On May 27, 2026, Connecticut enacted a comprehensive state artificial intelligence law, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5 (Public Act No. 26-15) (the “Act”), establishing several regulatory frameworks that address companion chatbots, frontier model governance, and AI use in employment decisions, among other topics. The effective dates are staggered beginning in October 2026. Key provisions of the Act are described below.
AI Companion Safeguards
Operators must implement protocols to detect and respond to user expressions of self-harm, prevent outputs that encourage harm, and avoid anthropomorphic deception. Operators of AI companions that could reasonably be mistaken for human users must clearly disclose that the user is interacting with AI. This disclosure must be either continuously visible throughout the interaction or provided at defined intervals: at the start of the first interaction during any twenty-four hour period and, during a continuous interaction, at least hourly for minors and every three hours for adults.
The Act also requires operators to implement additional safeguards for users the operator knows or has reason to believe are minors, including preventing certain types of interactions with the AI companion and providing minor users and their parents or legal guardians tools to manage the minor users’ screen time and account settings.
Frontier Model Governance
The Act defines “frontier developer” using a compute-based threshold broadly similar to California’s and covers persons who train or intend to train foundation models using computing power greater than 10^26 integer or floating-point operations. Unlike California’s law, the compute-based threshold is included in the definition of “frontier developer” rather than in a standalone definition of a “frontier model.”
The Act distinguishes between “frontier developers” and “large frontier developers,” imposing baseline whistleblower protections on all frontier developers while reserving more robust governance obligations for large frontier developers (defined as those with more than $500 million in annual gross revenue).
Specifically, all frontier developers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who report risks associated with catastrophic outcomes and must provide clear notice of employee rights under the statute. Large frontier developers must establish formal internal reporting systems by January 1, 2027, including anonymous reporting channels for covered employees, obligations to provide updates on investigations and mitigation actions, and quarterly reporting of such matters to officers and directors.
AI in Employment Decisions
The Act requires employers to disclose when employers or applicants are interacting with automated employment-related decision technologies, unless that fact would be obvious to the reasonable person. In addition, before any such technology may be used to generate any output for the purpose of making (or as a substantial factor in making) an employment-related decision concerning an employee or applicant, employers must provide the employee or applicant with a notice that lets the employee or applicant know that the employer has deployed such technology and includes information about the technology, including the technology’s name and purpose, the nature of the decision, the categories of personal data the technology will process, how such data will be assessed in reaching a decision, the sources of such data, and the employer’s contact information.
Generative AI Provenance
Covered providers (defined as any person who produces a generative AI system with more than 1 million users per month that is publicly accessible to consumers for personal use) must, where commercially and technically feasible, embed metadata or similar signals to allow users to identify AI-generated or materially altered content.
Disclosures for AI Subscriptions
Subscription-based providers are prohibited from entering into or renewing subscriptions for AI technology without first providing consumers with written notice disclosing the key terms and conditions of the subscription and receiving written notice from the consumer that such consumer has accepted the key terms and conditions of the subscription.
Regulatory Sandbox Program and Enforcement
The Act directs the Connecticut Commissioner of Economic and Community Development to develop a plan to establish an AI regulatory sandbox program to allow testing of innovative products or services on a limited basis under reduced regulatory and other legal requirements under Connecticut law.
Enforcement authority rests primarily with the Connecticut Attorney General.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron P. Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- Age Appropriate Design Code
- Age Verification
- Alabama
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)
- Attorney General
- Audit
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CalPrivacy
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership (CIPL)
- Chatbot
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Consumer Rights
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cross-Border Data Transfer
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Breach
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Minimization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Protection Officer
- Data Security
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Deceptive Trade Practices
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Defense
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- Design
- Digital Markets Act
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DORA
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Electronic Protected Health Information
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- Financial Data
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Genetic Data
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Geolocation Data
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Grok
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- HIPAA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- Iowa
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Large Language Model
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Louisiana
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Michigan
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Mobile
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- North Korea
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OCPA
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Online Behavioral Advertising
- Online Privacy
- Opt-In Consent
- Opt-Out
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Notice
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Profiling
- Protected Health Information
- Purpose Limitation
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk Assessment
- Risk-Based Approach
- ROSCA
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Salesforce
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- SECURE Data Act
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Sensitive Data
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Surveillance Pricing
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code