State Legislation

Subscribe to State Legislation via RSS

Key point: Last week, chatbot bills crossed chambers in four states and advanced out of committees in four other states, Utah’s provenance bill crossed chambers, and Florida’s AI Bill of Rights moved out of a second Senate committee.

Below is the sixth update on the status of proposed state AI legislation in 2026. These posts track state AI bills that can directly or indirectly affect private-sector AI developers and deployers. These posts do not track AI bills that focus on government use of AI; insurance; workgroups; education; legal settings; name, image, and likeness; deepfakes; CSAM and sexual material; and election interference. As always, the content provided below is time-sensitive and subject to change.

Key point: Oklahoma is on the cusp of becoming the 20th state to pass a consumer data privacy law while Alabama’s app store bill was signed into law and app store bills crossed chambers in Kansas, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

Below is the sixth update on the status of proposed state privacy legislation in 2026. This post covers updates on proposed bills dealing with consumer data privacy, children’s privacy, biometric privacy, data brokers, and consumer health data privacy. As always, the contents provided below are time-sensitive and subject to change.

Key point: Last week, chatbot bills crossed chambers in Virginia and Washington, Tennessee’s Senate passed a health care-related AI bill, a Utah bill drew the attention of the Trump administration, and a new bill was introduced to amend California’s AI Transparency Act.

Below is the fifth update on the status…

Key point: Last week, the Alabama legislature passed an app store bill while Maine’s consumer data privacy bill crossed chambers.

Below is the fifth update on the status of proposed state privacy legislation in 2026. This post covers updates on proposed bills dealing with consumer data privacy, children’s privacy, biometric privacy, data brokers, and consumer health data privacy. As always, the contents provided below are time-sensitive and subject to change.

CA_StateFlag_1200x600_GettyImages-1435108815

Key point: The California attorney general announced a $2.75 million fine against a company for CCPA violations for failing to honor requests to opt out of the sale or sharing of personal information across all devices and services associated with consumer accounts.

On February 11, 2026, the California attorney general (AG) announced a settlement with a multiplatform entertainment company, resolving alleged California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) violations based on gaps in the company’s opt-out procedures. This is the second public CCPA enforcement settlement arising from the California Department of Justice’s 2024 investigative sweep of streaming services. This also is the largest CCPA settlement amount to date, and is roughly five times the amount of the first enforcement action and more than $1 million more than the prior largest settlement by the AG. These actions reflect an escalating enforcement trajectory as the AG and the California Privacy Protection Agency develop a body of precedent that increasingly functions as operational compliance guidance for businesses. Notably, every CCPA enforcement action to date has involved, in some way, the right to opt out and demonstrates that the AG’s expectations for what constitutes compliant opt-out implementation are becoming both more granular and more demanding with each successive action.

Key Points: California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a sweep concerning so-called “surveillance pricing” or “algorithmic pricing” The AG highlights potential CCPA privacy violations tied to the use of individualized pricing models based on a lack of transparency and failure to comply with the CCPA’s “purpose limitation” principle. Other regulators are likely to follow suit — now is the time to assess and mitigate potential compliance and enforcement risks.

On January 27, 2026, California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta announced an investigative sweep focused on businesses that use consumer data to individualize prices for their goods or services. Bonta framed the issue as follows:

“Consumers have the right to understand how their personal information is being used, including whether companies are using their data to set the prices that Californians pay, whether that be for groceries, travel, or household goods. We need to know whether businesses are charging people different prices for the same good or service — and if they’re complying with the law.”

The California Department of Justice (DOJ) is issuing written inquiries to businesses with substantial online operations in the retail, grocery, and hotel industries that leverage individualized pricing. It is requesting certain information on this issue, including details about:

  • Companies’ use of consumer personal information to set prices.
  • Policies and public disclosures regarding personalized pricing.
  • Any pricing experiments undertaken by companies.
  • Measures companies are taking to comply with algorithmic pricing, competition, and civil rights laws.

This post summarizes the basis for the California DOJ’s investigatory sweep, how it intends to apply California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) requirements, and how businesses can prepare for and mitigate the risk of these inquiries and potential enforcement actions.

Flag of the state Connecticut.

Key point: The Connecticut Office of the Attorney General issued the third annual enforcement report under the Connecticut Data Privacy Act, focusing on the office’s privacy and security efforts, consumer complaints, data breaches, and enforcement priorities.

The Connecticut Office of the Attorney General (OAG) issued its 2025 enforcement report under the Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CTDPA) last week. This is the third report since the CTDPA went into effect in July 2023. The report provides an update on (1) privacy-related consumer complaints, (2) data breach notice review and enforcement, and (3) enforcement efforts and priorities. Importantly, the OAG emphasized that protecting “kids online remains a topmost priority” and that it would continue to pursue investigations and enforcement actions focused on companies that offer online services, products, or features to consumers under 18.

In the report, the OAG also outlined recent amendments to the CTDPA, which will take effect on July 1, 2026. For more information regarding these amendments, see the recording of our webinar on 2025 Key Updates on State Privacy and AI Laws.

This article summarizes the OAG’s report and the positions the OAG takes on various issues. While the report highlights the OAG’s strong pro-consumer stance and illustrates the OAG’s expansive view of the CTDPA and its provisions, in breaking down the report, this article takes no position on the substance of those positions.

The South Carolina state flag waving along with the national flag of the United States of America

Key point: The law, which went into effect at signing, contains significant design and development requirements, requires independent third-party audits, and can be enforced against officers and employees.

On February 5, 2026, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster signed the South Carolina Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (H 3431). South Carolina now joins California, Maryland, Nebraska, and Vermont in enacting Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) laws although these laws vary widely in both scope and requirements.

South Carolina’s law has several unique requirements, including requiring covered online services to engage in independent third-party audits, which are to be publicly posted by the state attorney general. We review these requirements below.

Of further note, the law went into effect upon the governor’s signature and does not contain a right to cure. The law is generally enforceable by the state attorney general who can seek treble financial damages for violations. The law also specifically provides that officers and employees of covered online services can be held personally liable for willful and wanton violations. In addition, the law’s prohibition against dark patterns is enforceable under the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, which allows for a private right of action. In the below post, we provide an overview of the new law and provide more general context on its provisions.