Free subscription to the Capitol Journal keeps you current on legislative and regulatory news.
AI Industry Spending Big to Block State Regulations The AI industry has launched three super PACs in recent weeks that could spend over $100 million largely on statewide races next year. The industry...
Special Session on Rural Healthcare Coming in ND North Dakota’s legislature intends to form a new interim committee and hold a special session to allocate $500 million in federal funding for rural...
People hate to wait in line. So is it any wonder that this year state legislators have targeted prior authorization , the policy mandating that patients wait for medical services until insurance companies...
CA Insurance Commissioner Seeking Reforms to Intervenor Process California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara (D) announced he wants to make changes to the foundational insurance law approved by the...
Nearly Half of States Target AI-Based Home Rental Pricing in 2025 Lawmakers introduced bills aimed at restricting the use of artificial intelligence in setting housing rental prices in 23 states this...
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.
Tech industry groups including the Business Software Alliance, the Consumer Technology Association and the Chamber of Progress are stepping up their lobbying efforts in opposition to a slew of California bills aimed at regulating artificial intelligence as lawmakers in the state return from their summer recess. The industry appears to be faring well this year, with only about 120 of the over 1,000 AI-related bills introduced having been enacted. (PLURIBUS NEWS)
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a request from tech industry group NetChoice to temporarily block enforcement of a Mississippi law (HB 1126) requiring minors to obtain their parents’ consent before creating a social media account. Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a brief unsigned order stating that while he concurred with the court’s denial of NetChoice’s application for interim relief because the group had not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time,” the group had in his view “demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits—namely, that enforcement of the Mississippi law would likely violate its members’ First Amendment rights.” (SCOTUS BLOG)
—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK
Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.