Virginia High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Developer and Deployer Act
Compliance reference — obligations, penalties, applicability, and primary sources.
Last verified June 13, 2026
Summary
Virginia AI law in 2026 is a watchlist and sector-law problem, not a live comprehensive AI compliance act. HB 2094 - the Virginia High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Developer and Deployer Act - passed the 2025 General Assembly but was vetoed by Governor Glenn Youngkin on March 24, 2025. The official LIS bill page lists the final status as Governor's Veto, and the veto message says HB 2094 would have established a burdensome AI regulatory framework. Source: Virginia LIS HB2094 and HB2094 veto message, retrieved 2026-06-13.
Quick answer: is there a Virginia AI law in 2026?
As of June 13, 2026, Virginia does not have a Colorado-style comprehensive developer/deployer AI statute in force. HB 2094 is defeated, so its proposed July 1, 2026 operative date is not an operative compliance deadline. Virginia organizations still need to track three narrower layers: the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, sector-specific federal rules, and two 2026 Virginia AI measures that became Acts of Assembly but do not recreate HB 2094's high-risk-AI duty set.
HB 2094 status and veto history
HB 2094 would have added a new chapter in Title 59.1 of the Virginia Code for high-risk artificial intelligence systems used in consequential decisions. The enrolled bill would have regulated developers, deployers, and integrators of high-risk AI systems, with duties tied to algorithmic-discrimination risk. Source: HB2094 bill text, retrieved 2026-06-13.
The veto means those proposed duties never became enforceable Virginia law. This page therefore treats HB 2094 as a defeated bill and 2027-session watch item. The machine-readable effective date is intentionally blank; the July 1, 2026 date appears only as the date the bill would have used if enacted.
2026 Virginia AI bill map after the veto
| 2026 measure | Official status | What it does | Compliance meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| HB 797 / SB 384 | Acts of Assembly Chapter for HB 797; SB 384 companion | Directs the Joint Commission on Technology and Science to evaluate a framework for independent verification organizations that assess AI models or applications; report due November 1, 2026 | Study/framework work, not a broad private-sector developer/deployer duty. Source: HB797 and CHAP0425, retrieved 2026-06-13. |
| HB 1186 / SB 394 | Acts of Assembly Chapter for HB 1186; SB 394 companion | Requires state guidance for safe, ethical, and equitable AI use in instructional settings and establishes an AI Innovation in Education Pilot Program | Education-sector governance, not a general consumer-AI compliance law. Source: HB1186 and HB1186 enrolled text, retrieved 2026-06-13. |
| SB 365 - FAIR AI Act | Continued to next session in Senate General Laws and Technology | Would have established the Fostering Access, Innovation, and Responsibility in Artificial Intelligence Act, including AI developer disclosure duties and enforcement funding | Best 2027 watchlist signal for a successor framework. Source: SB365 and committee meeting record, retrieved 2026-06-13. |
| HB 1294 | Continued | Would have required disclosure of covered AI use in criminal investigations, including police-report documentation and disclosure to the attorney for the Commonwealth after arrest | Law-enforcement-specific watch item, not a business compliance regime. Source: HB1294, retrieved 2026-06-13. |
This map is the main difference between Virginia and states with operative AI-specific private-sector duties. Virginia's 2026 enacted AI activity is concentrated in study, verification-framework design, and school governance rather than a direct high-risk-AI control register.
What HB 2094 would have required if enacted
The vetoed bill still matters because it is the clearest Virginia blueprint for a future comprehensive AI act. If a successor returns in 2027, compliance teams should expect debate around these control families:
- Developer documentation: developers would have provided deployers with intended-use information, known limitations, harmful-use information, training-data summaries, performance-evaluation details, and risk-mitigation information sufficient to support deployer controls.
- Deployer risk management: deployers would have maintained risk-management policies and programs for high-risk AI systems used in consequential decisions, with NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, or another recognized AI risk framework as the benchmark.
- Impact assessment and monitoring: deployers would have produced post-deployment impact assessments, tracked input categories and outputs, documented known discrimination risks, and described post-deployment monitoring and safeguards.
- Consumer notice and review: deployers would have disclosed high-risk AI use in consequential decisions and supported correction or human-review workflows where the bill required them.
- Attorney General enforcement: the proposed enforcement model ran through the Virginia Attorney General, with civil penalties and cure mechanics rather than a private right of action.
