Keypoint: Since our last update, the Connecticut Senate passed an algorithmic discrimination bill, an algorithmic discrimination bill was introduced in Colorado and passed the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee, and an algorithmic discrimination bill passed out of a California committee.

Below is our fourth update on the status of pending US artificial intelligence (AI) legislation that would affect the private sector.

Table of Contents

  1. What’s New
  2. Bill Tracker Charts and Map
  3. Recent Husch Articles and Resources on AI-Related Issues
  1. What’s New

In this fourth alert, we continue to organize our updates under five categories of bills: (a) algorithmic discrimination; (b) automated employment decision making; (c) AI Bill of Rights; (d) “working group” bills; and (e) other types of bills that do not fit into those categories but would, if passed, impact private entities. Note that some of the bills blur the lines between the various categories. For a more detailed description of certain bills referenced below, please see our first, second, and third updates from this year.

a. Algorithmic Discrimination

This first category covers bills seeking to prevent “algorithmic discrimination,” which is generally defined as an automated decision tool’s differential treatment of an individual or group based on their protected class. Note that these bills apply to both AI developers and deployers, which include (but is not limited to) employers that use such tools to make employment decisions. Therefore, this category does overlap with our next category of “automated employment decision making” bills.

Turning first to Connecticut’s SB 2, an amended version of the bill passed through the Connecticut Senate on April 24. Prior to passing the Senate, the bill underwent significant changes under the guidance of the bill’s sponsor, Senator James Maroney. The bill now moves to the Connecticut House for consideration. The Connecticut legislature closes May 8.

In Colorado, Senator Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez introduced SB24-205 on April 10. The bill is modeled on Connecticut’s SB2. The bill was amended and passed out of the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee on April 24. The Colorado legislature also closes May 8.

In California, AB 2930 (formerly AB 331) passed out of the Judiciary Committee on April 23. The bill was referred to the Appropriations Committee.

In Illinois, HB 5322 was re-referred to the Rules Committee on April 5.

In Rhode Island, H 7786 appears to have died as the House Innovation, Internet, and Technology Committee recommended that the bill be held for further study on March 28. A counterpart Senate bill, S 2888, was introduced on March 22 but after a hearing on April 11, the Senate Judiciary Committee similarly recommended that the bill be held for further study.

Other active bills we are tracking in this category that have no new updates since our last post include: (1) Hawaii’s HB 1607 and SB 2524; (2) Illinois’ HB5116; (3) New York’s A8195; (4) Oklahoma’s HB 3835; and (5) Vermont’s H.710 and H.711.

b. Automated Employment Decision Making

Our next category looks at bills that specifically apply to the use of AI in the employment context. These bills seek to regulate AI tools, commonly referred to as “automated employment decision tools” (AEDTs) or “predictive data analytics,” used to make hiring, firing, promotion, and compensation decisions.

In Illinois, HB 3773 has undergone three amendments and was referred to the House Labor and Commerce Committee on April 17. In Massachusetts, the reporting deadline of H.1873 was extended by the Senate until May 8.

Turning to New Jersey, S3015 (identical to Assembly bill A3911) was introduced on April 8. Both bills would regulate the use of AI in analyzing video interviews, similar to laws enacted in Maryland and Illinois. Under the New Jersey bills, employers would be required to disclose and explain such use, obtain consent from interviewees, limit the sharing of recorded interviews, delete recordings upon request, and collect demographic data of subject interviewees to be reported to the Illinois Department of Labor and Workforce Development annually.

In New York, A9315 and its Senate counterpart S7623 were amended and referred again to the Labor Committees within the respective houses on April 16 and April 12

Other AEDT bills we are tracking that have no new updates include: (1) Maryland’s HB 1255 and SB 0957; (2) New Jersey’s A4030, S1588, A3854, S2964, A3855; (3) New York’s A9314, A7859, S5641; (4) Pennsylvania’s HB 1729; and (5) Vermont’s H.114.

c. AI Bill of Rights

Bills in this category seek to establish an AI Bill of Rights, providing state residents with certain rights when using AI.

Oklahoma’s HB 3453 had its second reading in the Senate and was referred to the Judiciary Committee on March 27, after passing the House unanimously on March 14.

The other bills we are tracking in this category are New York’s A8129 and its companion Senate bill S8209, which both remain in committee.

d. “Working Group” Bills

The next category includes bills that primarily create government commissions or working groups to study the implementation of AI technologies and develop recommendations for future regulation.

There are no new updates in this category since Utah enacted SB 149 on March 13. We are continuing to track Massachusetts’ SB 2539 and Hawaii’s HB2176 under this category, both of which remain in committee.

e. “Other” Bills

Our final category encompasses “other” bills that do not neatly fit into the above categories.

In California, SB 1047 and SB 942 were passed out of committee on April 23 and re-referred to the Appropriations Committee with amendments. AB 3204 remains in committee and was set for a hearing on April 23.

Staying in California, there are four new bills in the state we are now tracking in this “other” category. The first is AB3211, which would require generative AI system providers to: (1) place watermarks containing provenance data into their AI generated content, (2) provide public tools or services that can determine whether a piece of content was created by the provider’s generative AI system, (3) conduct regular “red-teaming exercises” to test whether watermarks can be easily removed or fabricated, (4) publicly disclose the discovery of any vulnerability or failure in an AI system, and (5) make certain disclosures to users of “conversational AI systems.” The bill also requires large online platforms to: (1) disclose provenance data found in content distributed to its users, (2) detect and label synthetic content missing watermarks and inauthentic text content uploaded or distributed by users, (3) obligate its users to disclose whether the content they upload or distribute is synthetic, and (4) provide a verification process for its users to apply digital signatures to content created by a human being. The bill would further require generative AI system providers and large online platforms to produce annual reports that assess the risks posed, and harms caused, by synthetic content. Finally, the bill would require that digital cameras and recording devices sold in California be manufactured or updated via firmware with an option to place watermarks in the content produced by the device. AB3211 was passed out of committee on April 23, and re-referred to the Appropriations Committee.

The second California bill we are now tracking is AB2013 which would require developers of AI systems to post on their website a detailed description of data sets used in the development of the system and a disclosure on whether the system uses “synthetic data generation” (as defined in the bill). The bill was introduced on January 31, passed out of committee on April 22, and re-referred to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection with amendments on April 23.

The third California bill is AB3050 which would require the state’s Department of Technology to issue regulations on watermarks to be included in AI-generated materials. At a minimum, the regulations must require such watermarks to include digital content provenance. The bill further requires AI-generating entities to comply with the Department of Technology’s eventual regulations and prohibits such entities from creating deepfakes without permission from the person depicted. The bill was referred to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection and the Judiciary Committee on March 21.

Finally, the fourth California bill we are beginning to track is AB2885 which would incorporate a new definition of “artificial intelligence” into existing California law. As of the latest version of the bill available, it would define AI as “an engineered or machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.” The bill was introduced on February 15, passed out of committee on April 17, and re-referred to the Appropriations Committee with amendments on April 22.

The last bill we are tracking in this “other” category is Oklahoma’s HB 3577 which has no new updates since our last post.

2. Bill Tracker Charts and Maps

For more information on all the state bills introduced to date, including links to the bills, bill status, last action, hearing dates, and bill sponsor information, please see the following charts:

To access our AI tracker map, click the following link:

3. Recent Husch Articles and Resources o AI-Related Issues