CTUsing an AI hiring tool stops being a defense October 1, 2026COColorado repealed its AI Act — the ADMT law replacing it starts January 1, 2027CACalifornia's ADMT rules under the CCPA carry that same January 1, 2027 dateTXTexas TRAIGA has been in force since January 1, 2026 — penalties reach $200,000HIHawaiʻi's two AI acts took effect on approval, July 14, 2026US1,561 state AI bills introduced in 2026 — see which states you need to care about
United States · state AI law

Which of these actually applies to you?

There is no federal AI statute. There are 6 state AI laws with their own framework here, specific statutes cited across 28 states, and a great deal of commentary that does not say which is which. Tick where you do business and find out in about ten seconds.

Nothing you tick is stored or sent anywhere. Figures on this page carry their source and date; last verified 2026-08-29.

Where do you do business?
Three layers, and only two of them are countable

How much AI law is there?

The volume is not the point — the enacted ones are. But the volume explains why the answer keeps changing, and why a compliance plan built on last year’s reading goes stale faster than it gets read.

1,561

State AI bills introduced

Across 45 states in 2026 alone — already more than the whole of 2024. Roughly 1,200 were introduced across all 50 states in 2025.

NCSL / state legislature trackers · March 2026

84

New state AI laws enacted

Across 27 states in the first half of 2026 — ahead of the full-year total for 2025. This is the number that turns into obligations.

State legislature trackers · Jan–Jun 2026

0

Federal AI statutes enacted

Congress has introduced many AI bills in the 119th — preemption, chatbots, deepfakes, small-business support — and passed none into law. Until that changes, the binding rules are the state ones.

Congress.gov / published legislative trackers · Q2 2026

The third layer, and why there is no number on it

Cities and counties add a third layer, and it is the one nobody can size: there is no authoritative national count of municipal AI ordinances. We would rather tell you that than invent a number.

Who is actually using AI

About one in five businesses — and they are not the small ones

These are the US Census Bureau’s own figures, not a vendor survey. They matter here because adoption is concentrated exactly where these statutes bite: among larger employers, whose decisions affect the most people.

19.8%

of US businesses use AI

The national rate held between roughly 17% and 20% from December 2025 through May 2026. On an employment-weighted basis it is far higher — about 32% — because bigger employers adopt first.

US Census Bureau, Business Trends and Outlook Survey · May 2026

37%

of firms with 250+ staff

Adoption rises steeply with headcount: about 37% at 250 or more employees and 32% at 100–249. None of the state AI laws we cover carry an employee-count threshold.

US Census Bureau, Business Trends and Outlook Survey · May 2026

39.7%

in Information; 33.9% in Finance

Sector spread is wide — Information at 39.7% and Finance and Insurance at 33.9%, against roughly 14% in Retail Trade.

US Census Bureau, Business Trends and Outlook Survey · May 2026

20–23%

expect to use AI within six months

Which is the point: the share of organizations inside the scope of these statutes is still rising, and the statutes are already in force.

US Census Bureau, Business Trends and Outlook Survey · May 2026

What it can cost

From $500 to $200,000 — and several set no figure at all

Scope, stated plainly: these are the state AI statutes in our own library, and only the ones where the act — or the general penalty provision it routes to — actually names a number. The highest is Texas; the lowest is Hawaii. Where an act names nothing, we say so rather than guessing.

Texas · TRAIGA (HB 149), §552.105$10,000 – $200,000

$10,000–$12,000 for a cured violation; $80,000–$200,000 for an uncurable one; $2,000–$40,000 for each day a violation continues.

Civil penalty recovered by the State.

California · CCPA/CPRA, §1798.155$2,500 – $7,500

$2,500 per unintentional violation and $7,500 per intentional violation — or any violation involving a consumer under 16. Assessed per violation, which in practice means per affected consumer.

Civil penalty recovered by the State.

Hawaii · Act 248 → HRS §480-3.1$500 – $10,000

Act 248 sets no figure of its own; a violation is an unfair or deceptive practice, and Hawaii's general penalty runs $500 to $10,000 per violation — with each day a separate violation.

Civil penalty recovered by the State.

Hawaii · Act 247 (HB 2137)up to $25,000

Up to $25,000 per advertisement or actual damages, plus uncapped punitive damages where malice is proven and recoverable attorneys' fees — won by the individual, not the State.

Damages won by the individual, not a penalty collected by the State.

