepgrass welcomes David Navetta, Lauren Geiser, and Dan Waltz to discuss the $51.75 million nationwide class settlement involving Clearview AI and its broader implications. The conversation focuses on Clearview AI’s facial recognition software, which has sparked controversy due to its use of publicly available images to generate biometric data.
On June 2, the Texas legislature passed the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, (TX AI Act or bill) which heads to the governor for his signature or veto. The bill will take effect January 1, 2026, if the governor signs it into law. It is the most comprehensive piece of AI governance legislation to pass a state legislature to date. If enacted, Texas will become the fourth state after Colorado, Utah, and California to pass AI-specific legislation.
Ashley Taylor, Clayton Friedman, Gene Fishel, and Jay Myers of Troutman Pepper Locke LLP discuss actions by state attorneys general under existing and AI-specific laws to address misuse and legal violations of AI.
Introduction
On Thursday, March 20, a federal judge in the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval to a settlement agreement under which Clearview AI (Clearview) agreed to pay an estimated $51.75 million to a nationwide class if one of several contingencies takes place. This approved settlement agreement resolves In Re: Clearview AI, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-00135 (N.D. Ill.), a multidistrict suit alleging that the company’s automatic collection, storage, and use of biometric data violated various privacy laws, including Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The unorthodox settlement not only preserves Clearview’s business model, but may also insulate Clearview from subsequent or parallel regulatory investigations without requiring the company to jeopardize the liquidity necessary for continued growth. Ultimately, this settlement seems to represent a good outcome for the company, especially in light of the fact that that it was achieved over the objections from 23 state attorneys general (AG). U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman stated that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.