State Laws Affecting Frontier US AI Companies
About

What this is, and how to check it

This site assembles the frontier AI obligations that US states have actually enacted into one readable bill, and gives every state with a law its own text-centered page. Everything on it is a quotation from an official text, and every quotation is machine-checked against an archived copy of that text before the page is built.
Maintainer
Jay Kim
Last verified
1 August 2026
Scope
State statutes reaching frontier model developers

What the composite is

Front page · The Combined State Frontier Law

The front page is a composite: for each obligation that state frontier AI law imposes — publish a safety framework, report critical safety incidents, protect whistleblowers, and so on — it reproduces the strictest enacted version of that obligation, verbatim, in the words of the state that enacted it. Sections are ordered as a bill is ordered, each section carries the chip of the state whose words those are, and each carries its own effective date, because the strictest version of one duty may not be in force on the same day as the strictest version of the next.

Defined terms are glossed in brackets in our own typeface — [like this] — so that a reader who does not know which agency “the Agency” means can find out without leaving the sentence. The bracketed text is ours; everything outside the brackets is the statute’s.

What it is not

Read this part before quoting us
  • It is not a law. No legislature has passed the combined text and no state is bound by it. It is a reading device for what a developer operating in every state already faces.
  • It is not a ranking of states. Sections are selected obligation by obligation. Holding a section means a state’s text is the strictest on that one duty, not that the state is strictest overall.
  • It is not a complete AI-law tracker. Statutes about AI use — consumer disclosure, automated decisions, government procurement — are out of scope. Where they exist, they are listed on the state bills page and linked to their official text, but they are not part of the composite.
  • It is not legal advice, and it is not a substitute for reading the enacted text, which is linked from every quotation.

Method

How a provision gets onto the page

Every provision starts as a span copied out of an archived official text, together with the file it came from, its section cite, its effective date, and the URL of the official page. It is tagged against one baseline — California SB 53 — as matching California, tightening California on a parameter California also regulates, or having no California analogue at all. A provision tagged as having no California analogue must still carry the nearest California text, so that the claim can be checked rather than taken on trust.

Category names are not ours to invent. The obligation categories that structure the composite follow the vocabulary the field already uses, and where the underlying reading of a statute rests on someone else’s work, that work is cited on the row rather than absorbed.

Two things on this site are ours rather than the statutes’: the map’s legend buckets and the “also on the books” scope labels are editorial groupings written here to make the picture skimmable, not a taxonomy any legislature enacted or any tracker publishes.

Comparative language is deliberately flat. Every state legislature on this site did something no federal statute has done, and the site is not in the business of grading them against each other.

The verifier gate

Why the quotations can be trusted

Nothing reaches a page on the strength of an agent’s memory. Before the site is built, a verifier loads every quotation, opens the archived source file that the quotation names, and requires a whitespace-normalized string match. A single miss names the failing provision and stops the build.

The same match does double duty. Source links carry a text fragment (#:~:text=) built from a short, distinctive span of the quotation, so a click lands on the highlighted words on the official page rather than at the top of a long statute; the fragment is validated against the source by the same string match that proved the quotation. Browsers without fragment support fall back to the plain official page. After the HTML is generated, the verifier runs again over the rendered pages, so that a template cannot quietly mangle a quotation on its way out.

This exists because it was needed: during drafting, a fabricated “verbatim” lead-in survived two rounds of human review. Mechanical checking is the only defense that scales.

Provenance

Archived official texts · retrieved 1 August 2026
CA
SB 53, chaptered 29 September 2025 lawmap_texts/ca/CA_SB53_BPC_22757.10-22757.16.txt · retrieved 2026-08-01T18:04Z
leginfo.ca.gov
NY
S8828, Chapter 96 of the Laws of 2026 — the text that repealed and replaced Article 44-B lawmap_texts/ny/s8828_chapter96_2026_full_text.txt · retrieved 2026-08-01T18:11Z
nyassembly.gov
IL
Public Act 104-0538, enrolled text lawmap_texts/il/IL_PA_104-0538_AI_Safety_Measures_Act.txt · retrieved 2026-08-01T18:04Z
ilga.gov
CT
Public Act 26-15 (SB 5), official act PDF lawmap_texts/ct/CT_PA_26-15_SB5_online_safety.txt · retrieved 2026-08-01T18:04Z
cga.ct.gov
MA
S.3228, Senate-engrossed text — a pending bill, not law lawmap_texts/ma/S3228_ch93M_frontier_AI_senate_engrossed.txt · retrieved 2026-08-01T18:09Z
malegislature.gov

Each archived file carries the source URL and the UTC retrieval time in its header. Quotations are matched against these files, not against the live web, so a page that changes upstream cannot silently change what this site says it says — it shows up as a re-archiving decision instead. Statuses on the Massachusetts page follow the bill history published on malegislature.gov: the House non-concurred in the Senate amendment on 30 July 2026 and committees of conference were appointed in both branches.

Credits and corrections

Where the framing came from

The obligation categories adapt pillar language from the SB 53 coalition letter to Gov. Newsom (Encode AI and 22 other signatory organizations, 24 September 2025), and the framing of what these laws still leave uncovered follows the Secure AI Project’s statement of policy priorities. Neither organization is responsible for how the vocabulary is used here.

The annotated-statute format owes a debt to sb53.info, Miles Kodama’s annotated SB 53 (AI Futures Project). All quotations on this site are drawn directly from official statute texts. The state outlines are from simplemaps.com, free for commercial use.

Corrections are welcome, and an unsourced claim is a bug. If a quotation does not match the enacted text, if a section is attributed to the wrong state, or if a law has moved since 1 August 2026, that is a defect and it will be fixed. Maintainer: Jay Kim. File corrections as GitHub issues or by email to jay.ifp.automation@gmail.com.

On this page

What the composite is Strictest enacted version of each obligation, verbatim What it is not Not a law, not a ranking, not legal advice Method One baseline, one tag, one cite per provision The verifier gate String-matched quotations and deep links Provenance Five archived official texts, with retrieval times Credits and corrections Taxonomy, annotations, base map, maintainer
Every claim on this site should end in a citation and a working link. Where one does not, treat it as a defect and say so.