Connect with us

Colorado

Colorado AI Act Is Another Nudge for Urgent Federal Regulation

Published

on

Colorado AI Act Is Another Nudge for Urgent Federal Regulation


Absent any major federal legislation, leadership, or policy, states are more actively trying to regulate a technology that some fear encroaches on many aspects of our lives. On May 17, Colorado became the first state to pass a comprehensive law regulating artificial intelligence, focusing on algorithmic discrimination.

The White House Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights warned that technology, data, and automated systems benefit but also threaten the public, and that algorithmic discrimination occurs when “automated systems contribute to unjustified different treatment or impacts disfavoring people based on their race, color, ethnicity, sex … religion, age, national origin, disability, veteran status, genetic information, or any other classification protected by law.”

While some argue that various civil rights laws contain relevant discrimination protection, AI and other new technologies may be particularly susceptible to misuse. There is no consistent effort in Congress indicating the US will be prepared to prevent or address it—or even to anticipate the risks these technologies pose.

Colorado took an inclusive approach to passing the new law, effective Feb. 1, 2026. State lawmakers heavily collaborated with tech companies, civil rights organizations, academics, and other policymakers to develop a set of rules.

Advertisement

Elsewhere this year, 633 AI-related bills were introduced in 45 states, and 111 in Congress. Fifty-one state bills were enacted into law. But all except Colorado’s AI Act regulate AI in very specific instances. For example:

  • Deepfake political advertisements (regulated in 16 states)
  • Labor and employment discrimination (New York City’s Local Law 144 and automated employment decision tools; Illinois’ Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act)
  • Performers’ right of publicity in their digital appearance and voice (Tennessee’s sweeping ELVIS Act, effective July 1)
  • Deepfake sexual content (regulated in 20 states)
  • Generative AI in consumer protection (Utah’s Artificial Intelligence Policy Act, effective May 1)
  • Facial recognition in law enforcement (Maryland law, effective Oct 1)

Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission, the most active federal agency in AI, but limited to enforcing antitrust and consumer protection laws, initiated the first facial recognition enforcement this spring, and recently issued 6(b) inquiries to generative AI companies.

Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO)’s signing statement frames the Colorado AI Act as an urgent plea to federal lawmakers rather than a proud moment for local politicians, echoing many popular anxieties.

Without federal AI regulation, states have to step up. But a patchwork of local laws won’t provide consistent protections—and it would be difficult for companies and developers to parse, track, and comply. It’s also unlikely that individual states will have the money, infrastructure, logistical capacity, or even legal authority to enforce their laws effectively.

State politicians may also be less interested in the broader, indirect effects and implications of AI regulation. The tech, public policy, and financial sectors are concerned about state AI laws—and the failure to formulate a national AI policy—both of which could stifle innovation, investment, and competition.

This work can only be done at the top. The European Council formally adopted the EU AI Act, the world’s first legal framework, on May 21. While leaving implementation up to individual member states, the EU created a centralized AI office to support compliance. Hopefully Colorado’s law and its collaborative model will help motivate the US to follow suit to fast-track unified AI legislation and governance.

Advertisement

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Anuj Gupta is managing partner of First Gen Law, with focuses on matters in technology and entertainment.

Rebecca Neipris is senior attorney at First Gen Law, focusing on entertainment and intellectual property.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines



Source link

Advertisement

Colorado

Douglas County, Colorado, celebrates Independence Day without fireworks

Published

on

Douglas County, Colorado, celebrates Independence Day without fireworks


Douglas County announced that it enacted Stage 2 Fire Restrictions on Thursday, canceling all fireworks shows, including professional shows, in the county. Instead, community members celebrated the United States’ 250th birthday at the Star Spangled Birthday Bash Concert and drone show.



Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

MAP: Where Colorado wildfires are burning

Published

on

MAP: Where Colorado wildfires are burning


Multiple uncontained wildfires across Colorado have scorched over 100,000 acres since Monday. Red flag fire conditions on Tuesday and Wednesday, including low humidity and high winds, contributed to the blazes growth and, in some cases, made air support difficult and dangerous. Weather forecasts promise more “critical fire weather” throughout the week, according to the National […]



Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

Colorado governor fires two clemency board members who spoke out about Tina Peters’ commutation | CNN Politics

Published

on

Colorado governor fires two clemency board members who spoke out about Tina Peters’ commutation | CNN Politics


Colorado Gov. Jared Polis on Wednesday fired two members of the state’s clemency board after they spoke out against his controversial decision to grant clemency to Tina Peters – an election denier whose sentence was cut in half by the outgoing Democratic governor in May.

Azra Taslimi and Hannah Seigel Proff told CNN they were fired after speaking out publicly, including in a New York Times article in June, in which they revealed secret details about the clemency process and criticized the governor for overruling the board. They told the Times the clemency board twice voted unanimously behind closed doors to reject Peters’ application for an early release from prison.

Polis’ decision in May to release Peters came after President Donald Trump waged a long pressure campaign against Colorado to free her. Peters – who was released from prison in June – was the last Trump ally still in prison for 2020 election-related crimes.

In letters to Taslimi and Proff obtained by CNN, Polis said the two members breached confidentiality by speaking out.

Advertisement

“Specifically, you breached the required duty of confidentiality by publicly divulging Board members’ votes pertaining to a clemency application which you obtained only through your official position on this Board,” Polis wrote in the letters.

The two women told CNN they are disappointed they were fired — but not surprised.

“I’m not upset that he overrode our decision. I think what’s upsetting is that we understand why he did it, which is that you know Tina Peters had a powerful ally behind her,” Taslimi said. “She had political pressure applied in her name, and the governor capitulated to it, and that is what makes this unfair, and that is why I call it selective mercy, because you are giving her the benefit that you don’t give or apply to anyone else.”

Eric Maruyama, a spokesperson for the governor, told CNN in a statement Wednesday, “Publicly disclosing board recommendations and how members vote on any case threatens the credibility of the board, colors future deliberations by the board and breaks clearly stated confidentiality policy articulated in the Executive Order which establishes this board.”

Proff, who served on the board for nearly eight years, said she understood the state rules around the closed-door clemency recommendation process “more as the confidentiality to protect the people who apply for clemency, not to protect the governor.”

Advertisement

The governor primarily justified his decision to release Peters by citing a recent Colorado appeals court ruling that found the trial judge violated Peters’ First Amendment rights by improperly punishing her for her protected speech about the 2020 election.

“It was a straightforward decision because, after reviewing the facts, and reading the Appeals Court decision, I concluded that her sentence was simply too long,” Polis wrote in a Substack post, where he condemned Peters’ crimes.

Now that they’ve been terminated, Proff worries there will be less transparency.

“I worry now that we’ve been terminated from the board what comes of this is that people are less likely to speak out … that politicians will go unchecked on these sort of decisions,” Proff said.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending