Utah Lawmakers Express Concerns Over Proposed Federal AI Regulation Moratorium
Utah lawmakers are voicing strong opposition to a proposed 10-year federal moratorium on state-level artificial intelligence (AI) regulations, fearing it could undermine the state's proactive AI policies. The moratorium, introduced by Senator Ted Cruz as part of the "big, beautiful bill," would require states to pause enforcement of any laws or regulations related to AI models or systems for a decade.
Background on Utah's AI Legislative Initiatives
In recent years, Utah has been at the forefront of AI legislation, implementing measures to ensure responsible AI development and deployment.
Establishment of the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy
In 2024, Utah passed the Artificial Intelligence Policy Act, creating the nation's first Office of AI Policy. This office serves as a regulatory sandbox, allowing collaboration between the private sector and the state's Department of Consumer Protection to identify beneficial and harmful AI applications. (blog.commerce.utah.gov)
Consumer Protection Measures in AI Applications
Utah has enacted several laws to protect consumers from potential AI-related harms:
-
Regulation of AI in Mental Health Services: In 2025, Utah passed HB452, which regulates AI-powered mental health chatbots, ensuring they cannot sell user data or use it for advertising without clear disclosure. (utahnewsdispatch.com)
-
Disclosure Requirements for AI in Law Enforcement: SB180 mandates that law enforcement agencies disclose the use of AI in generating police reports and requires officers to review AI-generated content for accuracy. (utahnewsdispatch.com)
-
Protection Against Deepfakes: SB226 addresses the use of AI to create deepfakes, making it illegal to use someone's likeness without consent for commercial purposes. (utahnewsdispatch.com)
The Proposed Federal Moratorium and Its Implications
The proposed 10-year federal moratorium on state-level AI regulations aims to create a unified national approach to AI governance. Proponents argue that a consistent federal framework is essential to prevent a fragmented regulatory landscape that could hinder innovation. (brookings.edu)
Concerns Raised by Utah Lawmakers
Utah lawmakers express several concerns regarding the proposed moratorium:
-
Undermining State Sovereignty: Lawmakers argue that the moratorium would infringe upon states' rights to enact laws tailored to their residents' needs. (fox13now.com)
-
Stifling Innovation: By halting state-level regulations, the moratorium could prevent states from experimenting with and refining AI policies, potentially hindering technological progress. (ksl.com)
-
Consumer Protection Risks: Without state regulations, consumers may be more vulnerable to AI-related harms, such as data misuse and deceptive practices. (reuters.com)
Actions Taken by Utah Lawmakers
In response to the proposed moratorium, Utah lawmakers have taken the following actions:
-
Opposition Letters: A bipartisan group of Utah legislators sent a letter to the state's congressional delegation, urging them to oppose the moratorium and highlighting the potential negative impact on Utah's AI initiatives. (fox13now.com)
-
Public Statements: Governor Spencer Cox and other state officials have publicly expressed concerns, emphasizing the importance of state-level regulation in fostering responsible AI development. (ksl.com)
Broader Context: State vs. Federal AI Regulation
The debate over the federal moratorium reflects a larger discussion about the balance between state and federal authority in regulating emerging technologies. While federal oversight aims to provide consistency, state regulations allow for policies tailored to local contexts and needs. (brookings.edu)
The Role of State Attorneys General
State attorneys general have been active in addressing AI-related issues, issuing guidance and taking enforcement actions to protect consumers. Their involvement underscores the critical role of state leadership in AI governance. (reuters.com)
Conclusion
Utah's proactive approach to AI legislation demonstrates a commitment to balancing innovation with consumer protection. The proposed federal moratorium poses challenges to this balance, prompting ongoing discussions about the appropriate level of government involvement in AI regulation.
