The structured reference for US AI compliance.
NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, and every consequential US state AI law in one continuously verified atlas — paired with interactive tools that map obligations to your operations.
Built for compliance officerslegal counselAI product teams
US state AI law status — at a glance
What's enforceable right now
Snapshot from the freshness monitor. Click any law for full obligations, penalties, and citations.
| Jurisdiction | Law | Status | Effective | Max penalty | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | California SB 947 (No Robo Bosses Act: Automated Decision Systems in the Workplace)Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1520–1526.7 (Stats. 2026, Ch. 859) | StatusEffective soon | Effective dateJuly 1, 2027 | Max penalty$500 | Last verifiedOctober 12, 2026 |
| New York | New York RAISE Act (Responsible AI Safety and Education Act)N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 1420–1429 (Art. 44-B), L. 2025, ch. 699, as replaced by L. 2026, ch. 96 | StatusEffective soon | Effective dateJanuary 1, 2027 | Max penalty$3.0M | Last verifiedOctober 12, 2026 |
| Colorado | Colorado Artificial Intelligence ActC.R.S. § 6-1-1701 to § 6-1-1709 | StatusEffective soon | Effective dateJanuary 1, 2027 | Max penalty$20K | Last verifiedJuly 31, 2026 |
| California | California AI Transparency ActCal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22757 et seq. | StatusIn effect | Effective dateAugust 2, 2026 | Max penalty$5K | Last verifiedOctober 12, 2026 |
| Connecticut | Connecticut Public Act 26-15 / SB 5 (Online Safety and AI Provisions)Public Act 26-15, 2026 Gen. Assemb. (Substitute S.B. 5, "An Act Concerning Online Safety"), as affected by Public Act 26-100 | StatusIn effect | Effective dateMay 27, 2026 | Max penaltyNot specified | Last verifiedAugust 10, 2026 |
| Texas | Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA)Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Chs. 551-554 | StatusIn effect | Effective dateJanuary 1, 2026 | Max penalty$200K | Last verifiedAugust 8, 2026 |
| California | California Generative AI: Training Data TransparencyCal. Civ. Code §§ 3110–3111 | StatusIn effect | Effective dateJanuary 1, 2026 | Max penaltyNot specified | Last verifiedJuly 27, 2026 |
| Illinois | Illinois HB 3773 (AI in Employment Decisions)775 ILCS 5/2-102 (as amended) | StatusIn effect | Effective dateJanuary 1, 2026 | Max penaltyNot specified | Last verifiedAugust 8, 2026 |
For the complete source-linked calendar, watchlist, and law-by-law classification, read the 2026 US state AI laws overview.
Tools that turn law into action
Built on the same primary-source data that powers the atlas. Free, no account required.
Compliance Checker
Surface every framework and state law that applies to your AI deployments — including likely effective dates.
- Yes — directly affects outcomes
- Yes — but a human reviews each decision
- No — informational only
Penalty Calculator
Estimate worst-case civil penalties across applicable jurisdictions. Conservative methodology, fully cited.
Impact Assessment Generator
Produces a downloadable impact assessment template aligned with your jurisdiction's statutory requirements.
Four ways into the atlas
Same primary sources, different lenses. Pick the one that matches how you're scoping work this quarter.
By framework
Maturity & control programs you may already use.
By industry
Where AI use intersects existing sectoral law.
By role
Obligations differ for builders, buyers, and resellers.
By comparison
Side-by-side views for overlapping AI laws and frameworks.
Pillar guides
Long-form explainers behind the atlas — role obligations, high-risk classification, federal preemption, sectoral overlays, and framework mapping.
US State AI Laws: All 13 Tracked (2026 Overview)
2026 guide to US state AI regulation, refreshed for Colorado SB 26-189, Connecticut PA 26-15/26-100, California AI laws, and compliance strategy.
AI Deployer vs Developer Obligations — Role Framework
How US AI laws split obligations between developers and deployers, why the line matters, and how to map your operations to the right role.
High-Risk AI System Explained
High-risk AI defined under Colorado's AI Act (SB 24-205, now reenacted as the SB 26-189 ADMT regime) and parallel concepts in the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, and other US state laws.
Federal vs State AI Law: Preemption & How They Interact
How federal AI frameworks, federal enforcement, White House preemption policy, and state AI laws interact in 2026 — with a compliance evidence matrix.
AI Impact Assessment Template (2026): NIST, ISO 42001, Colorado ADMT
Build an AI impact assessment evidence file mapped to NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, Colorado SB 26-189 ADMT evidence, and state-law review workflows.
EU AI Act Compliance vs US State AI Laws — 2026 Comparison
EU AI Act compliance timeline for 2026-2028 compared with US state AI laws including Colorado, Texas, NYC LL 144, California, and Connecticut.
NIST AI RMF Playbook: Downloads, Actions & State-Law Map
NIST ships the AI RMF Playbook as PDF, Excel, CSV and JSON, updated twice a year. What its four functions cover, and how the actions map to US state AI laws.
