Postpone, pare back, or repeal state high-risk/algorithmic-discrimination AI acts (the Colorado SB 24-205 model), via delayed effective dates, replacement with transparency-only duties, or intent-based prohibitions in place of duty-of-care frameworks.
Substantially adopted where tried: Texas pared TRAIGA from the Colorado model to intent-based prohibitions before passage (Jun 2025); Colorado delayed SB 24-205 (special session, Aug 2025), saw enforcement suspended in xAI/DOJ litigation (Apr 2026), and repealed-and-reenacted it as a transparency-centered ADMT framework (SB 26-189, May 2026); Virginia's HB 2094 was vetoed (2025). Illinois's employment-only HB 3773 took effect Jan 1, 2026.
first seen 2025-03-26 · last seen 2026-05-14 · locus: deployer
Bill-status would miss this
NetChoice testifies in opposition to TRAIGA as introduced (Colorado-model framework)
TX TRAIGATRAIGA signed, pared to intent-based prohibitions
TX TRAIGAColorado special session delays the Colorado AI Act (SB25B-004) to Jun 30, 2026
Colorado AI ActStipulated order suspends Colorado AI Act enforcement in xAI v. Colorado
Colorado AI ActSB 26-189 repeals and reenacts the Colorado framework as transparency-centered ADMT rules with AG-only enforcement
CO SB 26-1892 claims · every quote links to its document
“Finally, it would contributing to a growing state-by-state patchwork of AI laws that would stall innovation while the Trump administration is still working on fleshing out an America First approach to federal AI policy.”
Document is testimony in opposition to TX HB 149 as introduced; stance coded relative to the ask (narrowing comprehensive state AI acts), which the testimony supports. Source's 'it would contributing' typo preserved.
“We appreciate the Legislature’s willingness to provide more time to work on the legislation passed last year that would have placed an immense burden on all businesses in Colorado. We welcome the opportunity to continue discussions with policymakers and stakeholders to find workable solutions for the businesses while also providing robust consumer protections.”
Supports special-session delay bill SB25B-004, not the underlying SB 24-205.
No on-the-record claims captured on this side. Absence here is a coverage fact, not a finding.