|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| '''April 2026''' — Monthly digest of AI law and policy developments without specific daily dates.
| | #REDIRECT [[News-April-2026]] |
| | |
| == Contents ==
| |
| 1. [[News AI Foundation Model Transparency Act 2026|AI Foundation Model Transparency Act (H.R. 8094) Introduced]]
| |
| 2. [[News AI Litigation Trends Report 2026|AI Litigation Trends Report: 168 Federal Cases Analyzed]]
| |
| 3. [[News California Washington Advance AI Bills April 2026|California and Washington Advance AI Bills]]
| |
| 4. [[News Carreyrou v Anthropic Copyright Opt Out Lawsuit 2026|Carreyrou v. Anthropic: Opt-Out Copyright Lawsuit]]
| |
| 5. [[News Georgia AI Bills Governor April 2026|Georgia Sends AI Bills to Governor]]
| |
| 6. [[News GUARDRAILS Act Repeal AI Moratorium 2026|GUARDRAILS Act Introduced to Repeal Trump AI Moratorium]]
| |
| 7. [[News New York RAISE Act Amendments S8828 2026|New York RAISE Act Amendments (S 8828) Signed]]
| |
| 8. [[News Nineteen States Pass AI Laws 2026|Nineteen States Pass New AI Laws in 2026]]
| |
| 9. [[News Nippon Life Sues OpenAI Unlicensed Law Practice 2026|Nippon Life Sues OpenAI for Unlicensed Law Practice]]
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == AI Foundation Model Transparency Act (H.R. 8094) Introduced ==
| |
| | |
| On March 26, 2026, a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers introduced '''H.R. 8094''', the '''AI Foundation Model Transparency Act (AI FMTA)''', marking the first federal legislation focused specifically on AI transparency rather than direct regulation.<ref>[https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/8094 Congress.gov: H.R. 8094 - AI Foundation Model Transparency Act]</ref><ref>[https://pluralpolicy.com/blog/the-ai-governance-watch-april-2026-nineteen-new-ai-bills-passed-into-law/ Plural Policy: AI Governance Watch, April 2026]</ref>
| |
| | |
| === Purpose ===
| |
| | |
| The AI FMTA would require developers of large AI models (such as ChatGPT, Claude, and similar systems) to publicly disclose:
| |
| | |
| * Training methods and data sources used
| |
| * Intended capabilities and limitations of the model
| |
| * Known risks and safety evaluations
| |
| * Performance benchmarks and evaluation practices
| |
| | |
| === Requirements ===
| |
| | |
| Covered entities (developers of large foundation models) would be required to:
| |
| | |
| # Publish transparency reports detailing training data composition
| |
| # Disclose energy consumption and environmental impact of training
| |
| # Provide information on red teaming and safety testing conducted | |
| # Report on known limitations and failure modes
| |
| | |
| === Status ===
| |
| | |
| As of April 2026, H.R. 8094 has been introduced and referred to committee. No markup or floor vote has been scheduled.
| |
| | |
| === Significance ===
| |
| | |
| The AI FMTA represents a shift toward transparency-focused AI governance at the federal level. Unlike the sector-specific approaches proposed in other legislation, this bill targets the foundational layer of AI systems.
| |
| | |
| ''See individual article: [[News AI Foundation Model Transparency Act 2026]]''
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == AI Litigation Trends Report: 168 Federal Cases Analyzed ==
| |
| | |
| A comprehensive analysis of '''168 federal district court AI-related cases''' reveals dramatic growth in AI litigation through early 2026, with [[OpenAI]] named as a defendant in 71 cases — over 40% of all filings — and the [[Northern District of California]] leading with 53 cases.<ref>[https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ai-litigation-trends-rapid-growth-and-2263076/ JD Supra, "AI Litigation Trends: Rapid Growth and Emerging Patterns," April 2026]</ref>
| |
| | |
| === Key Findings ===
| |
| | |
| The report, analyzing federal AI litigation through early 2026, documents a sharp trajectory:
| |
| | |
| * '''2022''': 7 cases
| |
| * '''2023''': 19 cases
| |
| * '''2024''': 22 cases
| |
| * '''2025''': 94 cases (more than half of all cases in the dataset)
| |
| * '''2026 (to date)''': 26 cases, with elevated activity expected to continue
| |
| | |
| This acceleration reflects the transition of generative AI from early adoption to widespread commercial deployment.
