There is no federal AI statute. There are 43 state AI laws with their own framework here, specific statutes cited across 27 states, and a great deal of commentary that does not say which is which. Tick where you do business and find out in about ten seconds.
Nothing you tick is stored or sent anywhere. Figures on this page carry their source and date; last verified 2026-09-02.
The volume is not the point — the enacted ones are. But the volume explains why the answer keeps changing, and why a compliance plan built on last year’s reading goes stale faster than it gets read.
Across 45 states in 2026 alone — already more than the whole of 2024. Roughly 1,200 were introduced across all 50 states in 2025.
NCSL / state legislature trackers · March 2026
Across 27 states in the first half of 2026 — ahead of the full-year total for 2025. This is the number that turns into obligations.
State legislature trackers · Jan–Jun 2026
Congress has introduced many AI bills in the 119th — preemption, chatbots, deepfakes, small-business support — and passed none into law. Until that changes, the binding rules are the state ones.
Congress.gov / published legislative trackers · Q2 2026
Cities and counties add a third layer, and it is the one nobody can size: there is no authoritative national count of municipal AI ordinances. We would rather tell you that than invent a number.
These are the US Census Bureau’s own figures, not a vendor survey. They matter here because adoption is concentrated exactly where these statutes bite: among larger employers, whose decisions affect the most people.
The national rate held between roughly 17% and 20% from December 2025 through May 2026. On an employment-weighted basis it is far higher — about 32% — because bigger employers adopt first.
US Census Bureau, Business Trends and Outlook Survey · May 2026
Adoption rises steeply with headcount: about 37% at 250 or more employees and 32% at 100–249. None of the state AI laws we cover carry an employee-count threshold.
US Census Bureau, Business Trends and Outlook Survey · May 2026
Sector spread is wide — Information at 39.7% and Finance and Insurance at 33.9%, against roughly 14% in Retail Trade.
US Census Bureau, Business Trends and Outlook Survey · May 2026
Which is the point: the share of organizations inside the scope of these statutes is still rising, and the statutes are already in force.
US Census Bureau, Business Trends and Outlook Survey · May 2026
Scope, stated plainly: these are the state AI statutes in our own library, and only the ones where the act — or the general penalty provision it routes to — actually names a number. The highest is Texas; the lowest is Hawaii. Where an act names nothing, we say so rather than guessing.
$10,000–$12,000 for a cured violation; $80,000–$200,000 for an uncurable one; $2,000–$40,000 for each day a violation continues.
Civil penalty recovered by the State.
$2,500 per unintentional violation and $7,500 per intentional violation — or any violation involving a consumer under 16. Assessed per violation, which in practice means per affected consumer.
Civil penalty recovered by the State.
Act 248 sets no figure of its own; a violation is an unfair or deceptive practice, and Hawaii's general penalty runs $500 to $10,000 per violation — with each day a separate violation.
Civil penalty recovered by the State.
Up to $25,000 per advertisement or actual damages, plus uncapped punitive damages where malice is proven and recoverable attorneys' fees — won by the individual, not the State.
Damages won by the individual, not a penalty collected by the State.
The act sets no figure. Violations are enforced by the Attorney General as an unfair trade practice, and the private remedy under §42-110g is expressly disapplied.
Civil penalty recovered by the State.
SB 26-189 sets no figure of its own; a violation is a deceptive trade practice, and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act's general penalty runs up to $20,000 per violation. Attorney General enforcement only — there is no private right of action.
Civil penalty recovered by the State.
Each of these has its own framework, its own authored controls and its own crosswalk report — not a mention in a general tracker. Everything else is reachable through the U.S. state law landscape framework, which cites specific statutes across 27 states.
The library cites specific statutes from 27 states in its state law landscape controls, and 38 states have 43 AI-law frameworks of their own, each with its own controls and crosswalk report. The rest are reached through the U.S. state law landscape framework, which tracks disclosure, chatbot, biometric, deepfake, health, insurance and employment-AI statutes as they pass — so a new law does not mean a new setting for you.
Includes California's ADMT regulations and a pack of AI laws for each of 37 states (Illinois's covers the AI Safety Measures Act plus its employment, deepfake and mental-health AI laws). The CCPA privacy statute is a separate framework (Pro on the US plans; Agency elsewhere). All 51 jurisdictions shown are reachable through the U.S. state law landscape framework; 27 have their own statutes cited in it, and 38 have dedicated controls and a coverage report of their own. This map describes what GOVERNBOX covers — it is not a survey of which states have passed AI legislation, and it is not legal advice.
Every one of these statutes wants the same five things: know which systems make decisions about people, tell people before the fact, be able to explain a decision afterwards, offer a human path, and keep the records. Only the citations differ. Build the program once and prove it against each set of citations — that is what a crosswalk is for.
Figures on this page come from published legislative trackers and the US Census Bureau’s Business Trends and Outlook Survey, each dated where it appears; penalty figures come from the statutes themselves. Last verified 2026-09-02. This page is general information, not legal advice, and GOVERNBOX.ai does not promise a regulatory outcome. GOVERNBOX.ai is a product of Gradient Descent LLC.