Expert Perspectives on the 10-Year Moratorium on Enforcement of US State AI Laws
On June 6, 2025, a significant development occurred in the U.S. government regarding artificial intelligence (AI) legislation. The U.S. House of Representatives approved a budget package that includes a 10-year moratorium on enforcing state AI laws. This moratorium has sparked extensive debate among experts in the field, focusing on its implications and definitions.
The Scope of the Moratorium
The moratorium is largely viewed as a reaction to various state-level initiatives aimed at regulating AI technologies, particularly following the veto of California’s SB-1047, which sought to govern high-stakes AI applications. Critics argue that the moratorium is ambiguous, leaving it unclear how far its protections extend.
One major concern is that while the moratorium applies to state AI regulations, it does not necessarily exempt “generally applicable laws” that hold AI systems to the same standards as other comparable technologies. This ambiguity could lead to significant delays in state legislation aimed at protecting citizens from potential harms associated with AI.
Expert Opinions
Experts have weighed in on the implications of the moratorium:
- Justin Brookman, Director of Technology Policy, Consumer Reports, expresses strong opposition to the moratorium, labeling it as poorly executed and overly broad. He emphasizes the importance of state regulations in addressing bias in AI decision-making systems.
- Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy at the Abundance Institute, highlights the broad definition of “AI” in the moratorium, which could include tools like advanced spreadsheets, thereby complicating compliance for businesses.
- Amba Kak and Sarah Myers-West, Co-Executive Directors at the AI Now Institute, argue that the moratorium undermines necessary state regulations aimed at protecting individuals from harmful AI applications, pointing out that many states have passed laws targeting issues like AI-generated deepfake content.
- Jake Karr, Acting Director of Technology Law & Policy Clinic at New York University, raises concerns about the vagueness of the moratorium’s language, suggesting it could strip states of their regulatory authority.
- Christabel Randolph, Associate Director at the Center for AI and Digital Policy, warns that the moratorium could nullify existing state regulations aimed at ensuring the safe deployment of AI technologies.
- Matthew U. Scherer, Senior Policy Counsel at the Center for Democracy & Technology, discusses the sweeping nature of the moratorium, which could hinder the enforcement of laws that govern automated decision-making systems.
- Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute, supports the idea of a moratorium to prevent a complex regulatory landscape but emphasizes that it should not impede necessary consumer protections.
- Cody Venzke, Senior Policy Counsel at the ACLU, warns that the moratorium opens the door to an unregulated AI ecosystem, potentially endangering consumers and small businesses.
Implications for State Regulations
The moratorium raises critical questions about the future of AI regulation at the state level. It appears to clash with the efforts of state legislatures to enact regulations that address specific AI-related harms, such as:
- AI-generated deepfake porn laws, which aim to protect individuals from exploitation.
- Health insurance regulations that govern the use of AI in decision-making processes affecting claims.
- Consumer protections against deceptive practices enabled by AI technologies.
As a bipartisan group of 40 state attorneys general has noted, the moratorium is seen as neither respectful to state governance nor as a responsible public policy. They argue for a balanced approach that allows states to lead in crafting regulations that protect their residents while also addressing federal concerns about interstate commerce.
Conclusion
The ongoing debate surrounding the 10-year moratorium on state AI laws underscores the challenges of regulating rapidly evolving technologies. While the intention may be to streamline regulations and foster innovation, the potential consequences for consumer protection and ethical standards in AI deployment must be carefully considered. As discussions continue, it remains crucial for lawmakers to seek a path that balances innovation with the need for robust regulatory frameworks.
