The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee's proposal to impose a ten-year federal preemption on state AI regulation within its budget reconciliation bill is a deeply concerning step that we strongly oppose. This move, echoing the detrimental effects of federal preemption on stronger state privacy laws, would have far-reaching negative consequences.
For one, this preemption would invalidate existing state laws specifically designed to address the burgeoning harms stemming from AI applications. States have already taken proactive steps to mitigate these risks, and this proposal would sweep away those crucial safeguards. Furthermore, it would hamstring states' ability to respond swiftly and effectively to new and unforeseen challenges posed by this rapidly evolving technology. States have historically demonstrated greater agility than the federal government in addressing emerging tech policy issues.
The very notion of freezing AI regulation for a decade is alarming, given the exponential pace of AI development. Congress often moves deliberately, and its track record on addressing harms from emerging technologies suggests a slower response than what the urgency of AI demands. As state lawmakers leading on tech policy across the nation aptly stated in a recent joint open letter, "If Washington wants to pass a comprehensive privacy or AI law with teeth, more power to them, but we all know this is unlikely." This preemption ensures that even if federal action stalls, states would be prevented from stepping in to fill the regulatory void. The AI landscape of today is vastly different from what it was just three years ago, making it nearly impossible to predict the complexities and challenges of the next ten years. State lawmakers must retain the flexibility to address these emerging issues as they arise.
While striking the right balance between fostering innovation and protecting consumers and ensuring equal opportunity is a challenge for many state AI proposals, a blanket preemption is not the answer. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) supports some state AI bills and opposes others, highlighting the nuanced nature of this issue. However, preventing states from acting altogether fundamentally tilts the playing field in favor of large AI companies, potentially at the expense of public safety and well-being.
History shows that stopping states often equates to stopping progress. Just as major technology companies have actively worked to slow down or roll back state privacy legislation, AI companies are now engaged in similar efforts to preempt or weaken legal protections at the state level.
A prime example is Colorado's recent passage of a broad AI protection bill. While not without its flaws, this bill established fundamental requirements for transparency regarding how companies utilize AI in making consequential decisions affecting individuals. This year, several AI companies have already lobbied to delay and weaken this very law. Moreover, POLITICO's recent reporting indicates that the push for federal preemption in Washington, D.C., is a direct reaction to proposed AI rules in California, underscoring the industry's desire to avoid stronger state-level oversight.
We firmly oppose the inclusion of this AI preemption language in the budget reconciliation bill and strongly urge Congress to reject this damaging proposal. Allowing states to continue their work in developing thoughtful and responsive AI safeguards is crucial for protecting consumers, fostering responsible innovation, and ensuring that we can adapt to the rapidly evolving realities of artificial intelligence.
Comments
0 comment