| |
| | |
| === Defendant Concentration ===
| |
| | |
| [[OpenAI]] dominates the litigation landscape, appearing in '''71 cases''' — accounting for more than 40% of all filings. This concentration reflects OpenAI's central role in the generative AI ecosystem and its visibility as a primary target for plaintiffs testing new legal theories.
| |
| | |
| === Geographic Distribution ===
| |
| | |
| * [[Northern District of California]]: 53 cases (leading district)
| |
| * [[Southern District of New York]]: 23 cases
| |
| * Other districts with significant but smaller volumes
| |
| | |
| === Primary Legal Issues ===
| |
| | |
| The analysis identifies two main categories of AI litigation:
| |
| | |
| * '''Training data disputes''': Whether the use of input data in AI model training constitutes fair use, and the nature and sourcing of such data
| |
| * '''Product liability and deployment harms''': Questions regarding design, built-in safeguards, and heightened risks posed to vulnerable groups like minors
| |
| | |
| ''See individual article: [[News AI Litigation Trends Report 2026]]''
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == California and Washington Advance AI Bills ==
| |
| | |
| California and Washington state legislatures advanced multiple AI-related bills in early April 2026, with key committee approvals on disclosure requirements, false advertising protections, and deepfake child safety measures.<ref>[https://www.transparencycoalition.ai/news/ai-legislative-update-april10-2026 Transparency Coalition, "AI Legislative Update — April 10, 2026"]</ref>
| |
| | |
| === California Bills ===
| |
| | |
| ==== SB 1050 — Synthetic Performer Disclosure in Advertising ====
| |
| Sponsored by Senator Ashby with support from SAG-AFTRA, SB 1050 makes it unlawful to use a "synthetic performer" (digitally created, reproduced, or modified by computer) in advertisements without clear and conspicuous disclosure to prevent deceptive practices.
| |
| | |
| Approved by the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee on April 7, 2026. Sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee with a hearing set for April 21, 2026.
| |
| | |
| ==== SB 1146 — AI Provisions in False Advertising for Health Products ====
| |
| Sponsored by Senator Gonzalez, SB 1146 adds artificial intelligence provisions to existing false advertising laws specifically for health-related consumer products.
| |
| | |
| Approved by the Senate Privacy/Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection Committee on April 7, 2026. Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
| |
| | |
| ==== SB 1142 — Digital Dignity Act ====
| |
| Sponsored by Senator Becker, SB 1142 clarifies that false impersonation includes digital replicas and requires AI platforms to allow users to revoke access to their digital replicas.
| |
| | |
| Approved by the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee on April 8, 2026.
| |
| | |
| === Washington Bills ===
| |
| | |
| Washington state also advanced AI legislation in parallel with California's efforts, focusing on deepfake regulation and consumer protection measures.
| |
| | |
| ''See individual article: [[News California Washington Advance AI Bills April 2026]]''
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == Carreyrou v. Anthropic: Opt-Out Copyright Lawsuit ==
| |
| | |
| '''April 2026 — Author John Carreyrou Leads Opt-Out Copyright Lawsuit Against Anthropic and Other AI Companies'''
| |
| | |
| Bestselling author John Carreyrou and other writers who opted out of the Bartz v. Anthropic class action settlement have filed an omnibus copyright infringement lawsuit against Anthropic, Google, Meta, xAI, and Perplexity AI, alleging their copyrighted works were used to train AI models without authorization or compensation.<ref>[https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/03/02/judge-p-casey-pitts-gets-reassigned-john-carreyrou-v-anthropic-copyright-suit/ Judge P. Casey Pitts Gets Reassigned — John Carreyrou v. Anthropic Copyright Suit, ChatGPT Is Eating the World, March 2, 2026]</ref><ref>[https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2025cv10897/461656 Justia: Carreyrou v. Anthropic, Case No. 3:25-cv-10897]</ref>
| |
| | |
| === The Opt-Out Litigation ===
| |
| | |
| The case (''Carreyrou et al. v. Anthropic PBC et al.'', Case No. 3:25-cv-10897) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, by authors who chose not to participate in the '''Bartz v. Anthropic''' $1.5 billion class action settlement covering approximately 500,000 titles. The opt-out deadline was January 29, 2026, and these plaintiffs are pursuing individual statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work rather than accepting the class settlement terms.
