Latest news with #statelegislation
Fast Company
03-07-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
The fight over who gets to regulate AI is far from over
The AI regulation freeze that almost silenced the states The Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act has passed the Senate and is now headed for a final vote in the House before reaching the president's desk. But before its passage, senators removed a controversial amendment that would have imposed a five-year freeze on state-level regulation of AI models and apps. (The bill also includes billions in funding for new AI initiatives across federal departments, including Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, and Energy.) Had the amendment survived, it could have been disastrous for states, according to Michael Kleinman, policy lead at the Future of Life Institute. 'This is the worst possible way to legislate around AI for two reasons: First, it's making it almost impossible to do any kind of legislation, and second, it's happening in the most rushed and chaotic environment imaginable,' he says. The bill is over 900 pages long, and the Senate had just 72 hours to review it before debate and voting began. The original proposal called for a 10-year freeze, but the Senate reduced it to five years and added exceptions for state laws protecting children and copyrights. However, it also introduced vague language barring any state law that places an 'undue or disproportionate' burden on AI companies. According to Kleinman, this actually made the situation worse. 'It gave AI company lawyers a chance to define what those terms mean,' he says. 'They could simply argue in court that any regulation was too burdensome and therefore subject to the federal-level freeze.' States are already deep into the process of regulating AI development and use. California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, and Utah have been especially active, but all 50 states introduced new AI legislation during the 2025 session. So far, 28 states have adopted or enacted AI-related laws. That momentum is unlikely to slow, especially as real job losses begin to materialize from AI-driven automation. AI regulation is popular with voters. Supporters argue that it can mitigate risks while still allowing for technological progress. The 'freeze' amendment, however, would have penalized states financially—particularly in broadband funding—for attempting to protect the public. Kleinman argues that no trade-off is necessary. 'We can have innovation, and we can also have regulations that protect children, families—jobs that protect all of us,' he says. 'AI companies will say [that] any regulation means there's no innovation, and that is not true. Almost all industries in this country are regulated. Right now, AI companies face less regulation than your neighborhood sandwich shop.' The 'new precedent' for copyrighted AI training data may contain a poison pill On June 23, Judge William Alsup ruled in Bartz v. Anthropic that Anthropic's training of its model Claude on lawfully purchased and digitized books is 'quintessentially transformative' (meaning Anthropic used the material to make something other than more books) and thus qualifies as fair use under U.S. copyright law. (While that's a big win for Anthropic, the court also said the firm likely violated copyright by including 7 million pirated digital books in its training data library. That issue will be addressed in a separate trial.) Just two days later, in Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Judge Vince Chhabria dismissed a lawsuit filed by 13 authors who claimed that Meta had trained its Llama models on their books without permission. In his decision, Chhabria said the authors failed to prove that Meta's use of their works had harmed the market for those works. But in a surprisingly frank passage, the judge noted that the plaintiffs' weak legal arguments played a major role in the outcome. They could have claimed, for example, that sales of their books would suffer in a marketplace flooded with AI-generated competitors. 'In cases involving uses like Meta's, it seems like the plaintiffs (copyright holders) will often win, at least where those cases have better-developed records on the market effects of the defendant's use,' Chhabria wrote in his decision. 'No matter how transformative LLM training may be, it's hard to imagine that it can be fair use to use copyrighted books to develop a tool to make billions or trillions of dollars while enabling the creation of a potentially endless stream of competing works that could significantly harm the market for those books.' Chhabria may have laid out a legal recipe for future victories by copyright holders against AI firms. Copyright attorneys around the country surely took note that they may need only present as evidence the thousands of AI-generated books currently for sale on Amazon. In a legal sense, every one of those titles competes with the human-written books that were used to train the models. Chhabria said news publishers (like The New York Times in its case against OpenAI and Microsoft) could have even more success using this 'market delusion' argument than book authors. Apple is bringing in its ace to rally its troubled AI effort Siri has a new owner within Apple, and it could help the company finally deliver the AI-powered personal assistant it promised in 2024. By March, Tim Cook had lost faith that the core Apple AI group led by John Giannandrea could finish and release a new, smarter Siri powered by generative AI, Bloomberg 's Mark Gurman reported. Cook decided to move control of Siri development to a new group reporting to Apple's software head, Craig Federighi. He also brought