AI Regulations in the US: For Business Legal Compliance

Key Takeaways (TL;DR)

• There is no single federal AI regulation in the US. Rather, it is shaped by a growing framework of state regulations, executive orders, and agency enforcement.
• Federal agencies like the FTC, SEC, DOJ, EEOC, CFPB, and FDA already regulate AI using existing laws.
• Frameworks like the AI Bill of Rights and NIST AI Risk Management Framework strongly influence compliance expectations.
• State laws now drive real compliance obligations. States like California, Colorado, and New York have AI laws on maintaining transparency, bias audits, and opt-out options for users in automated decisions.
• There are AI-related penalties and fines for AI washing, deceptive AI claims, bias, and AI-enabled fraud.
• Businesses should have a strong internal AI governance, documented risk and bias assessments, and continuous monitoring.
• Data governance, transparency, user notifications, and human review options are now core compliance requirements.

For a business offering services around artificial intelligence, meeting AI regulations in the US is a constant challenge. There are no federal AI laws to follow. Instead, businesses face a mix of compliance checklists from federal agencies and state regulations. On the other hand, regulators are actively penalizing misleading AI claims, biased systems, and non-transparent automated decision workflows.

This article clearly breaks down the current state of US AI regulations in simple terms. You will understand how federal agencies regulate AI, which state laws matter most, and where penalties are coming from. We will also discuss practical steps you can take to stay compliant.

Current State of AI Regulations in the US

If you plan to use AI for business in the US, you should know that there is no single law that governs artificial intelligence across the country. The US follows a distributed approach to regulation. AI oversight comes from federal guidance, state-level laws, executive orders, and enforcement by existing agencies.

This creates a layered regulatory environment that is still evolving. As there is no definite statute, US AI regulations are shaped more by interpretation and enforcement. Organizations have to figure out the potential risks beforehand and design their AI systems accordingly from the start.

The Fragmented Nature of AI Governance in the US

AI compliance in the US is spread across states and institutions. As there is no central control, the law is more or less uncertain for many companies operating at scale.

No Single Federal AI Law

• The US does not have a comprehensive AI Act.
• There is no definite act on how to develop and deploy artificial intelligence in the business.
• Companies rely on guidance and industry-specific rules.
• This makes planning harder and the present plans uncertain for the future.

State-by-state Interpretation of AI Risk

• Each scope of AI risk varies from one state to another.
• Some states focus on data privacy, while others focus on bias, surveillance, or automated decision-making.
• This leads to uneven rules across the country, even for the same AI product.

Compliance Challenges for Multi-state Businesses

• If an AI product has business footprints in more than one state, meeting compliance becomes a challenge.
• Organizations have to meet different policies, disclosures, or controls based on location.
• As a result, legal costs go up, and growth slows down.
• Unfortunately, organizations are internally compelled to meet the strictest standards to reduce exposure.

Overlapping State Laws and Federal Guidance

• In the absence of a federal AI law, its a challenge to maintain a balance between state laws and federal guidance. These rules often overlap or leave grey areas.
• Most entrepreneurs choose proactive governance as the middle path to meet AI compliance.
• So, the entire focus goes to building intelligent systems that are transparent, fair, and easy to audit.

Federal Agencies Driving AI Oversight

Till now, Congress has not passed a single law for artificial intelligence regulation in the United States. Below are some of the federal agencies that actively regulate AI compliance through existing legal frameworks.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

• Ensures that businesses are using accurate marketing claims for their AI tools without any exaggeration.
• Takes action against hidden algorithms that mislead users or hide decision logic.
• Prompts organizations to practice fair data collection, storage, and usage in AI-driven products.
• Penalizes companies for using AI in deceptive or harmful ways.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

• Monitors AI-driven hiring and promotion tools
• Checks for bias and unfair impact on protected groups
• Holds employers accountable for AI outcomes
• Using AI does not remove responsibility for hiring decisions.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

• Regulates AI in credit scoring and lending
• Reviews automated risk assessments
• Requires fairness and explainability in decisions
• AI cannot be a black box when money and credit are involved.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

• Checks for the ethical use of artificial intelligence in medical devices and diagnostics
• Reviews AI models that influence clinical decisions or patient treatment plans.
• Focuses on how intelligent systems can meet the highest standards of safety, accuracy, and reliability.
• Monitors how AI models are aiding patient outcomes post-deployment.