| |
| | |
| === Named Defendants ===
| |
| | |
| * '''Anthropic PBC''' — Training Claude on copyrighted books
| |
| * '''Google''' — Use of copyrighted works in AI training
| |
| * '''Meta Platforms''' — Use of copyrighted works in LLaMA training
| |
| * '''xAI''' — Use of copyrighted works in Grok training
| |
| * '''Perplexity AI''' — Use of copyrighted works in AI search models
| |
| | |
| Claims against OpenAI were initially included but have been severed and transferred to multidistrict litigation (MDL), separate from the remaining omnibus case.
| |
| | |
| ''See individual article: [[News Carreyrou v Anthropic Copyright Opt Out Lawsuit 2026]]''
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == Georgia Sends AI Bills to Governor ==
| |
| | |
| '''April 2026 — Georgia Sends Two AI Bills to Governor, Covering Chatbot Safety and Healthcare AI Decisions'''
| |
| | |
| Georgia's legislature adjourned on April 6, 2026, after approving two AI-related bills and sending them to Governor Brian Kemp for signature. As of April 26, 2026, neither bill has been signed by the governor. The bills address chatbot disclosure and child safety, and AI in healthcare insurance decisions.<ref>[https://www.transparencycoalition.ai/news/ai-legislative-update-april24-2026 Transparency Coalition, "AI Legislative Update — April 24, 2026"]</ref>
| |
| | |
| === SB 540: Chatbot Disclosure and Child Safety ===
| |
| | |
| '''SB 540''' is a chatbot disclosure and child safety bill requiring notification of the AI nature of chatbot interactions, steps to limit certain actions by minors, provision of privacy tools, and protocols for response to suicidal ideation or self-harm.
| |
| | |
| === SB 444: AI in Healthcare Insurance ===
| |
| | |
| '''SB 444''' prohibits decisions regarding insurance coverage of healthcare decisions from being based solely on AI systems or software tools.
| |
| | |
| === SR 789: AI Study Committee ===
| |
| | |
| The Georgia Senate also approved '''SR 789''', a Senate Resolution creating a Senate Study Committee on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence.
| |
| | |
| ''See individual article: [[News Georgia AI Bills Governor April 2026]]''
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == GUARDRAILS Act Introduced to Repeal Trump AI Moratorium ==
| |
| | |
| '''March 26, 2026 — Rep. Beyer Introduces GUARDRAILS Act to Repeal Trump AI Moratorium and Restore State Regulation Authority'''
| |
| | |
| On March 26, 2026, Representative Don Beyer (D-VA) introduced the '''GUARDRAILS Act''' ('''G'''uaranteeing and '''U'''pholding '''A'''mericans' '''R'''ight to '''D'''ecide '''R'''esponsible '''A'''I '''L'''aws and '''S'''tandards Act), legislation that would repeal President Trump's December 11, 2025 Executive Order 14365 imposing a moratorium on state-level AI regulation.<ref>[https://beyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=9009 Rep. Beyer Press Release: Beyer and Colleagues Introduce Bill to Repeal White House AI Moratorium]</ref>
| |
| | |
| === Background ===
| |
| | |
| Executive Order 14365, titled "Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence," was signed by President Trump on December 11, 2025, and established a framework prioritizing federal preemption of state AI laws.<ref>[https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/ White House: Executive Order on Removing Barriers to American Leadership in AI]</ref>
| |
| | |
| The GUARDRAILS Act was introduced in direct response, seeking to nullify the executive order, prohibit federal funds from implementing it, and restore states' authority to enact their own AI regulations covering safety, privacy, and bias concerns.
| |
| | |
| === Cosponsors ===
| |
| | |
| The bill's cosponsors include Reps. Doris Matsui (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Sara Jacobs (D-CA), and April McClain Delaney (D-MD).
| |
| | |
| ''See individual article: [[News GUARDRAILS Act Repeal AI Moratorium 2026]]''
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == New York RAISE Act Amendments (S 8828) Signed ==
| |
| | |
| '''New York RAISE Act Amendments (S 8828)''' — Governor Kathy Hochul signed Senate Bill S 8828 on '''March 27, 2026''', amending the Responsible AI Safety and Education (RAISE) Act to align New York's frontier AI transparency requirements more closely with California's approach, narrowing the definition of covered developers, reducing penalties, and delaying enforcement to January 1, 2027.<ref>[https://www.wiley.law/alert-New-York-Finalizes-RAISE-Act-for-Frontier-AI-Models-Law-Takes-Effect-January-1-2027 Wiley, "New York Finalizes RAISE Act for Frontier AI Models; Law Takes Effect January 1, 2027," April 2026]</ref>
| |
| | |
| === Background: Original RAISE Act ===
| |
| | |
| The original RAISE Act (S 6953-b/A 6453-b) was signed by Governor Hochul on '''December 19, 2025''', making New York the second state after California to impose transparency and safety requirements on developers of advanced AI models.