HIPAA Compliance for AI in Healthcare (2026 Guide)
How HIPAA applies to healthcare AI: PHI use, business associate agreements, de-identification, Security Rule safeguards, breach response, and FDA overlap.
AI Compliance Framework: Regulatory Control Map (2026 Guide)
A 2026 AI compliance framework for mapping NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, state AI laws, evidence artifacts, and AI regulatory compliance tooling.
AI Governance: Building an AI Compliance Program (2026 Guide)
How to build an AI governance program: operating model, decision rights, lifecycle gates, the NIST AI RMF GOVERN function, ISO/IEC 42001, and the US state-law overlay.
Recent updates
Every entry links to the primary source. We re-verify continuously and timestamp every page.
- October 6, 2026GuidanceColorado Attorney General Releases Interim Draft of ADMT and Chatbot Safety Rules Ahead of October 26 HearingOn October 6, 2026 the Colorado Department of Law released an interim draft of its proposed Automated Decision-Making Technology and Conversational Artificial Intelligence Service rules, 4 CCR 904-6, with a cover page of additional considerations. The rules implement SB 26-189, the Automated Decision-Making Technology Act, and HB 26-1263, the Chatbot Safety Act, both of which take effect January 1, 2027. The Attorney General's office is accepting formal written comments through October 26, 2026, the date of its public rulemaking hearing, which can also be attended by Zoom. Attorney General AI page and Secretary of State rulemaking notice (tracking number 2026-00360) retrieved 2026-10-12.
- October 1, 2026EffectiveMaryland's AI and Deepfake Identity Fraud Law Takes EffectMaryland Senate Bill 8, Chapter 445 of the 2026 session, approved by Governor Wes Moore on May 12, 2026, took effect October 1, 2026. It amends Criminal Law Section 8-301 to prohibit a person from knowingly, willfully, and with fraudulent intent using artificial intelligence or a deepfake representation to impersonate, falsely depict, or claim to represent another person to cause harm, or to create or distribute false records, and provides that a victim of the prohibited conduct may bring a civil action. The act defines a deepfake representation and adopts the State Finance and Procurement Article definition of artificial intelligence. Chapter text retrieved 2026-10-12.
- September 30, 2026AmendmentCalifornia SB 1000 Removes the AI Transparency Act's 1,000,000-User Threshold, Effective ImmediatelySenate Bill 1000 (Becker) was approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on September 30, 2026 as Chapter 861, Statutes of 2026. Because it passed both houses with an urgency clause, it took effect the same day. It amends Business and Professions Code Sections 22757.1 through 22757.5 of the California AI Transparency Act: a covered provider is now any person that creates, codes, or otherwise produces a generative AI system publicly accessible in California, without the former 1,000,000-monthly-user threshold; the AI detection tool becomes a disclosure verification tool; the manifest-disclosure option is deleted; and latent disclosures must state whether the system created or altered the content. GenAI systems designed to primarily function as assistive technology are outside the chapter until January 1, 2029, and new Section 22757.4.1 sets a $50,000 per-violation penalty for falsely claiming that status. The chapter-wide operative date of August 2, 2026 in Section 22757.6 is unchanged. Chaptered text and codified Chapter 25 retrieved 2026-10-12.
- September 30, 2026AmendmentCalifornia AB 2713 Rewrites Large-Platform Provenance Duties Before They Start in 2027Assembly Bill 2713 (Wicks) was approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on September 30, 2026 as Chapter 856, Statutes of 2026. It amends Business and Professions Code Section 22757.3.1, the AI Transparency Act duties for large online platforms, which remain operative January 1, 2027. A platform must detect provenance data embedded into, attached to, or otherwise associated with distributed content, provide a user interface indicating whether system provenance data or a digital signature identifies the content as generated or substantially altered by a GenAI system or captured by a capture device, and let users inspect that data on the platform, through a link, or by download. The amended section does not require a platform to maintain, display, or allow download of personal information, or to act on provenance data that is not compliant or interoperable with widely adopted standards. Chaptered text retrieved 2026-10-12.
- September 30, 2026EnactmentCalifornia Enacts SB 947, Barring Sole Reliance on AI to Discipline or Fire Employees From July 1, 2027Senate Bill 947 (McNerney), which its author calls the No Robo Bosses Act of 2026, was approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on September 30, 2026 as Chapter 859, Statutes of 2026. It adds Part 5.5.5 (Sections 1520 to 1526.7) to the Labor Code, operative July 1, 2027. An employer may not rely solely on an automated decision system for a disciplinary or termination decision; when it primarily relies on ADS output, a human must corroborate the decision, the employee must receive a written post-use notice, and the employee may request a description of the data the system used. The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors enforce the part, with a $500 civil penalty per violation. The bill follows SB 7 (2025), which the Governor vetoed on October 13, 2025. Chaptered text and bill history retrieved 2026-10-12.
The compliance digest, weekly.
New laws, rulemaking, enforcement actions, and framework updates — distilled to a 4-minute read every Tuesday.
Free · Unsubscribe anytime · No tracking pixels