playnext.fm

The Good Bot: Artificial Intelligence, Health Care, and the Law · Brett A. Mason, Brent T. Hoard, Erin S. Whaley, Troutman Pepper Locke

State AGs' Continued Focus on Enforcement – With or Without AI Legislation

·31 min·1 clip
Texas went big: constitutional rights, discrimination, healthcare transparency, no deepfakes.
Host Brett Mason, a trial lawyer focused on healthcare and life sciences, is joined by colleagues Gene Fischel and Chris Carlson, both with state attorney general enforcement expertise. This episode analyzes how state attorneys general are enforcing existing laws and new statutes to regulate artificial intelligence in the absence of comprehensive federal legislation. Gene details the four states with enacted AI-specific laws: Colorado, Utah, California, and Texas. Colorado's law, effective February 2026, targets algorithmic discrimination in high-risk AI systems and applies to both developers and deployers. Utah's law, already in effect, brings generative AI under its consumer protection statute and requires notification only if a consumer specifically asks. California has passed about 11 narrow laws, with the broadest extending the California Consumer Privacy Act to AI generating personal information. Texas's comprehensive law, effective January 2026, includes healthcare disclosure mandates and prohibitions against harmful or discriminatory AI. The hosts emphasize that 45 other states are considering similar AI legislation, creating a complex patchwork. Chris Carlson explains that state Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices laws already provide a powerful enforcement tool for attorneys general, regardless of new AI statutes. He cites Rhode Island's regulatory notice on automated decision-making and the ACLU's comments highlighting healthcare discrimination concerns. A surprising insight is that 40 state attorneys general, in a bipartisan letter, opposed a proposed federal moratorium on state AI enforcement, arguing it would hinder consumer protection. The Trump administration's "AI action plan" aims to promote innovation with minimal interference, including easier permitting for data centers and exporting "full-stack" AI systems to allies to counter China's influence. Gene notes that the first state AI enforcement action was a Texas case involving AI hallucinations impacting healthcare decisions, which resulted in an assurance of discontinuance with no penalties. The hosts identify three key legal buckets for AG enforcement: UDAP laws, state privacy laws, and anti-discrimination statutes, with Missouri targeting chatbots for distorting historical facts. For compliance, they advise companies to conduct an AI impact assessment and develop a risk management system, as regulators will ask about these immediately. A major technical challenge is ensuring AI systems can "forget" personal data to comply with consumer deletion requests under privacy laws. The tone is educational and conversational, featuring a detailed, insider perspective from legal practitioners familiar with regulatory strategy. Listeners interested in healthcare compliance, corporate legal strategy, or state-level tech policy will find this episode highly valuable. Those seeking a broad, non-technical introduction to AI may find the detailed legal analysis too niche.

As heard by us

A focused look at how healthcare AI, state laws, and enforcement intersect.

The discussion tracks how state laws and regulations are reshaping healthcare AI, with Brett Mason, Gene Fischel, and Chris Carlson returning to patient privacy, HIPAA-protected information, and AI decisions that could affect care and treatment.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

You want the enforcement backdrop on healthcare AI, not just another legislation roundup.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →
Listen to the show on
Apple PodcastsSpotify
Play clips from this episodeMore from The Good Bot: Artificial Intelligence, Health Care, and the Law