Yesterday, TechFreedom submitted comments in response to a “Request for information on State Laws Having Significant Adverse Effects on the National Economy or Significant Adverse Effects on Interstate Commerce” from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and National Economic Council. We address the role state attorneys general and private parties may, and should, play in enforcing state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.“

“A patchwork of inconsistent state consumer protection laws would stifle AI services,” said Berin Szóka, President of TechFreedom. “Congress recently considered a ten-year moratorium on applying any state law or regulation to AI services. Many objected that this would preempt state consumer protection laws. There is broad agreement that consumer protection laws should be technology-neutral, applying to AI no less than any other technology. We agree, but if America is to lead the world in AI services and minimize abusive litigation, it needs a unified approach to applying consumer protection law to AI. Congress should preempt the application of state laws to AI but also empower state attorneys general to enforce federal consumer protection law in a consistent and responsible manner.”

“Lawmakers have long recognized the need to do something like this on other digital issues,” Szóka continued. “From children’s privacy to spam and online shopping, Congress has declared violations of targeted federal laws to be unfair and deceptive acts and practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act, and it has empowered states to enforce those provisions through consistent processes. Here, Congress could recognize a category of violations of Section 5 regarding AI services and empower state attorneys general to bring suit in federal court in such cases. By the same token, to avoid an inconsistent patchwork of state regulation of AI services, Congress should clearly preempt states from enforcing their own, potentially divergent consumer protection laws. The 2015 discussion draft of comprehensive federal baseline privacy legislation offers an excellent starting point for creating a coherent approach to protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive acts and practices in AI services.”

“The same goes for competition law: Competition law is a key aspect of how evolving technologies are governed, including AI,” Szóka concluded. “State law, interpreted inconsistently and in tension with federal competition law, will slow technological progress and will burden interstate commerce more generally. The Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and National Economic Council should advocate for state unfair competition laws to be applied consistent with modern interpretations of the FTC Act and federal antitrust laws.”

###

Find these comments on our website, and share them on Twitter and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:

About TechFreedom: TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.

</>