State Legislators Seek Uniformity Across Borders for AI Regulation
State legislators should pursue a common set of definitions for AI regulation and fill any gaps left by Congress, state lawmakers from both parties said Thursday.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
California Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D) and Kentucky Sen. Whitney Westerfield (R) said during a National Conference of State Legislatures livestream they’re not optimistic Congress will strike a compromise soon on comprehensive legislation for regulating AI. NCSL issued a report Thursday outlining regulatory recommendations for states considering bills. Irwin and Westerfield noted California led the way on privacy legislation, and states have since filled the gap left by congressional inaction. Expect the same on AI, they said.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Congress isn't in a rush to offer legislation and is taking a measured approach. His working group is operating on a months-long timeline for issuing legislative concepts (see 2307170054). The FCC, DOJ, FTC, NTIA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are among federal agencies exploring how their authorities apply to AI regulation (see 2307130048 and 2306160052).
Westerfield and Irwin agreed the priority should be “thoughtful,” not rushed, legislation. Legislators are notorious for being slow, said Westerfield: “I don’t want us to be so slow that we don’t put guardrails up that we need, but I think it’s important to be much more informed than we are.” It would be “great to have one rule instead of 50 rules,” but there isn’t, and consumers can’t afford to be unprotected, he said: Sometimes state legislative ideas are better than what Congress draws up. “I don’t know if it’s a question of slow or fast,” said Irwin. “It’s a question of being thoughtful.”
It’s important to have uniform definitions across states for what AI means and what it’s designed to do, said Westerfield. The report attempts to offer a fundamental starting point for legislators, he said. Irwin noted that California passed the Bolstering Online Transparency (Bot) Act in 2018, which banned online bots from concealing their identities as automated content creators.
Both Irwin and Westerfield agreed industry self-regulation is valuable but not enough without government intervention. The experience in California is that self-regulation on privacy “didn’t work out so well,” said Irwin. The goal is to protect consumer interests, and those don’t always align with industry interests, she said. Irwin noted many states rushed to pass privacy legislation after California, and many of them adopted language from the failed Washington state privacy bill, which resulted in conflicting laws.
Westerfield said Kentucky’s Senate recently established a technology committee, and one of its first hearings was on AI. The NCSL report will be a guiding document for any states considering AI legislation, he said. There are “uniform” concerns about privacy related to AI and that includes the government’s use of the technology, he said.