Tracker changelog

All 108 tracked laws in all 51 jurisdictions were re-read against their primary sources and confirmed in a browser, one researcher per state, with an independent check on every proposed change, so asOfDate moves to 2026-10-01. The pending-bill threshold (a bill is tracked once it passes at least one chamber) is applied for the first time: 18 pending bills that never left their house of origin, or died there, are dropped (Michigan 6, Pennsylvania 4, Illinois 2, Virginia 2, and one each in New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Tennessee). 13 laws and bills are added: ten conversational-AI entries (California AB 1064, vetoed; Maine L.D. 1727 and Utah SB 226, in force; Illinois SB 316, Massachusetts c. 93N, New York S 9408-A and A 3411-B, Pennsylvania SB 1090 and HB 2006, and Virginia SB 796, pending) and three pending comprehensive-privacy bills (Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania). Pennsylvania’s map tile moves from pending to none, because every remaining Pennsylvania entry is an AI or comprehensive bill. Federal: Senate Commerce advanced four of the five kids’ bills on 2026-08-05, not all five; the SCREEN Act needs a revote. Every AI-chatbot law now also records the strongest rule it imposes on minors' access to the AI itself (bans minors, parental consent required, blocks features for minors, off by default for minors, bans chatbot toys, age check without a block, or safeguards only), read from the enacted text, or the latest passed version for a bill, and confirmed in a browser; three laws are re-filed so the AI view is complete, with no map change.

Dataset held 108 tracked laws & bills after this change.

• Result, 28 AI laws: no enacted law bans minors from AI chatbots. Enacted rules that limit access are off-by-default settings (California SB 243 as amended by SB 1119, from 2027-07-01; New York Safe by Design, from 2027-01-01; Nebraska LB 504 as amended by LB 838), a feature block behind age assurance (Georgia SB 540, from 2027-07-01) and a chatbot-toy sale ban (California SB 867, from 2027-01-01). Colorado HB26-1263 requires an age estimate but blocks nothing. The rest add safeguards only. The stronger rules are in bills: a conditional ban in vetoed California AB 1064 (minors barred from companion chatbots that fail its safety conditions), parental consent in Pennsylvania HB 2006, feature blocks in Michigan SB 760 and New York S 9051-B, and a chatbot-toy ban in New York S 9408-A.
• Michigan: SB 760 (LEAD for Kids Act) re-filed from social media to AI companion: it is a standalone chatbot bill with no social-media provisions. Michigan's map tile is unchanged (pending).
• New York: Safe by Design Act (GBL Art. 45-B) also tagged AI companion: GBL 1540(7) keeps integrated AI companions off by default for minors. It stays filed under social media, so the map is unchanged.
• Nebraska: Age-Appropriate Online Design Code (LB 504 as amended by LB 838) also tagged AI companion: 87-1302(3)(k) lists a feature that increases usage through the illusion of talking with a human being seeking intimacy, and 87-1304(3) sets every opt-out safeguard to the most protective default, so that feature starts off for known minors. The requires text now says the defaults start switched off rather than calling them opt-out controls.
• Colorado: HB26-1263: requires now says operators estimate the age of account holders or users, as the statute reads (it said and).

First, three litigation fields (Colorado, Nebraska, Minnesota) re-read against the court dockets themselves rather than docket metadata. Second, two categorical corrections: Oklahoma, published as having no in-scope law, has had an enacted omnibus privacy act with minors’ provisions since 2026-03-20, and Louisiana’s Kids Online Protection and Anti-Grooming Act flips in_force to enacted_future because a 2026 act repealed its June 2026 effective-date section before that date arrived and set the whole act to 2027-01-01. Third, California, which moved nine days after the September sweep: on 2026-09-10 the Governor signed AB 1856, AB 1709, AB 2246, SB 867 and SB 1119, which the tracker did not know, so every California entry those bills touch is re-read from the chaptered instruments: the pending AB 1856 becomes law and is folded into the AB 1043 entry it amends, SB 243 is rewritten with SB 1119 (Adam’s Law), the CAADCA entry records AB 2246’s repeal and re-add and re-states the injunction from the Ninth Circuit’s own judgment, AB 56’s inverted duty is corrected, and AB 1709 and SB 867 are added. The tracked total moves from 107 to 109 (Oklahoma and two California laws added, the separate AB 1856 entry folded); asOfDate does not move because none of this is a 51-jurisdiction sweep. Fourth, three comprehensive entries re-read against 2026 amendments the September sweep did not know: Delaware’s HB 380 (signed 2026-09-02, effective 2027-01-01) rewrites the DPDPA minors’ rules, New Jersey’s P.L.2026, c.25 renumbered the NJDPA minors clause and added a flat ban on selling sensitive data (which includes a known child’s data), and Virginia’s c. 820 is confirmed as the geolocation sale ban the entry already carried; no status changes and the total stays 109. Fifth, four laws the tracker had missed, all enacted before the sweep and none of them new: Florida’s Fla. Stat. 501.1735, the design-code section of SB 262 that the tracked Digital Bill of Rights entry’s citation range never reached; Louisiana’s R.S. 9:2717.2 (legal representative consent for contracts with minors, in force since 2024-05-08) and R.S. 9:2717.2.1 (Act 618 of 2026, effective 2027-01-01); and New York’s GBL Article 45-A (warning labels for addictive feature platforms, effective 2027-01-01), which sits between two tracked articles. New York’s SAFE for Kids effective-date hedge is retired because the codified article now records January 25, 2027, and the Florida Attorney General’s Roblox enforcement action under 501.1735 is described from the federal docket. The tracked total ends at 113.

