AI Legislation & Regulation Guide

The legal landscape for artificial intelligence liability is evolving rapidly. Federal legislation, state bills, and international frameworks are reshaping how victims of AI-related injuries can seek compensation. Understanding these emerging laws helps you recognize your rights and the expanding pathways to recovery.

The Federal Landscape

#

AI LEAD Act (S.2937)

#

The AI LEAD Act (Aligning Incentives for Leadership, Excellence, and Advancement in Development Act), introduced in the U.S. Senate on September 29, 2025, by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), represents the most significant federal effort to establish product liability standards for artificial intelligence.

Why This Matters for Victims

The AI LEAD Act would fundamentally change how AI injury claims are handled by:

1. Classifying AI as a Product: The bill explicitly defines AI systems as “covered products” subject to traditional product liability frameworks, closing arguments that AI is merely a service exempt from product liability.

2. Creating a Federal Cause of Action: Victims, state attorneys general, and the U.S. Attorney General can bring civil actions in federal court against AI developers and deployers.

3. Prohibiting Liability Waivers: Companies cannot use terms of service or contracts to waive or limit liability for AI-caused harm—eliminating a loophole tech firms have used for years.

4. Addressing Section 230 Immunity: By classifying AI systems as products, the bill forecloses arguments for platform immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Key Liability Provisions

Under the AI LEAD Act, developers face potential liability for:

• Defective Design: When the AI system’s fundamental architecture creates unreasonable risks
• Failure to Warn: When manufacturers don’t adequately communicate known AI limitations or dangers
• Breach of Express Warranty: When AI systems fail to perform as promised
• Strict Liability: When AI systems are unreasonably dangerous or defective

Deployers (companies that use AI systems) may also face liability for unauthorized modifications or misuse, though they can seek dismissal if the developer is available and solvent.

Statute of Limitations

The Act provides a four-year statute of limitations with additional protections for minors whose claims may arise from childhood AI exposure.

Retroactive Application

The legislation would apply to suits filed after enactment, even if the alleged harm occurred beforehand—meaning current AI injury victims may benefit when the law passes.

Current Status

As of late 2025, the AI LEAD Act remains under consideration by Congress. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings in September 2025 focused on harms from AI chatbots, with findings noting that “multiple teenagers have tragically died after being exploited by an artificial intelligence chatbot.”

Federal Preemption Debate

#

A critical question for AI liability is whether federal law will preempt (override) state regulations. In late 2025, there were efforts to block states from enforcing their own AI regulations through federal preemption, though Congress rejected a proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation enforcement.

For victims, this means state laws currently remain important avenues for recovery, and your state’s specific AI liability rules may provide stronger protections than federal law.

State Legislation: A Patchwork of Protections

#

In 2025 alone, lawmakers across all 50 states introduced over 1,080 AI-related bills. While only about 11% have become law, several states have enacted significant liability-related legislation.

California AB 316: No “AI Did It” Defense

#

Governor Newsom signed AB 316 into law on October 13, 2025, taking effect January 1, 2026. This law has immediate practical implications for AI injury victims in California.

What It Does

AB 316 prohibits any defendant who developed, modified, or used AI from asserting that “the artificial intelligence autonomously caused the harm” as a legal defense. In other words, companies cannot escape liability by claiming their AI acted independently.

Who It Applies To

The law applies broadly to:

• AI developers
• Companies that modified AI systems
• Any user of AI (including individuals, not just businesses)

What It Preserves

AB 316 doesn’t create strict liability or eliminate all defenses. Defendants can still argue:

• The AI didn’t cause the plaintiff’s injury (causation)
• The harm wasn’t foreseeable
• The plaintiff shares fault (comparative negligence)
• The defendant exercised ordinary care in developing or using the AI

Why It Matters

This law codifies a straightforward principle: those who profit from AI cannot evade liability by blaming the intended autonomy of their own machines. If an AI system misdiagnoses a patient or generates harmful content, the developer cannot simply claim “the AI did it.”

Rhode Island S0358: Strict Liability for AI Injuries

#

Rhode Island has introduced one of the most aggressive AI liability bills in the nation. Though currently held for further study, S0358 represents a potential model for future legislation.

Key Provisions

• Strict Liability Standard: Developers could be held liable for AI-caused injuries even if they exercised considerable care in development
• Protection for Non-Users: The bill specifically protects people injured by AI systems they never agreed to use—bystanders, pedestrians, and third parties
• Rebuttable Presumption of Mental State: If an AI causes harm that would require examining mental state under traditional tort law, the law treats the AI as if it possessed the required mental state

Why This Matters

Traditional tort law often requires proving negligence—that someone failed to exercise reasonable care. Strict liability removes this burden. If AI caused your injury, you don’t need to prove the developer was careless—only that the AI was defective or unreasonably dangerous.

