Skip to main content
Regulome
Search the register
For ProvidersRun the free checker

US state AI laws compared

Colorado, New York City, Illinois, and California have enacted substantive AI compliance laws. What each one covers, who must comply, and how each is enforced.

Side-by-side comparison

AttributeColorado AI ActNYC Local Law 144Illinois AIVIRACalifornia AB 2013
JurisdictionColorado (statewide)New York CityIllinois (statewide)California (statewide)
Key datesApplies January 1, 2027 (SB 26-189, signed May 14, 2026)Effective January 1, 2023; DCWP enforcement since July 5, 2023Effective January 1, 2020Effective January 1, 2026
Primary focusADMT that makes or materially influences consequential decisionsAI hiring and promotion tools (AEDTs)AI video interview analysisGenerative AI training data transparency
Who must complyDeployers and developers doing business in Colorado whose ADMT affects Colorado consumersEmployers and agencies using AEDTs for jobs located in NYC, including NYC-tied remote rolesEmployers using AI to analyze video interviews of Illinois applicantsDevelopers of generative AI made publicly available to Californians (released or substantially modified since January 1, 2022)
Key obligationPre-use notice, adverse-decision explanation, human-review right, three-year recordsAnnual independent bias audit (including intersectional categories), public results, 10-day advance noticeNotice, explanation of the AI, written consent, 30-day deletion on requestPublic disclosure of training data sources and characteristics
Max penalty$20,000 per violation$500 first violation, up to $1,500 per subsequent violation, per dayNone specified in the statuteNone AI-specific; enforcement expected under California's Unfair Competition Law
Private lawsuit?NoNoNot specified in the statuteNo AI-specific right of action
EnforcementColorado Attorney General (conditional 60-day cure until January 1, 2030)NYC Dept. of Consumer and Worker ProtectionNo enforcement mechanism specifiedExpected via California's Unfair Competition Law
Sector scopeAll sectors using covered ADMT (insurer and HIPAA-entity carve-outs apply)Employment onlyEmployment (video interviews) onlyGenerative AI developers

Which laws reach which teams

HR tech and hiring platforms

NYC Local Law 144Illinois AIVIRA

If you offer automated resume screening, candidate scoring, or video interview analysis to employers, your customers need annual bias audits for NYC-located jobs and consent and deletion workflows in Illinois.

Generative AI developers

California AB 2013EU AI Act (GPAI)

If you train generative models and make them available to California users, AB 2013 requires public training-data disclosure. The EU AI Act adds separate GPAI obligations, in force since August 2, 2025.

Enterprise AI deployers

Colorado AI ActEU AI Act

If your ADMT makes or materially influences decisions in employment, lending, housing, insurance, health care, or education for Colorado consumers, notice and rights duties apply from January 1, 2027.

Financial services

Colorado AI ActNYC Local Law 144EU AI Act

Institutions using AI for credit, underwriting, or hiring face the most overlap: Colorado's ADMT duties, NYC's bias-audit requirement for NYC jobs, and EU high-risk classification for creditworthiness AI.

The patchwork problem

The EU AI Act creates one framework across 27 countries. US AI compliance is a growing set of state and local laws with different triggers, obligations, and enforcers. A single AI product used across the US can be subject to NYC's bias-audit rule, Colorado's notice and rights duties, Illinois's consent and deletion rules, and California's training-data disclosure at the same time.

The practical approach is to build the most demanding requirement into your baseline: a program designed for the Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144 together, with AB 2013 disclosure documentation, covers most current US obligations and positions you for the states that legislate next.