Legislative committees passed a number of artificial intelligence bills this session that now await action in the House and Senate.
The General Law Committee approved a revised version of SB 2, the most wide-ranging of the proposals introduced this year, on a 17-4 vote.
After receiving extensive feedback from stakeholders and public hearing testimony, the bill’s substitute language was revised to provide clearer terms and definitions, but it still contains costly and burdensome regulatory requirements that threaten innovation and investment.
The legislation requires businesses to conduct impact assessments, maintain risk management programs, and document AI decision-making processes on an annual basis.
This will require businesses of all sizes to continuously adhere to compliance specifications, creating significant cost burdens that many employers, especially small and medium-sized firms, cannot afford.
‘Negative’ Economic Consequences
In his testimony before the committee, Department of Economic and Community Development Commissioner Dan O’Keefe recounted historic examples of attempted bans of a technology leading to negative economic consequences.
“The state’s goal should be to take advantage of the opportunities AI offers while strengthening existing regulations, not creating new ones,” he said.
“The goal should be to take advantage of the opportunities AI offers while strengthening existing regulations, not creating new ones.”
DECD’s Dan O’Keefe
SB 2’s revised language attempts to recognize the unique challenges facing smaller companies by requiring the Attorney General’s office—only if available within existing appropriations—to develop a public education, outreach, and assistance program to aid small businesses with compliance.
CBIA continues to have concerns about the chilling effect that broad, comprehensive state-specific regulations on the use of AI will have on innovation, entrepreneurship, and investment.
“Many small businesses simply do not have the resources or time to dedicate to comply with the law and may choose not to use beneficial artificial intelligence to create efficiencies that improve productivity, increase tax revenue, and grow our economy,” CBIA’s Chris Davis said.
Workplace AI Use
The Labor and Public Employees Committee approved legislation governing the use of AI in the workplace on a 9-4 party line vote.
SB 1484 broadens current employee electronic monitoring and surveillance laws and sets new limits on an employer’s use of high-risk AI systems to make consequential decisions about employees.
In testimony before the committee, CBIA’s Paul Amarone raised concerns about the significant administrative burden the bill places on firms, especially small businesses.
“Small businesses lack resources for required AI impact assessments, risk management programs, and documentation,” he said.
SB 1484 explicitly includes a dangerous provision allowing private rights of action by employees if they feel an AI system is discriminatory.
“They may choose not to use AI to create efficiencies, leaving them at a competitive disadvantage to bigger competitors who are able to spend more time and resources to comply with this bill’s requirements.”
The bill’s revised language expands the definition of “electronic monitoring” to include third-party data collection, enhances notification requirements, defines “substantial factor,” establishes qualifications for high-risk AI system oversight, enables civil lawsuits for AI violations, and makes AI usage subject to mandatory collective bargaining for public employees.
The bill also features many of the same regulatory requirements for the use of AI for high-risk decisions as SB 2, but without the same exemptions and structure.
SB 1484 explicitly includes a dangerous provision allowing private rights of action by employees against employers if they feel an AI system is discriminatory.
CBIA continues to oppose the legislation.
Innovation
The General Law Committee also approved SB 1249, proposed by the Lamont administration to addresses developments in AI and set up funding for further innovation.
Gov. Ned Lamont told the committee the bill is needed to position Connecticut to take advantage of AI opportunities while protecting consumers.
“Connecticut is at a crossroads and has the opportunity to position its economy to take advantage of AI’s innovative opportunities.”
Gov. Ned Lamont
“Connecticut is at a crossroads and has the opportunity to position its economy to take advantage of AI’s innovative opportunities, but not at the cost of consumers,” he said.
Earlier this session, Davis told the committee the bill “presents an opportunity to encourage a business environment that fosters economic growth, innovation, and responsible adoption of artificial intelligence by employers of all sizes in Connecticut.”
CBIA maintains its support for the disclosure requirements contained in the proposed legislation and a clarification that existing law already requires that AI cannot justify discrimination, as these provisions won’t excessively burden employers.
AI-Generated Content
The Government Administration and Elections Committee advanced legislation criminalizing the intentional distribution of deceptive AI-generated content designed to harm candidates or manipulate election outcomes during the 90 days before primaries or elections.
HB 6846, which generated concerns about its broad language and constitutionality, was approved on a 15-4 vote.
A bill that criminalizes the unauthorized dissemination of intimate images that are digitally altered or created using AI advanced.
Amarone suggested the bill should be amended to specifically restrict liability to individuals who create and distribute deceptive AI-generated content, “while explicitly exempting intermediary platforms such as internet service providers and cable companies.”
The Judiciary Committee approved a bill that criminalizes the unauthorized dissemination of intimate images that are digitally altered or created using AI.
Despite broad bipartisan support for SB 1440 , the Office of the Chief Public Defender voiced strong opposition, saying the bill creates “a variety of First Amendment challenges, vagueness challenges, and uneven application of the law in terms of who gets prosecuted and for what.”
For more information, contact CBIA’s Chris Davis (860.244.1931) or Paul Amarone (860.244.1978).