Source: HB2094 bill text, retrieved 2026-06-13.
What Virginia AI compliance actually requires today
With HB 2094 defeated, a Virginia-facing AI compliance register should avoid marking HB 2094 as a binding obligation. Current control work usually comes from these sources instead:
- VCDPA profiling rights - Virginia's Consumer Data Protection Act includes consumer rights around profiling in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects. This remains the closest Virginia-specific analogue to consequential-decision AI controls. Source: Va. Code Title 59.1, Chapter 53, retrieved 2026-06-13.
- Federal frameworks - NIST AI RMF and ISO/IEC 42001 remain useful baselines because HB 2094 itself pointed toward recognized AI risk-management frameworks.
- Sector-specific federal law - employment, lending, housing, healthcare, education, and consumer-protection uses still need separate federal and state-law screening even without HB 2094.
- 2026 Virginia enacted measures - education AI governance and independent-verification study work should be tracked, but neither should be modeled as a comprehensive private-sector AI act.
Virginia vs Colorado-style comprehensive AI laws
Virginia is not simply a delayed Colorado. HB 2094 borrowed the developer/deployer architecture, high-risk-system terminology, impact-assessment concepts, and risk-management-framework references associated with Colorado-style AI governance. But the veto and the 2026 session moved Virginia toward narrower study and education measures. That means a multistate register should keep Virginia in a separate status bucket: defeated comprehensive bill, active 2027 watch, narrow enacted AI measures.
For comparison, Colorado is scheduled around a covered automated-decision-making-technology framework, Texas TRAIGA is a broad in-force AI statute, and Washington SB 5838 is a study/task-force model. Virginia currently sits between Colorado and Washington: more concrete than a blank slate, but not an operative comprehensive AI compliance regime.
Frequently asked questions
Is Virginia HB 2094 in effect?
No. Virginia LIS lists HB 2094's final 2025 status as Governor's Veto. The bill did not become law, so its proposed July 1, 2026 date is not an operative compliance deadline.
Did Virginia pass any AI law in 2026?
Yes, but not a comprehensive HB 2094 successor. HB 797 became an Acts of Assembly Chapter directing JCOTS to evaluate independent-verification frameworks for AI models or applications, and HB 1186 became an Acts of Assembly Chapter for AI use and safety in instructional settings. Those measures are narrower than a private-sector high-risk-AI statute.
What is the Virginia FAIR AI Act?
SB 365, the Fostering Access, Innovation, and Responsibility in Artificial Intelligence Act, was a 2026 proposal. LIS committee records show it was continued to the next session in Senate General Laws and Technology, making it a 2027 watchlist item rather than an enacted 2026 compliance duty.
What should a compliance register do with Virginia in 2026?
Mark HB 2094 as defeated, keep VCDPA profiling and sector-law controls active, track HB 797 and HB 1186 as narrow enacted AI measures, and monitor SB 365 or any successor bill for the 2027 session. Do not assign HB 2094 developer or deployer duties as binding Virginia obligations unless a successor bill is enacted.
Build a compliance program around these obligations
A single law is one input to a broader program. These guides show how to assign accountability, map every obligation to a control, and split developer-versus-deployer duties across the systems a team operates.
- AI governance: building an AI compliance program
The operating model — owners, committee, decision rights, lifecycle gates — that turns a law into an accountable, auditable program anchored to the NIST AI RMF GOVERN function.
- AI compliance framework: the regulatory control map
How to map each AI system to the laws it triggers, the controls that satisfy them, and the evidence that proves the controls operate.
- Deployer vs developer obligations
Which duties attach to building an AI system versus putting one into use — the split most state AI laws turn on.
Sources
Every fact above is sourced from the official primary source. Independent verification recommended before acting on the information.
- Officiallis.virginia.gov — Va. Code (proposed)
- lis.virginia.gov
- lis.virginia.gov
- lis.virginia.gov
- law.lis.virginia.gov
- lis.virginia.gov
- lis.virginia.gov
- lis.virginia.gov
- lis.virginia.gov
- lis.virginia.gov
- lis.virginia.gov
- lis.virginia.gov
Last reviewed June 13, 2026. Reviewed by the AI Compliance Atlas editorial process against primary sources. Source selection, retrieval dates, and update rules are documented in the Atlas methodology.
We may receive referral commissions from recommended compliance tools. Recommendations are based on product fit and not on commission size. Links marked “partner link” include a tracked redirect.