US AI Law and Policy

Executive Framework for AI Governance

The United States has pursued a multi-pronged approach to artificial intelligence governance, characterised by executive action, sectoral regulation, and non-binding guidance rather than a single comprehensive federal statute. President Biden’s Executive Order 14110 (October 2023), titled Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, represents the most significant federal AI initiative to date. The Order directs federal agencies to establish safety standards, protect privacy, promote equity, and advance AI innovation while managing risks. It mandates that developers of the most powerful AI systems share safety test results with the federal government and tasks the National Institute of Standards and Technology with developing rigorous testing standards.

The Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, published by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, sets forth five core principles: safe and effective systems, algorithmic non-discrimination, data privacy, notice and explanation, and human alternatives. While not legally binding, the Blueprint influences agency guidance and procurement practices. The NIST AI Risk Management Framework provides a voluntary but influential set of practices for managing AI risks across the system lifecycle.

State-Level AI Regulation

In the absence of comprehensive federal legislation, individual states have enacted their own AI laws. The Colorado AI Act, effective 2026, imposes risk-management obligations on developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems that make consequential decisions. Connecticut’s An Act Concerning Artificial Intelligence establishes similar protections, particularly around algorithmic discrimination in insurance, employment, and housing. California, New York, and Vermont have proposed or enacted AI transparency and accountability measures, creating a patchwork of obligations that complicates compliance for multistate operators.

FTC Enforcement and Consumer Protection

The Federal Trade Commission has positioned itself as the de facto AI regulator through existing consumer protection authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC has warned that AI tools that produce deceptive, discriminatory, or unfair outcomes may violate the law, regardless of whether the harm was intentional. Recent enforcement actions have targeted AI-generated fake reviews, automated hiring systems that screen out protected groups, and generative AI tools used to impersonate individuals. The agency’s Operation AI Comply coordinates enforcement across AI-related consumer protection issues.

Algorithmic Accountability Legislation

Repeated efforts to pass federal algorithmic accountability legislation—including the Algorithmic Accountability Act—have advanced through committee but not yet reached enactment. The proposed legislation would require impact assessments for automated decision systems that pose significant risks to privacy, civil rights, or equal opportunity. The bills draw on the model of existing privacy and environmental impact assessment frameworks.

Copyright and Generative AI

US copyright law faces novel questions from generative AI. Federal courts have grappled with whether AI-generated works are copyrightable and whether training AI on copyrighted works constitutes fair use. In Andersen v. Stability AI (N.D. Cal. 2023), plaintiffs alleged that image generation models infringed their copyrights by using their works without consent. The US Copyright Office has issued guidance that AI-generated content must involve sufficient human authorship to qualify for protection, and has solicited public comment on the policy implications of generative AI for copyright law.

Sectoral AI Regulation

Rather than a unified AI statute, the US relies on sectoral regulators. The Food and Drug Administration oversees AI-enabled medical devices under its existing premarket review framework, issuing updated AI guidance in 2024. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau enforces fair lending laws against algorithmic credit decisions. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued technical assistance on how the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII apply to AI hiring tools. The Department of Transportation and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulate autonomous vehicles through voluntary guidance and safety standards.

Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement

AI tools used in policing, sentencing, and bail determinations have drawn constitutional scrutiny. Courts have examined whether risk-assessment algorithms violate due process or equal protection where they produce racially disparate outcomes. Several states have enacted laws restricting the use of facial recognition by law enforcement, including moratoria in California, Vermont, and Maine. The Fourth Amendment implications of AI-powered surveillance, including predictive policing and automated license plate readers, remain an active area of litigation.

Outlook

US AI law is likely to remain fragmented absent comprehensive federal legislation. Sectoral enforcement, state experimentation, and judicial interpretation will continue to shape the regulatory landscape. The tension between promoting innovation and protecting civil rights defines the American approach to AI governance.