Dataset held 113 tracked laws & bills after this change.

• Colorado: HB24-1136 (NetChoice v. Weiser, 10th Cir. No. 25-1456): the entry said no argument date had been set. The Tenth Circuit’s argument notice, docket entry 90 filed 2026-09-10, sets in-person argument for 2026-11-16 at 9:00 a.m. Mountain Time in Denver. The entry now says so and names Attorney General Philip J. Weiser as the appellant (entry 87, his reply brief) and NetChoice as the appellee. Status stays enacted_enjoined.
• Nebraska: LB 383 (NetChoice v. Hilgers, D. Neb. 4:26-cv-03149): the entry stopped at the 2026-07-09 stay of deadlines and described the Eighth Circuit appeal as contemplated. Both sides have since filed notices of interlocutory appeal from the 2026-06-27 preliminary-injunction order: the Attorney General on 2026-07-23 (docket entry 39, Eighth Circuit No. 26-2478) and NetChoice on 2026-07-24 (entry 44, No. 26-2486); the designated record went up in No. 26-2486 on 2026-09-04 (entry 48). On the district-court record the injunction remains in effect (the 2026-07-09 order stays deadlines only); the Eighth Circuit’s public case search shows no opinion in either appeal, and whether an appellate stay order has issued is not visible from public sources. Status stays enacted_enjoined.
• Minnesota: HF 4138: the entry called the 2026 warning-label suit “the active” NetChoice v. Ellison case. There are two. No. 0:25-cv-02741 (filed 2025-06-30) challenges Minn. Stat. 325M.33(1)-(5) of the Prohibiting Social Media Manipulation Act, a section HF 4138 later amends by adding a clause (6) effective 2027-07-01; the complaint predates HF 4138 and does not name it, and no amended complaint is on the docket. Preliminary-injunction briefing in that case was scheduled by the court’s 2026-07-31 order to run from 2026-09-15 to 2026-11-05. No. 0:26-cv-02405 (filed 2026-04-29) challenges the warning-label section, 325M.335, and stays recorded on that entry. No litigation field is added to the MCDPA entry: the 2025 complaint does not challenge 325M.16. Status unchanged.
• Oklahoma: SB 546 (2026, Ch. 8; omnibus consumer data privacy, to be codified at 75A O.S. Sections 300 to 320) added as a comprehensive entry, enacted_future with effect 2027-01-01. This is a false negative that predates the 2026-09-01 sweep, not a new enactment: the Governor approved the bill on 2026-03-20 and the sweep that re-verified all 51 jurisdictions still left Oklahoma’s laws list empty. The minors’ content is COPPA-shaped, read from the enrolled act: “Child” is under 13, “personal data collected from a known child” is sensitive data, a known child’s sensitive data must be processed in accordance with COPPA, a parent or guardian may exercise the child’s rights, and COPPA verifiable parental consent for data collected online satisfies any parental consent duty; there is no teen band and no minor-specific targeted-advertising or sale ban. Enrolled Section 22 states the effective date outright (“This act shall become effective January 1, 2027”). The act has no short title, so the entry name is descriptive. Oklahoma’s rollup stays none because comprehensive laws are excluded from it; the state page leaves noindex.
• Louisiana: Kids Online Protection and Anti-Grooming Act (HB 37, Act 236 of 2025) reclassified in_force to enacted_future with effect 2027-01-01. The entry carried the 2026-06-01 date from enrolled Act 236 Section 2 and described HB 427 (Act 552 of 2026, signed 2026-05-29) as a later amendment to a law already in force. Act 552 Section 2 repeals Act 236 Section 2 “in its entirety” and Section 3 provides that “Section 1 of Act No. 236 of the 2025 Regular Session and the provisions of this Act shall become effective on January 1, 2027”; the source credit on the codified R.S. 9:2717.4 reads “Acts 2025, No. 236, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 2027; Acts 2026, No. 552, §§1,2, and 3, eff. Jan. 1, 2027”. The requires prose now describes the amended text only: minor means under 18 and not emancipated by cross-reference to R.S. 9:2717.2, the adult-connection rule is an either/or with parental visibility into connections and direct-message contacts, the connected-accounts-only visibility rule is reworded as private mode (connected users may view or respond to the minor’s posts), and the notice trigger is material harmful to minors. The entry follows the legislature’s codification, which assigns 2027-01-01 to the whole section; the enrolled texts also admit a reading under which the 2025 text was in force from 2026-06-01, and no court has construed the sequence. sourceUrl repointed from enrolled Act 236 to the codified section. Louisiana’s rollup stays in_force on Act 656.

