While federal AI preemption remains a legislative proposal, states aren’t waiting. As of late March 2026, multiple AI bills have cleared key votes or advanced through committee in state legislatures across the country, on subjects ranging from chatbot disclosures to attorney liability to content provenance requirements.
> Legislative status as of March 27, 2026. State bill status changes rapidly; verify current status before acting on this information.
Georgia SB 540, chatbot disclosure and child safety
Georgia’s SB 540 is the furthest along. According to Georgia’s official legislative records, the bill passed the Georgia Senate on March 6 and the Georgia House of Representatives on March 25, 2026. It now awaits the governor’s signature. The bill requires chatbot disclosures and establishes child safety protections related to conversational AI services. Georgia’s passage is notable, and confirmed via the state legislature’s own records.
California, two bills, two different postures
California has two significant AI bills moving through the legislature, in different procedural positions.
California SB 574, which addresses protections for attorneys using AI tools, covering confidentiality, accuracy, and bias provisions, had previously passed the California Senate. Its current procedural status as of late March 2026 is unclear: a state legislative source previously reported Senate passage, while a separate March 27 legislative tracking report characterizes it as re-referred to committee. That discrepancy couldn’t be independently resolved from available sources. Attorneys and legal teams tracking this bill should verify its current status directly with the California Legislature.
According to a March 27 legislative tracking report, California’s SB 813, which would establish a state AI Standards and Safety Commission, was reportedly amended and re-referred to committee. That procedural status comes from a single tracking source and hasn’t been independently confirmed.
Illinois and Kansas, provenance requirements and broader AI regulation
Illinois has multiple AI bills under consideration, including the Artificial Intelligence Provenance Data Act (SB3263, confirmed via LegiScan as active in the 104th General Assembly) and reportedly a Transparency in Frontier AI Act, according to a March 27 legislative update. The second bill’s name hasn’t been independently confirmed.
Kansas HB 2594 reportedly passed both chambers by mid-March 2026, according to one legislative tracking source. That passage hasn’t been independently corroborated.
The broader trend is confirmed
Whatever the precise procedural status of individual bills, the pattern is real. IAPP’s analysis of the 2026 US state legislative session independently confirms that chatbot safety and AI transparency legislation is advancing across state legislatures in both Republican- and Democratic-led states. This isn’t a blue-state phenomenon. It’s a bipartisan legislative wave that predates and runs parallel to the White House framework.
Why it matters for compliance teams
The practical implication is layered. Organizations with multi-state operations are watching a landscape where new state-level AI obligations are materializing faster than federal guidance can clarify which ones will eventually be superseded. Georgia SB 540, if signed, would add enforceable chatbot disclosure requirements. California SB 574, if enacted in its current form, directly affects how law firms and legal departments govern their AI tool usage. Illinois’s provenance bill, if passed, would impose content-origin documentation requirements that cut across industries.
What to watch
Georgia’s governor’s decision on SB 540 is the most immediate trigger. California’s bills are in committee; their next action dates will signal whether they’re moving toward a floor vote or stalling. For Illinois and Kansas, independent confirmation of bill status and specifics would sharpen the picture considerably.
TJS synthesis
State legislative activity is accelerating into the same window that federal preemption is being proposed. That’s the tension that defines the current compliance planning environment: organizations building state-law-calibrated AI programs may be investing in infrastructure that a federal framework could partially overwrite, but that federal framework hasn’t materialized yet, and the states aren’t pausing. The most defensible posture right now is to track Georgia SB 540 closely as the first potentially enacted chatbot-specific obligation from this cycle, while maintaining a living inventory of state-law dependencies that can be mapped against any federal legislation when it arrives.