State Net

Trump Administration’s Challenge to CO’s AI Law & More

Alyzza Austriaco — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 20:37:00 GMT

Trump Administration Joins Challenge to CO’s AI Law

On April 24, the U.S. Department of Justice joined a lawsuit brought by Elon Musk’s AI company, xAI, seeking to block Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination in AI Act from going into effect. The law, passed in 2024 (SB 205) and scheduled to take effect on June 30, was the first comprehensive statute regulating algorithmic discrimination enacted in the United States. It imposes disclosure and risk-mitigation requirements on developers of “high‑risk” AI systems involved with decision-making in education, employment, financial services, healthcare and housing.

In its initial challenge to the law, filed on April 9, xAI argued that an AI model is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment and that the Colorado law impinges on that freedom. The DOJ’s filing added a different constitutional argument, based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause: that the law forces AI companies to make decisions on the basis of race, sex and religion.

The Colorado law provides an exemption for AI tools that advance diversity or compensate for historical discrimination. The DOJ argues that this carveout is an unconstitutional double standard, allowing discrimination for some but not others.

The administration’s action is consistent with others it has taken since January 2025 challenging diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives as a form of discrimination themselves. It also represents the administration’s first formal challenge to a state AI law since President Trump issued an executive order in December threatening legal action against state AI regulation. (HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR, REUTERS)

Maine Gov Blocks Data Center Moratorium

Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) vetoed a bill (HB 207) that would have made her state the first in the nation to impose a moratorium on data center development. If she’d signed the measure, it would have frozen approvals for new data centers requiring more than 20 megawatts of power until October 2027 and authorized a council of government officials, experts and other stakeholders to develop plans for future data centers. In a letter to state lawmakers, Mills said she supports a temporary freeze on data centers and would have signed HB 207 if it had included an exemption for a $550 million data center project in the town of Jay that’s expected to provide at least 100 high-paying jobs. (INSURANCE JOURNAL)

—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.

All 50 States Under Trump Administration’s Medicaid Fraud Microscope & More

Alyzza Austriaco — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 20:35:00 GMT

Trump Administration Expands Medicaid Fraud Scrutiny to All 50 States

In an effort to fight fraud, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid is requiring all 50 states to submit plans for revalidating their Medicaid providers. CMS had already requested information about Medicaid programs in California, Florida, Maine, Minnesota and New York, and halted $243 million in Medicaid payments to Minnesota because of fraud concerns. (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

PBM Pharmacy Ownership Bill Passed in TN

Tennessee lawmakers passed a bill (SB 2040) that would ban pharmacy benefit managers from owning or controlling pharmacies in the state. The bill would apply to just one company, CVS Health, since it’s the only one that owns both types of business in the state. The company said it plans to file a lawsuit to block the measure, as it did last year against a similar bill enacted in Arkansas (HB 1150 [2025]). (TENNESSEE LOOKOUT, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

State Legislators Widen Focus on Medical Debt

Mary Anne Peck — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 16:43:00 GMT

On Jan. 7, 2025, two weeks before Donald Trump was inaugurated, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Biden administration issued a new rule barring credit reporting agencies from reporting medical debt and prohibiting creditors from considering medical debt when making credit eligibility decisions.

Industry trade groups challenged the rule, arguing that the CFPB had exceeded its authority. After the Trump administration took office, the CFPB joined with the industry groups in asking the court to vacate the rule. On July 11, a federal judge for the Eastern District of Texas granted their request.

States Lead Way on Medical Debt Reform

Since then, the fight over medical debt has shifted back to the states, where legislators have broadened their focus from credit reports, which we covered a couple of years ago, to wage garnishment.

Lawmakers in at least eight states have considered legislation this year to ban or limit creditors from garnishing wages to pay medical debts, a practice that had been entirely banned in only six states—Delaware, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia—according to a July 2025 report by the Commonwealth Fund. Rhode Island enacted a bill (SB 169) barring wage garnishment for judgments based on medical debt in June 2025, bringing the number of states with such bans to seven.

Maine joined those ranks in early April when Gov. Janet Mills (D) signed LD 2129 by Sen. Donna Bailey (D) to ban medical debt collectors from placing liens on debtor’s homes or garnishing wages.