| |
| | |
| === S 8828 Amendments ===
| |
| | |
| Senate Bill S 8828, introduced by Senator Andrew Gounardes on January 8, 2026, made significant amendments to the RAISE Act:
| |
| | |
| * Narrows definition of "large frontier developer" to a $500 million revenue threshold
| |
| * Reduces penalties from $10M/$30M to $1M/$3M
| |
| * Delays enforcement to January 1, 2027
| |
| | |
| ''See individual article: [[News New York RAISE Act Amendments S8828 2026]]''
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == Nineteen States Pass New AI Laws in 2026 ==
| |
| | |
| Nineteen new AI-related bills have been signed into law across U.S. states in the first quarter of 2026, according to Plural Policy's April 2026 legislative tracker.<ref>[https://pluralpolicy.com/blog/the-ai-governance-watch-april-2026-nineteen-new-ai-bills-passed-into-law/ Plural Policy, "The AI Governance Watch — April 2026: Nineteen New AI Bills Passed Into Law" (April 2026)]</ref> The laws cover a range of topics including chatbot regulation, healthcare AI, education, transparency, and child safety.
| |
| | |
| === Notable Signed Laws ===
| |
| | |
| * '''Idaho S 1227''': Establishes a comprehensive framework for the use of generative artificial intelligence in K-12 public education
| |
| * '''Idaho S 1297''': Establishes regulations for conversational AI services
| |
| * '''New York S 8828''' (RAISE Act amendments): Signed March 27, 2026
| |
| * '''Oregon SB 1546''': Establishes regulations for AI companion platforms with a private right of action
| |
| * '''Tennessee SB 1580''': Prohibits AI systems from representing themselves as qualified mental health professionals
| |
| | |
| === National Context ===
| |
| | |
| Utah's legislative package brings the total number of new AI laws enacted in 2026 to approximately 25 nationwide, up from just six at the beginning of March.
| |
| | |
| ''See individual article: [[News Nineteen States Pass AI Laws 2026]]''
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == Nippon Life Sues OpenAI for Unlicensed Law Practice ==
| |
| | |
| '''Nippon Life Insurance Sues OpenAI for Practicing Law Without a License'''
| |
| | |
| On March 4, 2026, Nippon Life Insurance Co. of America filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:26-cv-02448) accusing [[OpenAI]] of the unlicensed practice of law through its ChatGPT chatbot.<ref>[https://www.insidetechlaw.com/blog/2026/04/ai-in-litigation-series-complaint-accuses-openai-of-practicing-law-without-a-license Inside Tech Law, "Complaint Accuses OpenAI of Practicing Law Without a License," April 2026]</ref><ref>[https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/openai-sued-for-practicing-law-without-a-license ABA Journal, "OpenAI Sued for Practicing Law Without a License," 2026]</ref>
| |
| | |
| === The Allegations ===
| |
| | |
| The lawsuit stems from a pro se litigant who, after a court rejected her motion to reopen a long-term disability claim in February 2025, used ChatGPT to draft a new complaint and 44 subsequent motions, memoranda, and court filings over the following year. Several of these filings cited non-existent cases generated by ChatGPT.
| |
| | |
| Nippon Life, the disability insurer that became a target of these ChatGPT-assisted filings, brought three claims against OpenAI:
| |
| | |
| * '''Tortious interference with contract''': Alleging ChatGPT was designed to induce users to breach settlement agreements
| |
| * '''Abuse of process''': Alleging OpenAI aided and abetted frivolous litigation
| |
| * '''Unlicensed practice of law''': Alleging ChatGPT provides legal advice, analysis, and document drafting without a law license
| |
| | |
| Nippon Life seeks a declaratory judgment that ChatGPT practiced law without a license, a permanent injunction against ChatGPT providing legal advice to individuals, and $10 million in punitive damages.
| |
| | |
| ''See individual article: [[News Nippon Life Sues OpenAI Unlicensed Law Practice 2026]]''
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == Categories ==
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Monthly News]]
| |
| [[Category:April 2026]]
| |
| [[Category:Federal Legislation]]
| |
| [[Category:State Legislation]]
| |
| [[Category:Copyright Litigation]]
| |
| [[Category:AI Governance]]
| |