Federal AI Regulations in the US

For entrepreneurs, these federal frameworks define what regulators consider responsible AI, even when they are not legally binding.

The AI Bill of Rights: Core Governance Principles

The AI Bill of Rights is considered the foundation of designing and using AI systems in the US.

As per the official White House AI Bill of Rights, the framework is built on five core principles.

Safety

AI systems should be tested before launch to avoid causing any physical harm, financial loss, or unfair outcomes for the end user.

Fairness

AI should not discriminate against people or produce biased results based on their age, caste, color, or sex. All bias risks should be identified and fixed early through better data and testing.

Privacy

Only necessary data should be collected by AI systems. Users should have control over their data. Any hidden data policy or attempt to use user data without clear consent can lead to regulatory fines.

Explainability

People should understand when AI systems are in use and how they affect workflows, especially in hiring, lending, and healthcare.

Human fallback

Users should have the power to override AI decisions, even for fully automated systems.

NIST AI Risk Management Framework (RMF)

The NIST AI Risk Management Framework is the most practical AI guidance available in the US today. It is widely treated as the de facto national standard by enterprises and government contractors.

The framework focuses on managing risk through five stages:

Categorization

Every AI system should be categorized as either low, medium, or high risk based on its impact.

Ex:

Chatbots for FAQs = Lower risk
AI agents for hiring or credit decisions = higher risk

Pre-deployment Evaluation

Before deploying models, companies should run a thorough assessment of data quality, bias exposure, model limitations, and intended use to avoid failures.

Testing and validation: AI systems should be tested under real-world conditions, not just ideal scenarios. This includes checking accuracy, fairness, and reliability.

Ongoing monitoring: AI behavior can change over time due to new data or user behavior. The RMF expects continuous oversight, not one-time approval.

For entrepreneurs, the RMF offers a clear advantage. It provides a structured way to show regulators, clients, and partners that your AI is built responsibly.

Executive Orders Driving AI Governance

An executive order defines the administrative goals regarding AI. It also represents orders that executive agencies can take to meet these goals. The 126th executive order in the series was signed by former U.S. President Joe Biden on October 30, 2023.

It is referred to as Executive Order 14110, titled Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.

Core focus areas of the executive order:

• Safety and national risk:developers are expected to test AI models and evaluate risks related to misuse, security, and unintended harm before deployment
• Share test results: developing companies may be required to share test results for advanced AI models with the government as and when required
• Non-negotiable for contractors: aligning with these standards is non-negotiable for both government contractors and private enterprises

Federal Sector-specific Laws Affecting AI

Even without a dedicated federal AI law, existing sector-specific laws already apply to AI systems. Regulators simply interpret these laws in the context of automated decision-making as follows.

HIPAA

In healthcare, HIPAA governs how patient data is used in AI systems. All medical data that is processed through AI should have strong data privacy, strict access control, and cybersecurity.

FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) and ECOA (Equal Credit Opportunity Act)

FCRA and ECOA are US laws that protect consumers, related to credit reporting and anti-discrimination. These laws also apply to AI models. If AI is used to approve or reject claims, the decision must be fair. Consumers have the right to know the reason behind the rejection.

GLBA (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act)

This federal law requires financial institutions to explain their data-sharing practices, including when AI is involved. The aim is to enforce strict boundaries to protect personal financial data from misuse and unauthorized access.

COPPA (Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act)

As AI tools are also used by children, this federal law becomes very important. It requires companies running AI models for children to enforce strict consent and privacy rules for collecting and analyzing data from minors.

State AI Regulations in the US

Besides industry-specific federal laws, organizations also have to follow enforcement pressure from states. Lets take a look at some state-level US AI regulations and understand why they are hard to ignore.

Californias Expanding AI and Automated Decision-making Governance

If your AI product makes use of user personal data, the California law likely applies to you, even if your company doesnt operate in that state.

Some key highlights from the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) are mentioned below.

Automated Decision-Making Impact

Users have the right to know how their personal data is being used for profiling and automated decisions. If the AI system makes automated decisions to decide eligibility, pricing, or access to services for users, it falls under scrutiny.

Disclosure and Transparency Requirements

Users can request information about when and under what logic their data is used for automated decision-making.

Consumer Control Over AI-driven Decisions

Users have the right to limit or opt out of certain automated decision-making processes if they feel insecure about their personal data in use.

Proposed Automated Decision-Making Regulation (ADMR)

California regulators are developing ADMR rules that would introduce:

• Methods to assess risks in AI systems
• Rules to clearly notify users before their personal data is processed for automated decisions
• Rights for users to opt out of automated AI decisions or request access to the workflow logic behind them

Colorado and Connecticut Algorithmic Accountability Laws

Colorado and Connecticut are among the first states to pass laws focused directly on algorithmic accountability. Colorado has enacted a first-of-its-kind AI law, the Colorado AI Act (SB 24-205).

Mandatory Bias and Risk Assessments

Companies using high-risk AI systems must test their products against unfair outcomes, document everything, and update that information from time to time. The documentation must cover data use, system limits, risk testing, and mitigation steps in detail.

Criminalizing Deepfakes

Connecticut legislators decided not to regulate AI for businesses. However, AI laws in Connecticut specify criminalizing the sharing of generative-AI deepfake images of persons without their consent.

Opt-out Rights for Automated Decisions

This law is common in both states. Consumers will have the right to opt out of automated AI decisions made using their personal data, especially regarding housing, insurance, health care, education, criminal justice, and employment.

New Yorks Automated Employment Decision Tool (AEDT) Law

New York City AI laws are more focused on systems that are used for screening or evaluating job candidates and employees. Such tools are referred to as Automated Employment Decision Tools (AEDT). Some key provisions of the AEDT law are as follows.

Annual Third-party Bias Audits

Employers using any AEDT for the hiring process must audit the tool for bias on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex of a candidate. The audit must be carried out by an independent third party within a year before the tools current use in hiring or promotions.

Public Disclosure Requirements

Before using an AEDT, employers must publish a summary of the tools most recent bias audit on their official website. The audit results must include the distribution date of the tool and results data, such as impact ratios.

Candidate Notification and Rights

Employers must notify candidates or employees at least 10 business days before using AEDT for hiring or promotions.

The notification must clearly describe:

• The application areas of the tool
• The job characteristics it evaluates
• The right to request an alternative evaluation process

Other States Actively Developing AI Regulation

Many other states in the US have either passed AI regulations or are actively working on frameworks. Some notable examples are discussed below.

Massachusetts

Massachusetts lawmakers have proposed a bill to develop commissions to review automated decisions taken by government agencies through AI. The bill also demands advisory roles on standards and safeguards for algorithmic systems.

Illinois

Illinois has the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act in place. The act mandates employers to notify candidates before using AI to evaluate video interviews.

Washington:

The state has amended laws to curb the misuse of deepfake AI images and harmful content by individuals and agencies.

Texas

The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA) has been signed into law and will take effect in early 2026. It includes prohibitions against using artificial images to engage in harmful or unlawful activities like discrimination, constitutional rights violations, and deepfake/child pornography creation.

Why State-level Law Creates Complexity for Businesses

State-level AI regulation lacks uniformity, which leads to various operational challenges for companies operating across the US.

Conflicting Definitions of AI

• AI and automated decision-making have different definitions.
• The core focus area varies from one state law to another.
• The same AI system may be classified as high-risk in one state and low-risk in another.
• Lack of a consistent AI compliance strategy to operate across all states.

Multi-state Regulatory Exposure

• AI products used nationwide are subjected to multiple state laws at once.
• A single workflow may trigger privacy rules in one state and bias audit rules in another.
• Enforcement actions can originate from any state where users are affected.

Higher Compliance Costs for Nationwide Companies

• Separate assessments, disclosures, and documentation may be required by the state.
• Legal, audit, and compliance costs increase as states add AI-specific rules.
• Engineering teams may need state-specific product changes or feature toggles.
• Smaller startups feel the burden faster due to limited resources.

AI-Related Penalties and Fines in the U.S.

Lets understand how Federal agencies are using existing laws to act against AI misuse, even without a dedicated AI statute.

Federal Enforcement and Penalties

Federal agencies are trying to regulate AI by applying strong laws around securities, consumer protection, and criminal activity.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Enforcement

The SEC has taken a strong stand against preventing companies from spreading false claims of using AI in their product or services. This is commonly referred to as AI washing. Such false claims will be subjected to strict monetary penalties.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Penalties for Deceptive AI Practices

The FTC regulates AI under its authority to prevent unfair or deceptive business practices. This applies to how AI products are marketed, sold, and used with consumer data.