in a rising star at the company, Mike Rockwell, to build and manage the new team—one that would sit at the nexus of Apple's AI, hardware, and software efforts, and aim to bring the new Siri to market in 2026. Apple announced the new Siri features in 2024 but has so far been unable to deliver them. Rockwell joined Apple in 2015 from Dolby Labs. He first worked on the company's augmented reality initiatives and helped release ARKit, which enabled developers to build 3D spatial experiences. As pressure mounted for Apple to deliver a superior headset, the company tapped Rockwell to assemble a team to design and engineer what would become the Vision Pro, released in February 2024. The Vision Pro wasn't a commercial hit—largely due to its $3,500 price tag—but it proved Rockwell's ability to successfully integrate complex hardware, software, and content systems. Rockwell may have brought a new sense of urgency to Apple's AI-Siri effort. Recent reports say that Rockwell's group is moving quickly to decide whether Siri should be powered by Apple's own AI models or by more mature offerings from companies like OpenAI or Anthropic. Apple has already integrated OpenAI's ChatGPT into iPhones, but one report says that Apple was impressed by Anthropic's Claude models as a potential brain for Siri. It could also be argued that Anthropic's culture and stance on safety and privacy are more in line with Apple's. Whatever the case, it seems the company is set to make some big moves.
Yahoo
29-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
To fight Trump's funding freezes, states try a new gambit: Withholding federal payments
Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against President Donald Trump's efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine. The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure. These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections. 'Trump is illegally withholding funds that have been previously approved,' said David Moon, the Democratic majority leader in Maryland's House of Delegates. 'Without these funds, we are going to see Maryland residents severely harmed — we needed more options on the table for how Maryland could respond and protect its residents.' Moon said the two bills are in response to various Trump actions that have withheld federal funding for programs that pay to assist with children's mental health and flood wall protections. He compared the bills he's introduced to traditional 'collections' actions that one would take against a 'deadbeat debtor.' Even if they were not to move forward, Moon said the bills would help to bring about an audit and accounting of federal money to the state. Early in his second term, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency unilaterally froze billions of dollars in funding for programs that states rely on. He's also threatened to withhold federal funding from states that implement policies he politically disagrees with, including 'sanctuary' policies for undocumented immigrants, though some such freezes have been halted by courts. A Trump White House spokesperson didn't respond to questions for this story. Wisconsin state Rep. Renuka Mayadev, a Democrat, introduced two near-identical bills that she said would seek to compel the federal government to release money it has withheld that had previously been paying for Department of Agriculture programs that help farmers, and for child care centers that mostly serve low-income families. 'We've seen the Trump administration is willfully breaking the law by holding back federal funds to which Wisconsinites are legally entitled. So these bills are really about providing for a legal remedy and protecting Wisconsinites,' she said. In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress. Payments available for withholding include the federal taxes collected from the paychecks of state employees, as well as grant payments owed back to the federal government. In Wisconsin, the bills are unlikely to move forward because Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature. But the trajectory of the bills in Maryland, New York and Connecticut — where Democrats control the legislatures and governorships — is an open question. The same is true in Washington, where Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce similar bills next session. 'It's a novel concept,' said Washington state Sen. Manka Dhingra. 'I don't think states have ever been in this position before … where there's someone making arbitrary decisions on what to provide funding for and what not to provide funding for, contrary to current rules and laws and congressional allocation of funds.' Legal experts have raised substantial questions about the hurdles such bills would face if they were enacted. For one, they said, the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause clearly gives the federal government precedence over states, which could complicate legal arguments defending such laws — even though it remains an open legal question whether the executive branch has the power to single-handedly control funding. More immediate practical obstacles, they explained, stem from the fact that there's vastly more money flowing from the federal government to the states than the other way around. 'So withholding state payments to the federal government, even if there were no other obstacles, isn't likely to change very much,' said David Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in administrative and constitutional law. Super added that states withholding money could potentially further worsen the status of programs affected by federal cuts. 