An adversarial pass on this fix also caught a wrong constitutional citation and a mislabelled adjournment in the California prose, both inherited from the refresh, which are corrected here. No status changes and no change to the tracked total; asOfDate does not move because this is not a 51-jurisdiction sweep.

Dataset held 107 tracked laws & bills after this change.

• Massachusetts: S.3175 (addictive social media feeds): the entry said the bill had to clear the House and reach conference before 2026-07-31 to stay live in formal session. It did not. The official history still lists the 2026-07-15 referral to House Ways and Means as its latest action, so when formal business ended on 2026-07-31 under Joint Rule 12A the bill fell outside the rule’s exceptions for conference reports, appropriation bills and gubernatorial returns. Absent a rules change or suspension, its remaining path is the informal session, where any member present can object and stop a matter for that sitting. Status stays pending until the General Court dissolves on 2027-01-05.
• New York: S 9051-B (unsafe AI companion features): the “not yet delivered to the Governor” claim carried no date anchor. Re-read from the Assembly’s action list: the latest action is the 2026-06-05 return to the Senate, and the list records no delivery to the Governor. Prose now says so, explains the Senate’s sponsor-hold practice that produces late-year deliveries, and states the Governor’s clock from N.Y. Const. art. IV, sec. 7 (ten days after delivery, or thirty days after final adjournment with inaction a pocket veto), so a decision can land as late as January 2027.
• California: AB 1856 was enrolled and presented to the Governor on 2026-09-04. Two inherited errors corrected: the entry cited Cal. Const. art. IV, sec. 10(b)(1), the first-year joint-recess rule, when a bill passed before September 1 of the second year and in the Governor’s possession on or after September 1 falls under sec. 10(b)(2), whose fixed deadline is 2026-09-30 regardless of presentation date; and it called 2026-08-31 an adjournment sine die when it was the start of the final recess (sine die is 2026-11-30). The four untracked bills flagged in the September refresh (SB 1119, AB 2246, AB 1709, SB 867) cleared both houses on 2026-08-30 or 2026-08-31 and were ordered to engrossing and enrolling; AB 2246, AB 1709 and SB 867 carry enrolled dates of 2026-09-03 or 2026-09-04, SB 1119 does not yet, and none of the four histories records presentation to the Governor. The same sec. 10(b)(2) deadline will govern each once presented. A targeted check is scheduled for the day after the deadline.

All 51 jurisdictions and all 107 laws were re-verified against primary sources, so asOfDate moves for the first time since 2026-07-18; no August refresh ran, and this pass closes that 45 day gap. Three status flips: Colorado’s conversational AI act reached its effective date, New Jersey’s Kids Code Act and Illinois’ social media safety act were both signed, and Ohio is reclassified as enjoined because the Sixth Circuit reversal that would end its injunction has no mandate. No law was added or dropped, so the tracked total is unchanged.

Dataset held 107 tracked laws & bills after this change.