“No one should lose their home or their paycheck because they got sick,” Mills said in a press release announcing the bill signing. “We need to do much more to bring down the cost of health care in this country. But in Maine, we’re not waiting for the Federal government to act. We are taking action to protect Maine people and to make sure that illness or accident never costs someone their home or their livelihood.”

Similar proposals are still pending in Michigan (SB 702) and Ohio (HB 257), while a measure in Hawaii (SB 2165) appears to be stalled, not having moved since being referred to committee at the end of January. Bills in Colorado (HB 1267), Florida (HB 1489), Indiana (SB 85) and Washington (SB 6105), meanwhile, are either officially or effectively dead for the session, with Colorado’s having been postponed indefinitely, Florida’s having died in subcommittee and the Indiana and Washington measures having failed to advance before adjournment.

Scott Purcell, chief executive of ACA International, an association of credit and collection professionals, has argued that such measures are unnecessary.

“The wage garnishment process is already highly regulated at the federal and state level and includes many consumer protection measures,” he said, according to a report by KFF Health News.

Bridget Frazier, a spokesperson for the Colorado Hospital Association, said the day after HB 1267 was introduced that it “could drive up costs and financial risk for health care providers, making it harder to keep hospitals sustainable and ensuring Coloradans have access to care when they need it most.”

But the garnishment legislation reflects the reality that under the second Trump presidency, states “now more than ever” have taken “the lead role” in shielding residents from “crippling medical debt,” according to a trio of Georgetown University researchers who wrote earlier this year for the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that advocates for an equitable healthcare system.

“In 2026, the pressures that generate medical debt are likely to intensify as enhanced Affordable Care Act premium tax credits expire and funding for Medicaid and the marketplaces is reduced, and with the federal government retreating from earlier efforts to establish consumer protections,” they wrote. “The responsibility for protecting patients rests with states.”

Medical Debt Considered in Nearly Half of States

At least 24 states have considered bills referring to medical debt this year, according to the LexisNexis State Net legislative tracking system. Measures in 11 of those states deal with wage garnishment, two of which have been enacted.

Many Medical Debt Bills Considered This Session

In March, the Michigan Senate passed a package of five bills championed by Sens. Sarah Anthony (D) and Jonathan Lindsey (R) to combat medical debt in the Great Lakes State. All of the measures were introduced in 2025.

SB 449 and SB 450 would create state hospital financial-assistance requirements and reporting obligations. SB 451 would prohibit credit reporting agencies from including medical debt on credit reports. SB 701 and SB 702 would prohibit healthcare providers and medical debt holders from charging more than 3% interest or late fees on medical debt; prohibit the use of liens or foreclosures to collect medical debt; prohibit wage garnishment for individuals who qualify for financial assistance; and prohibit the deferral, denial or requirement of payment before providing emergency services to individuals with medical debt.

Taken together, the measures indicate that state lawmakers are still focusing on credit reports and other concerns, in addition to wage garnishment.

“The Senate passing these bills marks a significant first step in delivering real relief for our state’s medical debt crisis,” Lindsey said in a press release. “Right now, too many Michiganders are burdened by medical debt with limited opportunities to escape it. Senator Anthony has been a leader on this issue, and our partnership on these legislative packages will ensure transparency in charity care and strengthen our state’s laws on medical debt.”

Anthony added: “When medical debt can follow someone around for the rest of their life—hurting their ability to buy a home, forcing them to forgo essential expenses like food and rent, and keeping them from getting back on their feet—we know the system is broken.”

Since the beginning of the year, at least 148 bills referring to medical debt have been considered in 24 states, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. Seventeen of those bills deal with wage garnishment.

The legislative attention comes as many Americans struggle with healthcare costs. According to a summary of recent KFF polling, nearly half of U.S. adults say it’s challenging to afford medical care and about three in 10 say they or someone in their household had trouble paying for health care in the past year.

With federal medical-debt protections stalled and health care costs continuing to strain household budgets, state lawmakers appear likely to remain the primary source of new consumer safeguards. Whether those efforts center on wage garnishment, credit reporting or hospital financial-assistance requirements, the next phase of the medical-debt debate is likely to be shaped less in Washington than in state capitols.