Connecticut · PA 26-15, §§11–12no figure set in the act

The act sets no figure. Violations are enforced by the Attorney General as an unfair trade practice, and the private remedy under §42-110g is expressly disapplied.

Civil penalty recovered by the State.

Colorado · SB 26-189 (ADMT)no figure set in the act

Attorney General enforcement, with no private right of action. We have not verified a per-violation figure in the act and do not print one.

Civil penalty recovered by the State.

What we cover

5 states with a statute of their own here

Each of these has its own framework, its own authored controls and its own crosswalk report — not a mention in a general tracker. Everything else is reachable through the U.S. state law landscape framework, which cites specific statutes across 28 states.

U.S. state AI law coverage

The library cites specific statutes from 28 states. 6 of those laws, across 5 states, go further and have their own framework, controls and crosswalk report. The rest are reached through the U.S. state law landscape framework, which tracks disclosure, chatbot, biometric, deepfake, health, insurance and employment-AI statutes as they pass — so a new law does not mean a new setting for you.

Alaska — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkAKMaine — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsMEWisconsin — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkWIVermont — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkVTNew Hampshire — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsNHWashington — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsWAIdaho — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsIDMontana — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsMTNorth Dakota — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkNDMinnesota — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsMNIllinois — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsILMichigan — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkMINew York — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsNYMassachusetts — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkMARhode Island — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkRIOregon — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsORNevada — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsNVWyoming — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkWYSouth Dakota — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsSDIowa — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkIAIndiana — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsINOhio — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkOHPennsylvania — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkPANew Jersey — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsNJConnecticut — dedicated framework: Connecticut SB 5 (PA 26-15)CTCalifornia — dedicated framework: California ADMT RegulationsCAUtah — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsUTColorado — dedicated framework: Colorado ADMT Act (SB 26-189); Colorado Chatbot Safety (HB 26-1263)CONebraska — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsNEMissouri — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkMOKentucky — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkKYWest Virginia — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkWVVirginia — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsVAMaryland — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsMDDelaware — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsDEArizona — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsAZNew Mexico — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkNMKansas — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkKSArkansas — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsARTennessee — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsTNNorth Carolina — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkNCSouth Carolina — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkSCDistrict of Columbia — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkDCOklahoma — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkOKLouisiana — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkLAMississippi — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkMSAlabama — covered by the U.S. state law landscape frameworkALGeorgia — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsGAHawaii — dedicated framework: Hawaii AI Acts (247 / 248)HITexas — dedicated framework: Texas TRAIGATXFlorida — specific statutes cited in the U.S. state law landscape controlsFL
Own framework + crosswalkSpecific statutes citedReached via the landscape framework
  • Colorado — Colorado ADMT Act (SB 26-189) · Colorado Chatbot Safety (HB 26-1263)
  • Connecticut — Connecticut SB 5 (PA 26-15)
  • Texas — Texas TRAIGA
  • California — California ADMT Regulations
  • Hawaii — Hawaii AI Acts (247 / 248)

Includes California's ADMT regulations. The CCPA privacy statute is a separate framework, available on Pro. All 51 jurisdictions shown are reachable through the U.S. state law landscape framework; 28 have their own statutes cited in it, and 5 go further with dedicated controls and a coverage report of their own. This map describes what GOVERNBOX covers — it is not a survey of which states have passed AI legislation, and it is not legal advice.

ColoradoRead →ConnecticutRead →TexasRead →HawaiiRead →CaliforniaRead →
The point of all this

You do not need one program per state

Every one of these statutes wants the same five things: know which systems make decisions about people, tell people before the fact, be able to explain a decision afterwards, offer a human path, and keep the records. Only the citations differ. Build the program once and prove it against each set of citations — that is what a crosswalk is for.

Take the free scorecard →Start the 15-day trial
Common questions

What people ask about state AI laws

More than most people expect, and the number moves every month. Lawmakers in 45 states introduced roughly 1,561 AI-related bills in 2026 alone — more than the whole of 2024 — and 27 states enacted 84 new AI laws in just the first half of 2026. What matters for planning is not the total but which ones reach you: a handful create real, dated duties for ordinary employers, and the rest are narrower than the headlines suggest.

Figures on this page come from published legislative trackers and the US Census Bureau’s Business Trends and Outlook Survey, each dated where it appears; penalty figures come from the statutes themselves. Last verified 2026-08-29. This page is general information, not legal advice, and GOVERNBOX.ai does not promise a regulatory outcome. GOVERNBOX.ai is a product of Gradient Descent LLC, an independent commercial company that is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by any state or U.S. government agency.