The FTC can impose civil penalties exceeding $50,000 per violation, depending on the harm caused.

Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Penalties for AI Misuse

The DOJ has made it clear that AI does not reduce criminal responsibility. In some cases, it can increase penalties.

Lawmakers are also proposing tougher penalties:

• Fraud using AI: increasing maximum fines from $1 million to $2 million
• AI-enabled deception: prosecuted under mail and wire fraud laws, carrying 20 to 30 years in prison

State-level Penalties and Enforcement for AI Laws in the U.S.

State-level AI laws are stricter than the federal level. The penalties involved are known for adding real cost pressure for businesses operating in multiple states.

California

• Violations against the AI Transparency Act (SB 942) can trigger penalties up to $5,000, especially for specific disclosures and transparency failures.
• State authorities, such as the attorney general or local regulators, make the final call.

Colorado

• The Colorado AI Act (Colorado SB24-205) strictly imposes hefty penalties for violating rules for using high-risk AI systems.
• Any unfair trade practice can attract civil fines up to $20,000 per violation as per the order of the states attorney general.

New York City

• Local Law 144 in NYC imposes monetary penalties for noncompliance with the fair rules of using automated employment decision tools (AEDTs).
• Penalty for the first violation is up to $500, and goes up to $1,500 for subsequent violations.

Best Practices to Adhere to AI Regulations

Many businesses and enterprises find it difficult to adhere to the dynamic AI regulations of different states and the federal government simultaneously. Here are some practical, regulator-aligned best practices followed by responsible AI users.

Create an Internal AI Governance and Oversight Board

Businesses leveraging artificial intelligence should maintain strong internal governance to meet various US AI regulations.

• Assign clear ownership for every AI system to create clear accountability across different stages of the product development cycle.
• There should be a formal model approval workflow for product release and major updates.
• Plan escalation paths for issues, failures, and consumer complaints of high-risk AI systems.

Conducting Risk Assessments and Bias Testing

As there is a growing stress over proactive risk management, avoid reactive fixes and follow these practices instead:

• Perform risk assessments before deploying the AI module to check for any risk of bias, fairness, safety, and misuse
• Classify AI systems based on the risk level they carry for end users
• Conduct bias testing on a wider dataset and document everything for the record.
• Maintain logs of periodic audits, model training, feature selection, and data collection from sources

Data Governance and Secure AI Development Practices

As most AI violations originate from poor data management, consider following these best practices to stay out of compliance trouble.

• Maintain strong data privacy rules from the start of the development stage
• Collect data with strong consent management and as per the models requirements
• Keep a complete track of how data is sourced and where it is used
• Ensure strong data security to prevent unauthorized access and data breaches

Transparency and User Notification Compliance

One of the main requirements of every state and the federal AI law is transparency in data management. In this regard, here are some best practices to follow:

• Clearly disclose how AI is used in the workflow to influence automated decisions
• Explain how AI-driven outcomes impact users in the simplest manner possible
• Offer users the option for human review or appeal to opt out of automated decisions
• Notify users at least ten days prior to applying AI for making significant decisions

Vendor and Third-party AI Risk Management

If a business is partnering with any AI vendor or third-party service providers, the following tips will help it stay clear of regulatory penalties.

• Audit vendors periodically to check for data use, bias controls, and security practices
• Make it mandatory for vendors to disclose model limitations and risk controls
• The contract of engagement must include mandatory clauses on regulatory AI compliance, audit rights, and incident reporting
• Reassess vendor eligibility as AI laws for different states change from time to time

How Elluminati Helps You Stay Compliant with U.S. AI Regulations

Meeting all AI regulations in the US diverts businesses from focusing on core services. The challenge is to constantly audit internal processes to meet the latest federal guidance and state rules. This is where Elluminati brings real value as a responsible AI development company in USA.

Elluminati has more than a decade of experience in working across federal AI frameworks and state-level regulations. We help businesses design AI systems that are compliant-ready from the beginning. Our teams stay aligned with AI laws and try to give compliant AI solutions and services as per your requirements.

FAQs