—By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH

ME’s Data Center Ban & More

Alyzza Austriaco — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 17:06:00 GMT

ME Lawmakers Pass Data Center Ban

The Maine Legislature passed a bill (HB 207) that would make the state the first to temporarily ban the development of large data centers. The measure would impose an 18-month moratorium on new data centers that use more than 20 megawatts of power and create a council of government officials, experts and other stakeholders to come up with plans for future data center development. Gov. Janet Mills (D) said the measure would have to include an exemption for a proposed $550 million project in the town of Jay in order for her to support it. (MAINE PUBLIC RADIO, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

VA Gov Signs Data Center Bills

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) signed a pair of bills (HB 153 and SB 94) that would require data center developers and those seeking to use 100 megawatts or more of electricity to conduct a site assessment of the noise impact of their project on nearby homes and schools. She also signed a pair of measures (HB 496 and SB 553) requiring authorities that provide water to data centers to publicly disclose the facilities’ water usage. (CARDINAL NEWS, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

Ibogaine Drawing Attention from State Lawmakers and Trump & More

Alyzza Austriaco — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 17:03:00 GMT

State and Federal Funding Flowing for Ibogaine Research

President Donald Trump signed an executive order providing up to $50 million in federal funding for states to conduct research on ibogaine, a psychedelic drug that hasn’t received FDA approval for any medical use but has shown promise for treating opioid use disorder and PTSD. Several states, including Arizona, Mississippi and Texas have already approved funding for clinical trials on the drug, and ibogaine bills are also advancing in Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Tennessee. (PLURIBUS NEWS)

State AGs Pushing for Federal Drug Pricing Transparency Rules

A bipartisan group of attorneys general led by Oklahoma AG Gentner Drummond (R) is calling for new federal rules to increase prescription drug pricing transparency. The AGs want the U.S. Department of Labor to require pharmacy benefit managers to report revenue details twice a year. They also want to make sure the new rules don’t override existing state laws and that federal regulators coordinate their enforcement efforts with state attorneys general. (MCCARVILLE REPORT)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

Privacy Concerns about Smart Glasses Catch Legislators’ Eyes

Mary Anne Peck — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 13:15:00 GMT

Smart glasses, like Ray-Ban Meta frames, allow wearers to take photos and videos, listen to music and make calls without ever picking up a phone.

The technology, however, can also permit users to record others without them noticing and that has begun to worry some state legislators.

This year lawmakers in California and Louisiana have introduced legislation addressing burgeoning privacy concerns over smart glasses and other wearable devices.

California’s SB 1130, the Wearable Device Privacy Protection Act by Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes (D), would update the Golden State’s privacy laws by creating a brand-new crime: using a wearable device to capture audio or video of another person at a place of business where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy without explicit consent.

The current version of the bill would also ban anyone from disabling any light or other indicator on a wearable recording device that shows it is capturing audio or video, as well as prohibit the manufacture, sale, acquisition, and use of technology that allows the disabling of such an indicator.

“Californians have a constitutional right to privacy, and our laws must evolve as quickly as technology, to prevent harm,” Reyes said in a press release. “Secretly recording someone under the guise of prescription-style glasses—especially when many people don’t even know this technology exists—has real consequences. We have an obligation as lawmakers to put a stop to it.”

A spokesperson for Meta told WIRED magazine, “Our terms of service clearly state that users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and for using Ray-Ban Meta glasses in a safe, respectful manner.” He added that “as with any recording device, people shouldn’t use them for engaging in harmful activities like harassment, infringing on privacy rights, or capturing sensitive information.” He also pointed out that the company’s glasses have an LED recording light that makes it “unequivocally clear that content is being captured.” But WIRED noted that “the internet abounds with simple guides on how to keep recording while the light is covered.”

Louisiana’s HB 410 by Reps. Laurie Schlegel (R) and Kathy Edmonston (R) takes a different approach than California’s measure, prohibiting an in-person participant in a conversation where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy from using a portable device to record the conversation without notifying all parties involved.

The measure, which has already been passed by the House, includes a number of exceptions. For example, it would not apply to public or semi-public meetings; law enforcement or first-responder activities; recordings made to preserve evidence for civil, administrative, or criminal proceedings; recordings of public officials performing official duties in public places; and lawful recordings of police by private people who are not interfering; as well as recordings of conversations made by nonparticipants or by participants located at their own residences.

But violators of the measure’s provisions would be liable for damages, including court costs and attorneys’ fees.

An article last month in the Greater Baton Rouge Business Report said HB 410 “faces opposition from the Louisiana Press Association, which warns it could hinder journalism and newsgathering, setting up a broader debate over privacy, free speech and the limits of emerging tech.”

The proposal was reportedly introduced in response to the rise of social media posts showing women recorded without their consent. So-called “manfluencers” or content creators preaching misogynistic views secretly record their interactions with women using smart glasses, then post the videos online for others in the “manosphere” to mock.

Lawmakers’ Concerns about Smart Glasses Focus Mainly on Schools

At least 10 states considered bills this year referring to “AI glasses” or “smart glasses,” according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. Most of the measures, including one enacted in Utah (HB 42), are aimed at prohibiting the use of such glasses in schools. But Louisiana’s smart glasses bill (HB 410) and a measure in California (SB 1130) that refers to “wearable recording devices” rather than “AI glasses” or “smart glasses,” address broader privacy concerns about the devices.

Wearable Devices Pose Host of Privacy and Workplace Concerns

In addition to facilitating harassment, smart glasses and other wearable devices pose new compliance challenges for businesses.

In a December 2025 National Law Review commentary on compliance risks associated with AI smart glasses, attorney Joseph J. Lazzarotti of the firm Jackson Lewis PC wrote that facial recognition, voiceprint capture and eye tracking capabilities of some AI glasses could potentially violate biometric-privacy laws.

The commentary pointed to a 2022 class-action lawsuit in which the plaintiffs alleged that beauty brand Charlotte Tilbury violated Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act by using virtual try-on tools that captured facial geometry without proper disclosures or consent. The case was later settled, with Charlotte Tilbury denying wrongdoing. But Lazzarotti argued that similar legal theories could apply to AI glasses that process visual or audio data constituting biometric information.

There are also worries that smart glasses could be used to illegally surveil employees in the workplace, aid in corporate espionage or run afoul of workplace safety regulations.

“While these devices offer numerous benefits, they also present unique legal challenges, particularly in California, where privacy and workplace safety are paramount,” wrote employment attorney Sahara Pynes for the Fox Rothschild law firm blog. “Employers must navigate these issues carefully to ensure compliance with applicable laws and maintain a safe and respectful work environment.”

Privacy concerns don’t end there, either. Meta is facing a federal class-action lawsuit alleging that the company’s advertising of its AI Ray-Ban glasses, using messages like “designed for privacy, controlled by you,” contradicts Meta policy providing for human review of customers’ footage when they share it with Meta AI, which the plaintiffs also claim the company failed to adequately disclose.

Given that the smart glasses market only began taking off in the last few years, driven by strong demand for Ray-Ban Meta frames, it’s not surprising these issues are just beginning to surface. And as we’ve seen with the adoption of new technology in the past, legislators typically step in as soon as an innovation starts to become popular. Smart glasses may be about to do just that. Google has announced that AI glasses from its Android XR partners could be available in 2026. Samsung has also said publicly that AI glasses are part of its roadmap. And Apple is widely reported to be working on its own smart glasses, although the company hasn’t officially announced that.

—By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH

‘Junk Fee’ Ban Advancing in IL

Alyzza Austriaco — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 21:05:00 GMT

IL House Passes ‘Junk Fee’ Bill

The Illinois House passed a bill (HB 228) that would amend the state’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act to prohibit businesses from advertising, displaying or offering a price for goods or services that doesn’t include all mandatory fees and surcharges. The “junk fee” ban is similar to one the chamber passed two years ago, but vague language has been tightened up to make it easier for businesses to comply with it and easier for the attorney general’s office to enforce it. Gov. J.B. Pritzker called for lawmakers to pass the legislation in his State of the State address this year. (CAPITOL NEWS ILLINOIS)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

Anthropic’s New AI Model Too Powerful for Public Use & More

Alyzza Austriaco — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 21:01:00 GMT

Anthropic Not Releasing New AI Model to Public

The artificial intelligence company Anthropic—recently in the headlines for demanding that the Pentagon agree to certain limitations on the use of its technology—announced last week that it would not be releasing its new AI model to the public because it is too powerful. Company executives said the new model, called Claude Mythos Preview, is capable of autonomously scanning for and exploiting vulnerabilities in software programs, including all of the major operating systems and browsers. The company said it would allow a group of about 40 technology companies, including Apple and Amazon, to use the new model to find and patch security vulnerabilities in critical software. (NEW YORK TIMES)

Ballot Measures Aimed at Limiting Data Center Development

Voters in the city of Port Washington, Wisconsin, became the first in the country to approve a ballot measure to limit the construction of data centers. Similar proposals are already on the ballot in at least three other cities, and a proposed initiative is also circulating in Ohio. (PLURIBUS NEWS)

MN Lawmakers Aim to Prohibit Data Center NDAs

Fast-moving legislation in Minnesota (HF 4077/SF 4379) would prohibit local government officials from signing nondisclosure agreements for projects involving public funding. Local governments have signed contracts with major tech companies like Meta, agreeing not to share information about proposed data centers with the public. (MINNESOTA REFORMER)

ME Data Privacy Bill Remains Alive

The Maine Senate approved legislation (HB 1220 a) that would allow companies to collect and store only the data that’s necessary to provide a good or service; prohibit them from collecting biometric information unless necessary; and ban them from advertising directly to children or selling children’s data. The measure failed in the House the week before, but the Senate’s vote sends it back to the House for reconsideration. (PORTLAND PRESS HERALD, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

CT Bill Focusing on AI in Employment

Alyzza Austriaco — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 20:59:00 GMT

CT Lawmakers Target AI in Employment

A bill (SB 435) before Connecticut’s legislature would require employers to disclose to job applicants when they are communicating with artificial intelligence, when their resumes will be scanned by AI, or when AI will be involved in the hiring process at all. The measure would also require employers to inform unions before deploying AI and prohibit the use of AI that undermines an existing labor agreement. (CT INSIDER, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

Washington Joins States Limiting Employer-Mandated Worker Microchipping

Mary Anne Peck — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:38:00 GMT

On March 11, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) signed HB 2303. The law, which takes effect June 11, bars employers from requesting, requiring or coercing workers or job applicants to accept a subcutaneous microchip implant, while exempting devices used for diagnosis, monitoring, treatment or prevention of a health condition. The law also provides a private right of action, allowing employees harmed by employers that violate the law to seek injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The legislation is part of a broader state trend toward preemptive limits on employer-driven microchip implants. At least 11 other states already had laws prohibiting the mandatory microchipping of employees in place before Washington enacted HB 2303, according to LexisNexis® data. The laws in Alabama (Code of Ala. § 25-1-4) and Nevada (Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.870) make forced microchipping a felony.

“Microchips may seem like science fiction, but the technology is here,” said Washington Rep. Brianna Thomas (D), the author of HB 2303, in a press release. “The concept is pretty simple. Don’t chip me, bro!”

In all seriousness, she added, forced microchipping “creates an opportunity for employers to track employees during work hours and at home. That is scary. We recognize that the power dynamic between an employer and an employee makes true freedom of choice nearly impossible. This is a big step to help protect our employees from being microchipped by their employer.”

Legislators Remain Concerned about Employer Surveillance

In the House Bill Report for HB 2303, legislative staff wrote that the practice of implanting microchips into workers “has not yet occurred in Washington.”

But lawyer Scott Prange of the national law firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP wrote that while this forced employee microchipping isn’t happening “in any widespread way—at least not yet,” the technology not only exists but is “increasingly normalized in certain contexts.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared the VeriChip system for medical use in 2004, allowing an implanted ID number to be used to retrieve patient identity and authorized health information from a secure database.

“Outside healthcare, these implants—typically about the size of a grain of rice—can function as ID badges or enable contactless payments,” Prange wrote. “In practical terms, an RFID chip could replace access badges, unlock doors, access computer networks, enable cashless purchases, and streamline everyday workplace tasks. From an employer perspective, proponents point to potential benefits like reduced administrative costs, improved efficiency, and even the ability to track certain aspects of employee activity.”

Prange said legislators are concerned about microchipping because of “the broader implications to worker surveillance and individual autonomy.”

“Because these devices are embedded and not easily turned off (or removed), it becomes far less clear where an employee’s privacy rights begin and end—particularly for workers expected to remain connected or responsive outside traditional working hours,” he wrote.

“HB 2303 reflects the legislature’s efforts to ‘hardwire’ boundaries before that monitoring crosses from devices employees carry to the bodies they inhabit.”

Worker Microchipping Laws Enacted in Dozen States

At least 11 states have laws in effect prohibiting employers from requiring employees to be implanted with a microchip or other permanent identification marker as a condition of employment, according to LexisNexis data. Washington enacted a worker microchipping ban (HB 2303) this year that takes effect on June 11. Three other states considered bills this year dealing with worker microchipping.

Human Microchipping Remains Rare

The Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs reported in 2024 that more than 50,000 people had received microchip implants that can act as credit cards, swipe keys or allow them to instantly share social media information.

In 2017, a Wisconsin company called Three Square Market held a “chip party” where 41 of its 85 employees volunteered to be microchipped in what company leaders said was the first U.S. use of technology already used in Europe.

Microchipping has also drawn a fair amount of interest in Sweden; NPR reported in 2018 that more than 4,000 Swedes elected to implant the devices, with the company Biohax International dominating the market.

In the United States, microchipping is much more common for pets and other animals. And legislative efforts are currently focused there. As of April 10, over 40 bills mentioning some form of the word “microchip” had been introduced by state lawmakers, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. But only four of those measures concern human implantation:

Washington’s new law, HB 2303;

Minnesota SF 4881, which, like the Washington bill, would prohibit employers from requesting, requiring or coercing employees or job applicants to be microchipped and create a private right of action for violations;

Oklahoma SB 1656, a much broader bodily-autonomy bill that would establish a “right to refuse any vaccine, medication, microchip, external tracker, or other manufactured product” and prohibit public and private entities from requiring such things in order to receive “public services, admittance to an educational institution, employment, consumer goods or services, access to a place of public accommodation, or any other privilege or right;” and

Tennessee HB 1877, which would have barred government entities from requiring a microchip or other permanent ID marker in order to receive benefits or services, and barred employers from requiring microchipping as a condition of employment, with violators subject to civil penalties up to $10,000, as well as private lawsuits for actual and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The measure would also have made it a Class E felony for individuals, including certain insurance licensees and professional bondsmen, to require someone to be microchipped. But after being referred to subcommittee on February 2, the measure was withdrawn.

The other 30-plus measures deal with the microchipping of animals.

Although human microchipping remains uncommon, Washington HB 2303 fits a wider state trend of setting privacy and autonomy limits before implantable technology becomes an issue in the workplace and elsewhere.

—By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH

Approval for Bank-to-Bank Stablecoin Use in ND & More

Alyzza Austriaco — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 18:38:00 GMT

ND Regulators Approve Bank-to-Bank Stablecoin Use

North Dakota’s Industrial Commission approved the use of the state bank’s planned stablecoin, the Roughrider Coin, for bank-to-bank transactions. Ten banks have expressed interest in participating in the North Dakota Banks’ pilot program for the stablecoin, which will be tied to the value of the U.S. dollar. (NORTH DAKOTA MONITOR)

Protection from Crypto Insurance May be More Limited than Customers Realize

With cryptocurrency theft on the rise—up 22% to over $2.7 billion last year, according to researcher Chainalysis—a growing number of companies have started selling supplementary criminal insurance. But customers may not be as well protected as they think.

Signing up and paying the $4.99 to $299.99 monthly fee for one of the most popular offerings, from Coinbase Global Inc.—which the company says nearly 1 million people have done—doesn’t automatically confer protection. According to the service’s legal agreement, subscribers must also submit photo identification and register for an approved method of two-factor authentication. And some forms of theft aren’t covered, such as transactions subscribers authorize as a result of being duped by a third party or “fraudulent activities.” (INSURANCE JOURNAL)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

NY Chatbot Bill Drawing Tech Resistance

Alyzza Austriaco — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 18:35:00 GMT

Tech Group Pushing Back on NY Chatbot Bill

A tech industry group is opposing a New York bill (SB 7263) aimed at preventing chatbots from impersonating a variety of licensed professionals, including veterinarians. The Consumer Technology Association, representing over 1,200 tech companies, argues the measure would hinder chatbots from providing basic information and expose operators to frivolous lawsuits. (PLURIBUS NEWS, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

Passage of KS Bill Imposing Dispensing Fee on PBMs & More

Alyzza Austriaco — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 18:32:00 GMT

KS Lawmakers Pass PBM Bill

A bill aimed at tightening regulations on PBMs (SB 360), but which appeared unlikely to move forward this session, was inserted into another bill (SB 20) during a conference committee hearing and passed by the House and Senate. Opponents of the measure attempted to send it back to conference committee over a $10.50 dispensing fee the bill would require PBMs to pay pharmacies on all prescriptions they fill, which those critics said would raise insurance fees, ultimately costing consumers more. (KANSAS REFLECTOR, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

IA Lawmakers Pass Bill to Block Foreign Adversaries of US from Operating Hospitals

Iowa’s Legislature passed a bill that would bar China, North Korea and Russia from obtaining a license to “establish, conduct or maintain a hospital or health care facility” in the state. The bill now goes to Gov. Kim Reynolds (R). (KCCI)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

States Battle Feds over Prediction Markets

Mary Anne Peck — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 12:00:00 GMT

Who could have predicted this? Prediction markets have emerged as one of the biggest stories of 2026.

The online platforms and apps, which allow users to bet on anything from who will win the Oscar for best actor to the temperature in Los Angeles tomorrow, have grown from an obsession of the gambling industry press to an obsession of the mainstream media in short order, with countless stories about the disruptive business model coming from major outlets.

One notable example is the story that New York Times journalist Evan Gorelick wrote in late February about a post of his on X that became the subject of a wager on Tweem.

Things could get rockier as legislators and regulators battle over who has authority over this emerging form of wagering that some critics say is just a stalking horse for inserting sports betting into markets where it’s not already legal.

Critics Say Prediction Markets Are Sports Betting by Another Name

Tweem is one of a growing list of prediction markets, the most well-known being Kalshi and Polymarket. They call themselves financial exchanges where customers buy and sell event contracts—predictions on future events.

Some prediction markets are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a once-obscure federal body that has been suddenly thrust into the limelight thanks to the meteoric rise of prediction markets.

Prediction markets, as disruptors often do, have created conflicts on a variety of fronts, raising ethical questions about the appropriateness of betting on wars and fears about insider trading, in which people with direct knowledge about a future event—like what a YouTube star will say on his next video—can leverage that non-public information into easy money.

But the biggest controversy over prediction markets is their contracts for sporting events, which critics argue are indistinguishable from sports betting.

Sports betting is regulated at the state level. Regulation of some prediction markets at the federal level, however, has raised the possibility that they could offer sports-related contracts in lucrative states where sports betting hasn’t been legalized, like California and Florida.

That prospect has roiled the gambling industry, spurring major national sportsbooks like DraftKings and FanDuel to expand into prediction markets while continuing their traditional operations.

State-level gaming regulators have stepped into the fray, with the Nevada Gaming Control Board suing Kalshi to try to prevent it from operating within the Silver State and the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement attempting to enforce a cease-and-desist order against the platform. The latter dispute was featured in a June 2025 ESPN story that declared the legal fight “could shape the future of American sports betting.”

These battles are now spilling over to a statehouse near you.

Dozen States Considering Bills Dealing with Prediction Markets

Lawmakers in at least 13 states have considered bills this year referring specifically to “prediction markets,” according to the LexisNexis State Net legislative tracking system. Indiana has enacted such a measure (HB 1052).

State Lawmakers Attempt to Regulate Prediction Markets

Utah may be the state taking the most aggressive legislative stance towards prediction markets. Its Republican governor, Spencer Cox, just signed HB 243 by Rep. Joseph Elison (R), which expands the state’s already tough laws against gambling.

While the measure does not mention “prediction markets” specifically, it bans proposition or prop bets—where gamblers wager on an individual athlete’s performance in a game—by classifying such bets as gambling in terms broad enough to cover many event-based contracts.

And Cox made it very clear where he stands on the issue of prediction markets, saying in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, that they “are gambling—pure and simple.”

“They are destroying the lives of families and countless Americans, especially young men,” he wrote. “They have no place in Utah.”

Indiana enacted a bill (HB 1052) targeting prediction markets more directly. The measure, signed into law by Gov. Mike Braun (R) this month, prohibits judges from engaging in prediction market wagers related to judicial proceedings.

As of March 27, there were about 30 other bills referring specifically to prediction markets pending in 12 other states, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. They include:

Hawaii’s HB 2198 by Rep. Scot Matayoshi (D) and others, which would include prediction markets in the state’s definition of gambling;

Illinois’ HB 5059 by Rep. Edgar González, Jr. (D), which would also ban people under 21 from using prediction markets, and SB 4168 by Sen. Michael Hastings (D), which would require prediction markets operating in the Prairie State to be licensed;

Kentucky’s HB 904 by Reps. Michael Meredith (R) and Matthew Koch (R), which would prohibit horseracing tracks from contracting with prediction markets;

New Jersey’s SB 3692 by Sen. Shirley Turner (D), which would require prediction markets operating within the Garden State to obtain a sports betting license;

New York’s AB 9251, by Assemblymember Clyde Vanel (D), which would ban prediction markets from taking event contracts on sporting events, and AB 9635 by Assemblymember Phil Steck (D), which would restrict state employees from using information they acquired in their jobs to wager on prediction markets;

Virginia’s HB 271 by Del. Paul Krizek (D) and SB 609 by Sen. Louise Lucas (D), both of which would establish the Virginia Gaming Commission that, among other things, would evaluate the public-policy implications of prediction markets; and

Vermont’s HB 913 by Rep. Thomas Stevens (D), which would bar prediction markets from offering contracts on sporting events.

Federal Regulators and Industry Push Back against State Efforts

Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Mike Selig asserted in a video posted to X that despite an “onslaught of state-led litigation,” his commission had “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets.

“The CFTC has regulated these markets for over two decades,” Selig said. “They provide useful functions for society by allowing everyday Americans to hedge commercial risks, like increases in temperature and energy price spikes. They also serve as an important check on our news media and our information streams.”

He concluded his remarks with the warning: “To those who seek to challenge our authority in this space, let me be clear. We will see you in court.”

Kalshi CEO and co-founder Tarek Mansour has similarly argued that the company’s event contracts are federally regulated financial instruments.

“The CFTC is our regulator,” he said in a recent interview. “If the CFTC tells us to stop, we will absolutely stop. If they don’t, then we won’t.”

The National Conference of State Legislatures, meanwhile, has urged Congress to address unregulated sports betting through prediction markets, saying it wanted “language reaffirming existing law and ensuring that unregulated sports betting and casino‑style gambling cannot operate under the guise of ‘event contracts.’”

And Mississippi Sen. David Blount (D), chairman of the Senate Gaming Committee, said on a recent NCSL webinar that prediction market contracts on athletic events are “clearly a violation of state law.”

This fight is likely to continue for some time and could grow more contentious.

—By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH

Trump Administration’s Proposed State-Preempting National AI Policy Framework & More

Alyzza Austriaco — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 15:49:00 GMT

New White House Policy Framework Calls for Blocking State AI Laws

The Trump administration released a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence that, among other things, urges Congress to “preempt state AI laws that impose undue burdens to ensure a minimally burdensome national standard,” instead of “fifty discordant ones.”

“States should not be permitted to regulate AI development, because it is an inherently interstate phenomenon with key foreign policy and national security implications,” the policy framework stated.

The proposed national AI standard would not preempt states’ power “to enforce laws of general applicability against AI developers and users,” including those intended to prevent fraud and protect children and consumers. It also would not block state zoning laws, including those dealing with the placement of AI infrastructure.

Republican leaders of the U.S. House, including Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana and Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana, said the chamber would support the proposed framework. (NEW YORK TIMES, WHITE HOUSE)

States Focus on Privacy of Wearable Recording Devices

First-of-its-kind legislation has been introduced in California (SB 1130) and Louisiana (HB 410) addressing privacy concerns about wearable devices that record audio and video, such as smart glasses. The California measure would update the state’s existing privacy laws to make using wearable technology to record someone without their consent a crime. The Louisiana measure would prohibit anyone from using a wearable device to record an in-person conversation where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy without notifying all parties involved. (PLURIBUS NEWS, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK