Artificial intelligence laws
Navigating the Evolving Landscape of AI Laws: Compliance
| Country | Law Title | Summary of Law | Effective Date | Scope | Opt-out options | Accomodations | Private right of action | Penalties | Link to law |
| United States | Utah AI Policy Act | Requires businesses to clearly disclose when generative AI is used in certain consumer-facing interactions and allows enforcement under state consumer protection laws, while also establishing a state AI policy and oversight framework. | 1-May-24 | Companies deploying GenAI tools, classified as either "regulated occupations" or those outside of regulated businesses. | The law does not currently provide a direct "opt-out" option for users to completely avoid AI interactions, but the disclosure requirement allows users to make informed decisions based on their awareness of interacting with an AI. | Not specified; existing anti-discrimination and accessibility laws continue to apply. | No | Violators could face an administrative fine of up to 2,500 USD and a civil penalty up to 5,000 | <a href="https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/SB0149.html" title="Utah AI Policy Act">UT AI Policy Act</a> |
| United States | NYC Local Law 144 | Requires businesses using automated employment decision tools in New York City to conduct independent bias audits, publish audit summaries, and notify candidates and workers before using such tools in hiring or employment decisions. | 5-Jul-23 | Employers and employment agencies using AEDTs to evaluate candidates for employment or employees for promotion that reside in New York City. | All applicants to a New York City job posting have the opportunity during the job application to opt out of the use of AEDTs. | Implicit; businesses should provide reasonable alternatives or human review when required under applicable disability or anti-discrimination laws. | Yes | Penalties for non-compliance are a $500 fine for the first violation and $1,500 fines for subsequent violations. | <a href="https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4344524&GUID=B051915D-A9AC-451E-81F8-6596032FA3F9&Options=ID%7cText%7c&Search=" title="NYC Local Law 144">NYC Local Law 144</a> |
| United States | Maryland HB 1202: Facial Recognition Law | Prohibits businesses from using facial recognition technology during job interviews unless the individual provides explicit written consent prior to its use. | 1-Oct-20 | Businesses who use facial recognition during hiring. | All applicants to a new York City job posting may opt-out/not provide consent to use certain facial recognition technologies during an interview | Applicants who refuse to sign a waiver consenting to use of facial recognition technologies are to be interviewed without those technologies | Not specified | No specific fines or penalties are mentioned. | <a href="https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2020RS/bills/hb/hb1202T.pdf" title="MD HB 1202">MD HB 1202</a> |
| United States | Portland's Facial Recognition Ban | Prohibits businesses from using facial recognition technology in places of public accommodation, including employment-related interactions open to the public, with limited exceptions for security and user-initiated device features. | 1-Jan-21 | Private entities in places of public accommodation | None | Because facial recognition use is banned in covered contexts (including employment-related interactions open to the public), businesses must use non-facial recognition alternatives by default. | Yes | Individuals can sue a private entity in any court of competent jurisdiction for damages sustained as a result of the violation or $1,000 per day for each day of the violation, whichever is greater and such other remedies may be appropriate. | <a href="https://www.portland.gov/code/34/10" title="Portland Facial Recognition Ban">Portland Facial Recognition Ban</a> |
| United States | Illinois AI Video Interview Act (AIVIA) | Requires businesses using AI-based video interview analysis to notify candidates, explain how the AI is used and evaluated, and obtain consent before deploying such tools in hiring processes. | 1-Jan-20 | Employers who use AI to analyze video interviews of job applicants for positions based in Illinois | Allows applicants of a job to opt-out of video interviewing | Implicit; businesses should provide alternative interview formats when consent is not given or accommodations are requested. | Not specified | The Act does not specify what types of remedies are available, nor quantify available damages. | <a href="https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/101/HB/PDF/10100HB2557lv.pdf" title="IL AIVIA">IL AIVIA</a> |
| United States | Illinois HB 3773: AI Anti-Discrimination Amendment to Human Rights Act | Amends Illinois’ Human Rights Act to prohibit businesses from using AI or automated decision systems that result in unlawful discrimination in employment-related decisions. | 1-Jan-26 | Employers that use AI for employment decisions for anybody based in the state of Illinois. | No opt-out option required from businesses | Implicit; businesses must ensure AI systems do not result in unlawful discrimination and may need to offer alternatives to comply with human rights laws. | Yes | No specific fines or penalties are mentioned. Failure to meet the requirements of this bill is considered a civil rights violation. | <a href="https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/103/HB/PDF/10300HB3773lv.pdf" title="IL HB 3773">IL HB 3773</a> |
| United States | California SB 942: California's AI Transparency Act | Requires large generative AI providers to include clear disclosures and detection tools identifying AI-generated or AI-modified content, increasing transparency for downstream business users and the public. | 2-Aug-26 | "Covered providers," meaning a person that creates, codes, or produces a GenAI system that has over one million monthly users and is publicly accessible within CA. Also applies to third party deployers in that they must abide by downstream contractual obligations. | Covered providers will not collect or retain personal information of users that submit feedback on the AI system unless the user opts in to being contacted by the provider for feedback purposes. | Not applicable | No | If a covered provider revokes the license it granted to a third party licensee for failure to maintain latent disclosures and the licensee continues to use the AI system, the licensee may be responsible not just for breach but subject directly to civil actions brought by government prosecutors. For covered providers, $5,000 per violation, with each day in violation deemed a separate violation. | <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB942#:~:text=This%20bill%2c%20the%20California%20AI%2cdetection%20tool%20is%20publicly%20accessible." title="CA SB 942">CA SB 942</a> |
| United States | Colorado' SB 24-205: AI Act (amended in May 2026 under SB 26-189) | Replaces the prior “high‑risk AI” framework with a narrower regime governing Automated Decision‑Making Technology (ADMT) that materially influences consequential decisions. Requires consumer notice, post‑adverse‑outcome explanations, correction rights, meaningful human review, and a three-year retention period. Eliminates impact assessments, risk‑management programs, and bias audits that were included in the Act prior to the SB 26-189 amendment. | 1-Jan-27 | Developers and deployers of ADMT used to materially influence consequential decisions affecting Colorado consumers or workers. | There is no a general “opt‑out of AI processing” right. Instead, the act provides post‑decision rights such as request to access personal data, correction of factually incorrect data, human review and reconsideration of an adverse action. | If the AI use results in an adverse action in employment, businesses must give the individual the opportunity to correct incorrect data and provide an appeals process. Requires a meaningful human review upon request after an adverse outcomes. | No | Violations of the Act are deemed to be unfair trade practice under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, with penalties up to $20,000 per violation. | <font face="Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:14.6667px;"><a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/116189/download?utm_source=copilot.com" title="CO SB 26-189">CO SB 26-189</a></span></font> |
| European Union | EU AI Act | Establishes a comprehensive, risk-based regulatory framework for AI, imposing strict compliance obligations on businesses using high-risk AI systems in employment, including transparency, documentation, and human oversight requirements. | 1-Aug-24 | Providers and deployers of AI systems used within the European Union, even if they are developed outside of the European Union. | No opt-out option | Mandates human oversight, safeguards, and risk mitigation measures for high-risk AI systems, including in employment contexts. | No | • Noncompliance with banned AI practices is subject to fines up to €35,000,000 or up to 7% of the company’s total global annual turnover, whichever is higher. • Noncompliance with other provisions of the Act is subject to fines of up to €15,000,000 or up to 3% of total global annual turnover, whichever is higher. • Providing inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information to relevant authorities as necessary is subject to a fine of up to €7,500,000 or 1% of global annual turnover, whichever is higher. |
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689" title="EU AI Act">EU AI Act</a> |
| Canada | Bill 64: Quebec Privacy Law | Requires businesses to disclose when automated decision-making is used, provide individuals with meaningful information about how decisions are made, and comply with enhanced privacy governance and consent obligations. | Spread out from September 2022 to September 2024 | Businesses headquartered in Quebec (protects their consumers and workers) as well as businesses whose website has visitors from Quebec. | Individuals can opt-out of being profiled by businesses that use algorithms or other technology | Businesses must provide explanations and allow human intervention when automated decision-making is used. | Yes | • Administrative penalties: up to CAD 10,000,000 or 2% of worldwide turnover for the preceding fiscal year, whichever is greater. • Criminal penalties: up to CAD 25,000,000 or 4% of worldwide turnover for the preceding fiscal year, whichever is greater. Fines will be doubled in the event of a subsequent offense. |
<a href="https://www.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/Fichiers_client/lois_et_reglements/LoisAnnuelles/en/2021/2021C25A.PDF" title="Quebec Bill 64">Quebec Bill 64</a> |
| Canada | Bill 149: Ontario Working for Workers Four Act (AI disclosures in job postings requirement specifically) | Requires businesses to disclose in publicly advertised job postings when AI is used to screen, assess, or select candidates, as part of broader employment transparency reforms. | 1-Jan-26 | Companies with 25 or more workers | No opt-out option required from businesses | Not specified; existing anti-discrimination and accessibility laws continue to apply. | The Act does not explicitly establish a private right of action. However, individuals can seek judicial redress if the government does not investigate a complaint. | The maximum fine for individuals who violate the Employment Standards Act (ESA) or who fail to comply with a related order or direction is $100,000. | <a href="https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-43/session-1/bill-149" title="Ontario Bill 149">Ontario Bill 149</a> |
| United States | Connecticut Public Act No. 26-15 | Establishes a comprehensive framework for businesses using automated employment-related decision technologies (AEDTs) in hiring, promotion, discipline, discharge, training and other employment decisions and developers of the technology. Requires written disclosures to applicants and workers about AEDT use, data sources, and decision logic, and makes clear that businesses remain responsible for discriminatory outcomes even when AI is used. Also requires WARN notices to state whether layoffs are related to AI or other technological changes. | WARN/anti-discrimination provisions effective October 1, 2026; AEDT notice obligations effective October 1, 2027. | Businesses whose automated systems materially influence employment decisions for applicants or employees in Connecticut, including hiring, promotion, discipline, termination, and training ("deployers"), and developers of the systems. | No formal opt‑out mechanism. The law focuses on transparency, not avoidance. Individuals receive disclosures but cannot decline AEDT use. | Not specified; existing anti-discrimination and accessibility laws continue to apply, and businesses remain responsible for ensuring AEDT decisions do not result in discriminatory outcomes. | No | Violations of AEDT notice requirements constitute unfair or deceptive trade practices enforceable by the Attorney General under Connecticut’s consumer protection laws (e.g., civil penalties, injunctive relief). | <p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:115%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Aptos, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"><a href="https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB5222"><span style="font-family:calibri;">CT HB 5222</span></a></span></p> |
| United States | Illinois Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act (SB 315) | Imposes safety protocols to mitigate "catastrophic risks" from advanced frontier AI models. Requires covered developers to publish risk-mitigation frameworks, implement strict cybersecurity controls for unreleased model weights, establish employee whistleblower channels, and issue public transparency reports. | 1-Jan-27 | Large frontier AI developers operating in Illinois whose systems meet specified computing thresholds or whose annual revenue exceeds $500 million | No opt-out option | Mandatory integration of national, international, and industry-consensus safety best practices before model deployment. | No | Severe statutory civil penalties: up to $1,000,000 for a first violation and up to $3,000,000 for subsequent violations. | <a href="https://gov-pritzker-newsroom.prezly.com/gov-pritzker-signs-nation-leading-artificial-intelligence-safety-law" title="IL SB 315">IL SB 315</a><br> |
| United States | Texas HB 149 (TRAIGA) | Establishes an AI governance framework that explicitly prohibits developers and deployers from using AI or automated systems with the intent to discriminate against individuals based on protected characteristics. | 1-Jan-26 | Employers and businesses operating in Texas that deploy AI or automated decision-making systems for employment, hiring, or workforce management decisions. | No explicit applicant or employee opt-out mandate required under this specific statute. | Employers must ensure their automated screening and hiring tools do not intentionally target, exclude, or discriminate against protected classes. | No | Enforced exclusively by the Texas Attorney General; violations are treated as deceptive trade practices or civil rights violations, subject to state-initiated civil penalties and injunctions. No specific statutory per-day fine is fixed for employers. | <a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?Bill=HB149&LegSess=89R" title="TX HB 149">TX HB 149</a><br> |
TCWGlobal simplifies complex employment law issues, offering expert guidance on everything from mandatory leave laws to employment discrimination claims. Their legal team partners with your business to ensure compliance and appropriate treatment of workers globally.