Colorado AI Act (SB 24-205): Consumer Protection Framework

#

Colorado’s AI Act, signed in May 2024 with an effective date now postponed to June 30, 2026, takes a consumer protection approach to AI regulation.

Key Requirements

For developers of high-risk AI systems:

• Use reasonable care to protect consumers from algorithmic discrimination
• Disclose reasonably foreseeable uses and known harmful uses
• Provide documentation of AI capabilities and limitations

For deployers of high-risk AI systems:

• Implement risk management policies and programs
• Complete annual impact assessments
• Notify consumers when AI makes or substantially factors into “consequential decisions”
• Disclose the purpose of the AI system and contact information

What Qualifies as “High-Risk” AI

AI systems making consequential decisions in:

• Education enrollment and opportunities
• Employment and hiring
• Financial services and lending
• Healthcare services
• Housing
• Insurance
• Government services
• Legal services

Enforcement

The Colorado Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority. Violations constitute deceptive trade practices under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

Affirmative Defense

Developers and deployers have an affirmative defense if they comply with nationally recognized AI risk management frameworks and take measures to discover and correct violations.

Illinois: AI Chatbot and Mental Health Protections

#

Illinois has enacted several AI-focused laws addressing specific harms:

HB 3021: Chatbot Disclosure Requirements

This law requires chatbots to inform users when they’re interacting with an AI system rather than a human, particularly in commercial transactions.

HB 1806: AI Therapy Prohibition (Signed August 2025)

Restricts the use of AI by licensed professionals providing therapy and psychotherapy services, responding to concerns about AI chatbots providing mental health advice that led to user harm.

Other State Developments

#

New York RAISE Act: Targets frontier AI models with transparency and risk safeguards (awaiting Governor’s signature as of late 2025)

Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts: Have introduced bills requiring prominent chatbot disclosures or imposing liability for misleading chatbot communications

Texas: Enacted AI law focused primarily on government AI applications

International Framework: The EU Approach

#

While focusing on U.S. law, the European Union’s approach influences global AI governance and may affect companies operating internationally.

EU Product Liability Directive (Revised)

#

The EU revised its Product Liability Directive to explicitly include software and AI systems as “products” subject to strict liability. Key provisions:

• Software as Product: AI and software explicitly covered under product liability
• Expanded Liability Scope: Not just manufacturers but companies that substantially modify AI or integrate defective components
• Self-Learning Considerations: Defectiveness concept updated to consider AI’s ability to learn and change after deployment
• Cybersecurity Requirements: Failure to provide security updates or comply with cybersecurity requirements can constitute a defect

EU member states must transpose this directive into national law by December 9, 2026.

AI Liability Directive Status

#

The European Commission’s proposed AI Liability Directive, which would have addressed fault-based AI liability claims, was withdrawn in February 2025 due to lack of agreement. The Product Liability Directive now serves as the primary liability framework for AI in the EU.

Practical Implications for Victims

#

How Emerging Legislation Affects Your Claim

#

Expanding Theories of Recovery

New legislation creates additional pathways beyond traditional product liability:

• Federal cause of action under AI LEAD Act (if passed)
• State consumer protection claims under Colorado-style legislation
• Elimination of “autonomous AI” defenses under California AB 316

Shifting Burden of Proof

Several emerging laws make it easier to prove AI liability:

• Strict liability standards eliminate need to prove negligence
• Presumptions that AI possessed required mental state for tort liability
• Disclosure requirements create documentary evidence of AI limitations

Multiple Potential Defendants

Modern AI liability frameworks recognize the complex AI supply chain:

• Original AI developers
• Companies that modify or fine-tune AI
• Deployers who use AI in their products or services
• Component manufacturers

What to Do Now

#

1. Document Everything

Preserve evidence of how AI was involved in your injury:

• Screenshots of AI interactions
• Records of AI system outputs or decisions
• Documentation of which company’s AI caused harm

2. Identify All Potential Defendants

Consider the full chain of AI development and deployment:

• Who developed the AI?
• Who deployed or integrated it?
• Who modified it?
• Who provided the data used to train it?

3. Monitor Legislative Developments

AI liability law is evolving rapidly. New laws may:

• Create new causes of action
• Extend statutes of limitations
• Apply retroactively to existing harms

4. Consult an Attorney Early

Given the complexity of emerging AI law, early legal consultation is essential. An attorney can:

• Identify which laws apply to your situation
• Preserve claims under developing legal theories
• Navigate multi-state and federal options

Resources and Further Reading

#

Legislative Tracking

#

• Federal: Track AI LEAD Act (S.2937) at Congress.gov
• State: National Conference of State Legislatures maintains an AI legislation database
• International: EU AI Act and Product Liability Directive resources from the European Commission

Regulatory Agencies

#

• Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC): For consumer AI products
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA): For medical AI devices
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): For autonomous vehicles
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): For AI hiring discrimination