New developments in Virginia and Texas signal that the debate over artificial intelligence (AI) policy could be turning in a more positive, pro-innovation direction in the states. Less than three months into the year, more than 900 AI-related legislative proposals have been introduced, with a majority seeking to impose new regulations on algorithmic systems. This represents an unprecedented level of regulatory interest in emerging technology.
On March 24, Virginia Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed a major AI regulatory measure that aimed to maintain the Commonwealth’s leadership in digital innovation. During his veto of HB 2094, known as the “High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Developer and Deployer Act,” Youngkin stated that the bill would hinder job creation, deter business investment, and limit the availability of innovative technology in the state.
The Chamber of Progress estimated that the bill would impose nearly $30 million in compliance costs on AI developers, which would significantly burden Virginia’s small tech startups. Youngkin’s veto came just ten days after Texas GOP Representative Giovanni Capriglione introduced a revised version of his “Texas Responsible AI Governance Act” (TRAIGA). This new bill, shedding its previously heavy-handed elements, aims to promote innovation rather than regulate it in a strict manner.
Despite some states continuing to pursue a European-style approach to AI regulation, these recent developments in Virginia and Texas could represent a major shift in AI policy towards an opportunity-focused perspective. As the U.S. faces significant competition from advancements in AI by countries like China, aligning state policies with national interests in AI investment becomes imperative.
Rejecting the EU Approach
The Virginia AI bill vetoed by Youngkin was part of a broader movement involving bills pushed by the Multistate AI Policymaker Working Group (MAP-WG), aiming to standardize AI regulation across states. Similar bills resembling the vetoed Virginia legislation are pending in several states, including California, Connecticut, and New York. Colorado was the first state to pass an AI discrimination bill, which later demonstrated the complexities and challenges associated with such regulations.
These MAP-WG bills have combined elements from both the EU’s new AI Act and the Biden administration’s policy approach, which has been criticized for being fear-based regarding AI systems. Comparatively, the current U.S. administration has shifted towards fostering an America-first AI environment.
Youngkin’s decision to veto reflects a growing awareness among lawmakers regarding the costs and complexities involved in adopting a model that largely restricts innovation. As noted in his veto statement, the rigid framework of the proposed bill did not account for the rapidly evolving nature of the AI industry and would have placed an undue burden on smaller firms.
Avoiding Colorado’s Broken AI Model
The lessons learned from Colorado’s AI regulations highlight that overly broad mandates can stifle innovation instead of promoting it. Although Colorado’s bill was signed into law, concerns ushered in a need for a cohesive federal approach to avoid varied compliance burdens on innovators.
Youngkin’s veto, coupled with the revisions in Texas, sends a clear message to state lawmakers: imposing expensive and complex mandates may hinder AI entrepreneurship and should be avoided. Instead of following European regulatory models, there are more effective strategies to address AI-related concerns that empower innovation.
Youngkin concluded in his veto statement that the government’s role should be to enable and empower innovators rather than stifle progress through burdensome regulations. Such a mantra is applicable not only in Virginia and Texas but across the entire nation as the U.S. navigates the future of AI technology.