'There's also the potential that some of the money going to the federal government has to be paid as a condition for the state receiving one or another kind of benefit for itself or for its people,' he said. 'The federal government could say, 'You didn't make this payment, therefore you're out of this program completely.'' But that doesn't mean states, working in the current hostile political environment, shouldn't try, said Jon Michaels, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in the separation of powers and presidential power. 'Where can you try to claw back money in different ways? Not because it's going to make a huge material difference for the state treasury or for the people of the state, but just to essentially show the federal government like, 'Hey, we know what you're doing and we don't like it,'' he said. 'States need to be enterprising and creative and somewhat feisty in figuring out their own scope of authority and the ways in which they can challenge the law.' But another potential drawback is one foreseen by the Democratic lawmakers themselves: further retribution from Trump. 'We would all be foolish to not acknowledge that the feds hold more cards than states do with respect to the budget,' said Moon, the Maryland legislator. 'There's certainly a risk of retaliation by the White House.' This article was originally published on
Fast Company
13-06-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
Is retirement legislation setting small businesses up to fail?
As a wave of state-level retirement mandates quietly rolls out across the country, most small businesses aren't prepared. More than 30 states have proposed mandates that would require small businesses to offer a retirement plan, and 10 states already have active state-sponsored retirement plans. California, the largest state economy, is leading the charge. By the end of this year, all California businesses with at least one employee must offer their employees a retirement benefit, either a 401(k) or enrollment in the state-run CalSavers program. By the end of 2025, those that don't could end up paying fines of up to $750 per employee, with more penalties added annually until they comply. That would be troubling on its own. But in a recent Guideline survey of California small business owners, 75% weren't familiar with CalSavers and 65% didn't know about the fines. While the intention behind the legislation is good, the execution is falling short. Expanding access to retirement savings is important. About 7.5 million Californians lack access to a workplace retirement plan, and most of them work for small businesses. But when 98% of firms in the state have fewer than 100 employees, poor execution turns into a statewide problem. What's happening in California is just the beginning. For small business owners across the country, this is a preview of what's coming next—from hidden compliance traps to unexpected penalties. The result: Policies meant to help workers are instead creating confusion, compliance headaches, and financial risk for the country's most vulnerable employers. A system designed without small businesses in mind Many small business owners I talk to want to help their employees and offer retirement benefits. But they're also stretched thin, juggling HR, payroll, compliance—and now, state-level mandates that come with little warning and even less education. In Guideline's survey, 70% of California small business owners said managing a 401(k) is too complex, and 51% said it's too expensive. Yet most had never heard of the SECURE 2.0 tax credits, which can cover 100% of the administrative cost of a 401(k) for the first three years. That's a clear failure in communication. So instead of unlocking access, these well-intentioned policies are creating traps: rules most businesses don't know about, with fines they can't afford. The fine print matters Meanwhile, many small businesses are defaulting to state-run programs like CalSavers, which are designed to be a simple option, but not necessarily a long-term solution. These programs don't allow employer contributions and come with limited plan options. According to Guideline research, 47% of employers who tried CalSavers shared that their employees thought the set up and management were difficult to use. That's why many employers nationally are opting to offer their own 401(k) plans instead. It's not because they have to, but because they want to attract talent, retain employees, and build long-term loyalty. When the playing field is level—meaning tax credits, modern tech, and low-cost plans are accessible—small businesses can offer big-company benefits. What small businesses should do now Whether or not your state has a mandate, it's worth paying attention to what's happening in California. Here are some helpful tips for any small business owner: Check your state's retirement rules. You might be surprised to learn what's already in place. Consider your options. You don't have to default to a state-run program, especially when a private 401(k) could cost less than you think. Review federal tax credits. If you qualify, you might get your plan fully paid for over the next few years. Don't wait for a fine to start planning. Retirement benefits are becoming important, as a cost of doing business, and may provide a competitive edge in hiring. Mandates shouldn't be a minefield Retirement access can be critical. But when small businesses are blindsided by mandates, miss deadlines they didn't know existed, and face unexpected fines, we're not expanding access—we're undermining it. For small businesses to succeed, we need to design policies with their reality in mind. That means better communication, simpler solutions, and real financial support, not just penalties. Because when small businesses thrive, so can their employees.
CBS News
20-05-2025
- Business
- CBS News
2026 Maryland budget among bills being signed into law by Gov. Moore
Maryland's 2026 budget will be among more than 160 bills that will be signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Wes Moore. The nearly $67 billion spending plan was crafted to address the state's $3 million deficit and the impact of federal funding cuts. What does Maryland's 2026 budget include? The 2026 state budget includes about $1.8 billion in tax and fee increases. It includes the largest amount of cuts to state spending in 16 years. Gov. Moore has been vocal about his plan to increase taxes for the highest earners in the state. His budget will create two new tax brackets: One for those who make $500,000 per year and another for those who make $1 million per year. Under the budget, residents who make $500,000 will be taxed at 6.25% and those who make $1 million will be taxed at 6.5%. Low- and middle-income residents will see tax breaks under the 2026 budget. The budget will also create a new 3% tax on IT services and increase taxes on cannabis and sports betting. Lawmakers agreed to make about $2.3 billion in cuts from the 2026 budget. "Because of our emphasis on growth, our biggest framework will emphasize spending cuts over tax increases," Gov. Moore said. 164 new bills signed into Maryland law On Tuesday, Gov. Moore will sign a total of 164 bills into Maryland law, including a few that focus on the rising cost of energy in the state. For example, the Renewable Energy Certainty Act will allow for the construction of solar energy generating systems and will launch a Power Plant Research Program to propose site and design requirements. The Next Generation Energy Act will also be signed into law on Tuesday, allowing the Department of Housing and Community Development to issue loans and grants aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from residential buildings. The law will also require the Maryland Energy Administration to work with neighboring states and federal agencies to develop new nuclear energy stations. The governor will also sign the Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for All Marylanders Now Act, a law that will expand Maryland's Prescription Drug Affordability Board and allow it to determine ways to lower drug prices. One of the bills signed Tuesday focuses on immigration laws in the state. The Maryland Values Act prevents federal law enforcement from carrying out immigration actions at sensitive locations such as schools and libraries. The law, which will go into effect on June 1, 2025, will also require the attorney general to develop guidelines for immigration enforcement at sensitive locations.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Nebraska lawmakers pass $11B budget for next two years
LINCOLN, Neb. (KCAU) — Nebraska state lawmakers passed the $11 billion mainline budget for the next two years. Legislators voted 37 to 11 with 1 not voting on LB 261 with an emergency clause. The bill would appropriate funds for the biennium ending on June 30, 2027. State senators also voted 35 to 12 with 1 not voting on LB 264 with an emergency clause. The measure would provide, change, and get rid of transfers from the cash reserve fund to help balance the budget. Story continues below Top Story: Iowa lawmakers issue statements marking end of 2025 legislative session Lights & Sirens: Woman, accused of deadly stabbing in Monona County, submits plea Sports: Northwestern softball eliminated from NAIA Tournament with 10-2 loss to Marian Weather: Get the latest weather forecast here I commend the Nebraska Legislature for its work in passing a balanced and historically conservative 2025-2027 biennial budget package. Nebraskans expect us to reduce government spending, invest in our kids, and lower property taxes. I thank the Legislature for rolling back expanded spending, putting idle pillowcase money to work, and having the courage to say no to more spending increases. This budget puts money toward education, property tax relief, elimination of the developmental disability waitlist, and bolsters our national nuclear security, all while closing the $432 million deficit reported in November. With this balanced budget, we have the opportunity to make further investments in addressing our property tax crisis. I look forward to working with the Legislature in the coming weeks to do the right thing for Nebraskans. Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen The Nebraska Examiner reports there's about a $1.1 million wiggle room in the budget. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
