Enforcing All Those New State-Level AI Laws Is Unlikely And Thus Opens The Door To Foul Results

State-level AI laws are aplenty and rapidly being passed, but the enforcement of those new laws is going to be tricky.

getty

In today’s column, I examine the enforcement difficulties that underlie all those many hundreds of new state-level AI laws. The challenge is that just because an AI law gets enacted, it doesn’t mean that the AI law will be enforced. Enforcement takes resources. States are often tight on how far they can stretch their enforcement capabilities. Will violating AI laws be the top priority, or more likely at a medium or low priority?

It is easy to shrug off the enforcement aspects and simply be happy that these new AI laws are officially in the books. But any law that isn’t enforced is bound to be a shallow or hollow law. In the case of AI, the AI makers won’t especially care about abiding by the state-level laws that are not being enforced. Those AI laws will be paper laws. They exist on paper but lack any teeth. Assuming those AI laws were intended to protect the public, a dour result is that they will be nothing more than symbolically performative and not substantively real-world.

Let’s talk about it. This analysis of AI breakthroughs is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here).

AI And The Law

As a quick background, I’ve been extensively covering and analyzing a myriad of facets regarding the intersection of AI and the law for many years. You can find my writings not only in my Forbes column but also as posted in Bloomberg Law, ABA Law Journal, The National Jurist, The Global Legal Post, Lawyer Monthly, The Legal Technologist, MIT Computational Law Journal, and so on.

There are two major perspectives on the mixture of AI and law:

• (1) Law & AI. The application of laws to the governance and regulation of AI.
• (2) AI & Law. The application of AI to perform legal reasoning.

Thus, you can apply the law to AI, and conversely, you can apply AI to the law. For my big picture overview of both of these exciting and rapidly evolving realms, see my discussion at the link here and the link here.

When it comes to applying the law to AI, the aim is to establish suitable regulations and provide appropriate governance on how AI should be devised and implemented. There are longstanding concerns that AI makers aren’t giving due attention to the ethical ramifications of their wares. Ethical issues are construed as “soft laws” and aren’t as formidable as legally enacted laws, known as “hard laws”. To level the playing field and keep AI makers on the up-and-up, some believe that we need more AI laws.

On the other side of the coin is the application of AI to the law. This consists of using AI to aid legal activities. Lawyers tap into the latest AI to devise legal strategies, brainstorm to find creative legal arguments, draft court filings, and prepare for cases by having the AI pretend to be an able adversary. For my extensive coverage on AI for legal reasoning (AILR), see the link here.

The Current Situation Legally

In terms of the AI laws in the United States, they have not yet stood the test of time, meaning that we won’t really know how well they stand up until there are court cases that test these new laws. It is too early to know whether the laws will survive legal battles waged by AI makers and other contenders. Just because AI laws are enacted does not mean they are proper. All sorts of improper provisions and constitutionally contentious stipulations are undoubtedly buried within these shiny new AI laws.

Congress has repeatedly waded into establishing an overarching federal law that would encompass AI. So far, no dice. The efforts have ultimately faded from view. Thus, at this time, there isn’t an overarching federal law devoted to these controversial AI matters. The big question will be to what degree a sweeping federal law would impact the numerous state-level AI laws. The odds are that many of the state-level laws would run afoul of a federal mandate, and a tsunami of legal cases would arise as a tussle between federal law and state law is undertaken. It surely will be a legal mess.

The crux is that there is intense and pervasive interest in using the law to govern AI. It is an abundantly burgeoning realm. AI companies would be wise to keep a close eye on what is happening in the hallways and byways of regulators and legislative bodies. I have repeatedly noted that a profitable specialty for budding lawyers is to consider concentrating on the exciting and dynamic field of AI and the law; see my predictions and suggestions at the link here.

Difficulties Aplenty

You can likely envision the challenges of the legal landscape governing AI.

Each state does its own thing. The AI laws in some states are poorly specified and legally ambiguous. States are also amending their AI laws that they previously thought were perfect. Other states that haven’t been enacting AI laws are opting to jump into the waters with both feet. They might borrow wording from other states, change it up, and put it into their legal books. Estimates suggest that there are well over 1,000 AI-related bills and laws that are in some form of consideration at the state level, ranging from pending status to actual enactment.

I’ve been extensively analyzing and explaining the disparate and at times conflicting state-level AI laws; see the link here. There are plenty of downsides to this situation. Plus, the matter is worsening. Public interest in AI laws is heightening. State-level lawmakers are becoming more familiar with AI and are joining the bandwagon on laws about AI. All told, a grand convergence is taking place toward a veritable tsunami of new AI laws across all 50 states.

The Enforcement Of AI Laws

Just because a law lands on the legal books doesn’t mean that it will necessarily be enforced. There is often a gap between what lawmakers pass as laws and whether those laws are avidly carried out. If the enforcement side won’t act, the laws are ornaments and will fail to attain the targeted behaviors being sought.

Enforcing the AI laws is going to be expensive, technically demanding, legally complex, and highly contentious. What did the AI law truly mean to convey? Can it be interpreted in other ways than what the lawmakers had in mind? AI makers are certainly going to fight the AI laws, doing so in the halls of justice and in the court of public opinion. It will get ugly. The AI makers tend to have big bucks and will spend them if it means averting an AI law that they believe is onerous and unconstitutional.

Think too about the splintering effect. A small state that has an AI law might be unwilling to enforce its own AI law, while a larger and richer state might eagerly do so for a comparable AI law in its state. Will this also open a legal or societal pathway for AI makers who resist the AI law? A disparate form of enforcement of the same or similar AI law is not going to look good in the eyes of the courts and the public.

Violations of AI laws will need to be detected. Investigations will need to be carried out. Prosecution will need to be undertaken. A state that won’t take those costly steps is saying that the AI law doesn’t especially matter. AI makers will get wise to this. They will ignore those AI laws. Whatever the AI law was intended to limit or prohibit will be a free game. It is akin to speeding on the freeway when there isn’t any enforcement going on – people realize this and continue their devil-may-care speeding without any hesitation.

Getting Attention To Enforcement

A recently published article entitled “AI Regulation in U.S. States: Lessons Learned and Key Takeaways” by Lavlin Agrawal, Pavankumar Mulgund, Richelle Oakley DaSouza, Kavita Bhaya, Raghvendra Singh, Communications of the ACM, June 2026, made these salient points about the U.S. states’ regulatory AI efforts (excerpts):

• “Enforcement capacity remains a weak link in the state-led model.”
• “Many states lack the technical expertise and resources required to audit complex AI systems, leading to uneven oversight.”
• “Collaboration with federal entities such as the Federal Trade Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology can strengthen enforcement consistency.”
• “Firms should anticipate heightened scrutiny by maintaining audit-ready documentation, such as impact assessments, model cards, and bias logs, to demonstrate compliance and accountability.”
• “Key takeaway: Operate as if every rule will be enforced, maintaining audit-ready evidence for both state and federal regulators.”

Those are sage words of advice. The states should consider partnering with federal entities, though some states won’t like that type of pairing and prefer to be autonomous. If nothing else, the states should at least keep track of violations and be prepared to have sufficient evidence in hand. Doing so will aid whatever enforcement efforts might be launched.

Not Thinking Of The Downstream

Lawmakers rarely devote outsized consideration to the downstream enforcement impacts of their laws. They usually assume that if a law is on the books, it will be enforced. This is frequently not the case. Many laws, perhaps most laws, are seldom enforced. You could contend that the laws, by their very existence, are enough to sway someone from committing violations of those laws, regardless of enforcement.

That raises the question of whether a symbolic AI law that isn’t being enforced will have a demonstrative effect on AI makers. Generally, the odds are that the AI makers will aim to pick and choose AI laws that they like and abide by them, pointing out how law-abiding they are. Meanwhile, the AI laws they disfavor will quietly get short shrift. A minimal effort will be undertaken to appear to be appeasing the displeasing AI laws. No sense in getting nabbed as an outright violator.

Another strategy that AI makers would likely use is to engage their pricey legal counsel to find all sorts of loopholes in any AI law that they wish to refute. These new state-level AI laws have not yet been tested by the courts. The wording in these AI laws is often vague, hastily written, and fails to align with technological sensibilities. You can befuddle any effort to enforce a law, stretching it out in the courts. This might cause prosecutors to drop the case or reach a settlement.

Jurisdictional Arguments

One of the weak links in the state-level AI laws has to do with jurisdiction. Suppose a new AI law in one state says that if a user residing in that state can get the AI to do this or that, it is a violation of the law by the AI maker. Seems straightforward.

It’s not at all straightforward. The biggest challenge to these state-level AI laws is going to be around the matter of jurisdiction. An AI maker that is providing their AI across the US and throughout the globe is going to fiercely attack the state’s jurisdictional theory.

First, can the state prove that the user was actually in that state? The state must show that the user was physically located within its state-bounded borders. An AI maker will contest the use of IP addresses since those can be spoofed. Users often employ VPNs to hide their true location. And so on.

Second, if the AI maker has required users to register with the AI, including indicating where they reside, and if the user’s indicated state differs from the state in which the violation supposedly occurred, this raises additional legal leeway. The AI maker would assert that they tried to avoid violating the AI law by capturing the state at the time of the user’s registration.

Third, the AI maker can reuse legal arguments that have been bandied back and forth about Internet-related laws. The AI maker will point out that the AI was running on servers outside of the state. The AI-generated response was produced outside of the state and was residing on the server there. The AI maker is headquartered outside the state. Just because the user happened to reside in the state is not necessarily the proper basis for how jurisdiction is legally determinable.

The AI maker could vehemently argue that the state’s asserted jurisdiction conflicts with constitutional limits on regulating interstate commerce or reaches beyond the state's legitimate regulatory authority.

Constitutional Challenges Loom Ahead

I would wager that some of these new AI laws will eventually find their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. There are constitutional elements embedded in many of these state-level AI laws. Some AI makers are going to be willing to legally push back on a claimed and prosecuted violation. They will readily appeal against a meaningful loss to the highest courts feasible.

Depending on the circumstances, these could include claims that an AI law:

• Placed an undue burden on interstate commerce.
• Attempts to regulate conduct occurring principally outside the state's borders.
• Is impermissibly vague because key jurisdictional terms are ill-defined or undefined.
• Fails to provide fair notice of what compliance requires.
• Infringes on protected speech interests if it broadly restricts the dissemination of information.
• Etc.

The viability of these constitutional arguments will depend on the language used in the AI law and the facts of the particular case.

The World We Are In

One of the most overlooked questions in the current wave of state AI legislation is not whether states can pass AI laws, but whether they can realistically enforce them. Passing a law is comparatively straightforward. Enforcing it is a beast of a different nature.

States will undoubtedly be watching other states to see what happens with the enforcement of their AI laws. This might embolden other states or cause them to decide that pursuing the enforcement of a particular AI law is fruitless. The effectiveness of these new AI laws will ultimately depend on whether state governments possess the institutional capacity to investigate violations and successfully prosecute them.

Albert Einstein made this pointed remark about laws: "Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced." He probably wasn’t considering AI laws at the time, but his insight has stood the test of time and does indeed fully apply to the burgeoning rise of AI laws. We can readily say that Einstein was genuinely a genius and a soothsayer.