Study debunks “1,000+” AI bills myth fueling federal preemption push

A new analysis challenges the widely cited claim that U.S. states have proposed over 1,000 AI-related bills this year, finding that the vast majority either don’t actually regulate AI or wouldn’t meaningfully impact innovation. The findings come as Congress debates whether to impose a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation, with the inflated bill count serving as a key argument for federal preemption.

What the analysis found: Independent researcher Steven Adler’s breakdown of the supposed “1,000+” state AI bills reveals significant mischaracterization of the legislative landscape.

• Roughly 40% of the bills categorized as “AI-related” don’t actually focus on artificial intelligence regulation.
• About 90% of genuinely AI-focused bills don’t impose specific requirements on AI developers, with some even boosting the industry.
• Given that roughly 80% of proposed state bills typically don’t become law, the headline numbers dramatically overstate actual regulatory impact.

Why this matters: The inflated bill count has become central to Congressional arguments for stripping states of AI regulatory authority through federal preemption measures.

• Critics of state regulation have used the “1,000+” figure to suggest a chaotic patchwork of conflicting rules that would stifle innovation.
• The analysis suggests a more accurate count would be around 40 bills per year that meaningfully affect frontier AI development, most of which won’t become law.

The big picture: The debate reflects broader tensions between federal and state approaches to emerging technology regulation.

• Proponents of federal preemption argue that inconsistent state rules create compliance burdens for AI companies.
• However, the analysis suggests these concerns may be based on misleading statistics rather than actual regulatory conflicts.

What’s next: Adler calls for critics to identify specific contradictions between state laws rather than relying on aggregate bill counts to make their case.

• The researcher provides detailed examples and continued analysis on his Substack to support the findings.
• The debate over state versus federal AI regulation authority continues as part of broader Congressional technology policy discussions.