⚖️ Federal vs State AI Laws

In partnership with

The Fight Over AI Regulation in the U.S.

Washington is edging closer to deciding how artificial intelligence will be regulated, but the debate centers less on technology and more on who controls the rules. In the absence of a federal AI standard, states like California and Texas have passed laws targeting AI safety, misuse, and transparency. Tech companies and Silicon Valley-aligned officials argue that this creates a fragmented “patchwork” that slows innovation and hampers competitiveness with countries like China. In response, lawmakers and the White House are exploring strategies to preempt state-level regulation through the National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA) and a potential executive order, both of which could centralize authority for AI oversight at the federal level.

Preemption, Industry Influence, and Safety Trade-Offs

The current push for federal preemption highlights the tension between industry growth and consumer protection. Pro-AI super PACs, such as Leading the Future, are investing heavily to advocate for national standards or none at all, often framing state laws as obstacles to competitiveness. White House AI czar David Sacks plays a central role in these efforts, promoting industry-led regulation and preempting state interventions. Critics argue that preemption could leave consumers exposed to AI risks, while supporters claim existing federal laws are sufficient and that a patchwork of state laws would stifle innovation. Founders should note that regulatory battles are increasingly political and strategic; influence, lobbying, and timing matter as much as compliance with technical standards.

Navigating a Shifting Regulatory Landscape

For startups building AI products, the current uncertainty creates both risks and opportunities. State-level laws may impose safety, transparency, or liability requirements that vary widely, while potential federal preemption could standardize rules but might also delay protections and increase political exposure. Founders should track both state and federal developments closely, participate in advocacy where feasible, and design AI governance frameworks that can adapt to multiple regulatory scenarios. Proactively implementing safety measures, transparency practices, and documentation—even where not strictly required—can mitigate future compliance costs, reduce legal risk, and position startups as trustworthy actors in a market where “responsible AI” may soon become a competitive differentiator.

In addition to our newsletter we offer 60+ free legal templates for companies in the UK, Canada and the US. These include employment contracts, investment agreements and more