• Ohio: Social Media Parental Notification Act (R.C. 1349.09) reclassified in_force to enacted_enjoined. This corrects a standing classification, not a new event. The district court’s 2025-04-16 permanent injunction has never been dissolved or stayed: the Sixth Circuit reversed on 2026-06-18 and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the Attorney General, but rehearing en banc was denied 2026-08-05 and the court then granted NetChoice’s motion to stay the mandate on 2026-08-17. With no mandate, the district court has entered no judgment and the injunction still binds, so the Act cannot be enforced today. The taxonomy ends an injunction only on a reversal whose mandate has issued. Both August orders are docket entries rather than published opinions, but each is reproduced free in CourtListener’s RECAP archive for the appeal.
• Colorado: HB26-1263 (Conversational AI Service Operator Requirements, Chapter 208) flips enacted_future to in_force. Session Laws section 3 sets the effective date at 12:01 a.m. on the day after the ninety day post-adjournment period, and names the date itself: "August 12, 2026, if adjournment sine die is on May 13, 2026". Sine die was 2026-05-13, and no referendum petition stands approved for circulation on the Secretary of State’s page; the ninety day window closed 2026-08-11. The staged duties in the effectiveNote (minor-specific obligations 2027-01-01, annual AG reporting 2027-07-01) are unchanged, and the age-estimation duty is not date-gated. Colorado’s rollup is unchanged because ai_companion is excluded from it.
• New Jersey: Kids Code Act signed 2026-08-11 as P.L.2026 c.73, so pending flips to enacted_future with effect 2027-09-01 (enacted section 17: the first day of the 13th month after enactment). Entry renamed to A4015, as enacted after substitution for S3413, and its sourceUrl repointed from the introduced S3413 print, which contradicted the enacted text on both the deletion window and the effective date, to the operative A4015 R3 reprint. Two facts changed on enactment: the age-verification data deletion window is 15 days, not the 60 the introduced bill carried, and section 14 gives the injured child a private right of action, brought by a parent or the Attorney General on their behalf, worth the greater of $5,000 per violation or treble damages. The private right of action was not previously recorded.
• Illinois: HB 5511 (Children’s Online Social Media Safety Act) signed 2026-07-31 as Public Act 104-0664, so pending flips to enacted_future; the 2028-01-01 effective date was already correct. The litigation field, which still said the bill was not yet law and that the Governor had said he would sign it, is rewritten. Separately, the penalty sentence was wrong and had been since the entry was written: it described $2,500 per child for negligent and $7,500 per child for intentional violations, which is SB51’s language (and SB51 caps them at "not more than" those figures), not this Act’s. SB51 is a different Illinois bill, the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, which died in committee. Enacted section 25(g) sets a flat $50,000 for each violation with AG-exclusive enforcement, and section 25(k) bars a private right of action.
• Tennessee: The Sixth Circuit decided NetChoice v. Skrmetti on 2026-08-28 (No. 25-5660, published). The panel vacated the denial of NetChoice’s preliminary-injunction motion and remanded for reconsideration, holding the district court abused its discretion on irreparable harm; it took no position on the First Amendment merits. No injunction issued, so the Act stays in_force. The entry previously said the appeal was argued with no decision. Both signedDate values were re-checked this pass and both are correct as they stood: the Tennessee history table is action-then-date, and it records HB 1891 signed 2024-05-02 (Pub. Ch. 899 assigned 05-13) and HB 1181 signed 2023-05-11 (Pub. Ch. 408 assigned 05-24).

The South Carolina H.3431 entry described a parental-consent scheme that was amended out of the bill before enactment; the sentence is removed, the entry is renamed after the enacted Chapter 80 heading ("Age-Appropriate Code Design"; the act has no short-title clause), and its category flips social_media to aadc to match the enacted scope. asOfDate stays 2026-07-18; only SC H.3431 was re-verified.

Dataset held 107 tracked laws & bills after this change.

• South Carolina: H.3431: the requires field claimed social media companies may not permit a SC-resident minor to be an account holder without parental consent (eff. Mar 1, 2026). The enacted Act 96 contains no such provision: the original House bill’s account-holder/consent scheme was gone by the 2025-05-01 Senate version, ~9 months before enactment, and the ratified text has zero occurrences of "consent" or "March" (checked on the raw HTML). Sentence removed. The entry is renamed from the pre-amendment "Social Media Regulation Act" after the enacted Chapter 80 heading, "Age-Appropriate Code Design" (the act has no short-title clause, so the entry name appends "Act" to the heading; the old title survives only in the bill caption, which was never conformed to the substituted body), and its category flips social_media → aadc to match: all five "social media" mentions in the ratified text sit in that caption, while the operative §§ 39-80-10 through 39-80-80 regulate "covered online services" throughout. The SHASM entry’s cross-reference (which had the words in the other order, "Design Code") is conformed to the same heading. Ages (minors under 18), treble damages and personal liability for wilful/wanton violations re-verified in the ratified text. Closes issue #253.

Litigation strings for the Colorado, Virginia and South Carolina suits re-verified against the appellate dockets and each statute re-verified against its legislature page; the Nebraska Design Code source link now points at text that actually contains the LB 838 amendments. asOfDate stays 2026-07-18; only the entries below were re-verified.

Dataset held 107 tracked laws & bills after this change.

• Colorado: HB24-1136: the litigation string said merits briefing was complete; it is not. Colorado’s optional reply brief is due 2026-08-14 under a 10th Cir. clerk’s order (docket entry of 2026-07-22) stating no further extensions will be granted on the clerk’s authority. The 2025-11-06 preliminary injunction was re-verified against the order itself (D. Colo. ECF 31: Colorado "PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing Section 4"). NetChoice requested oral argument; none is set.
• Colorado: HB26-1263: signedDate corrected from 2026-05-28 to 2026-05-29. The legislature’s page shows the Governor signed 05/29/2026; 05/28 was the Speaker/President signing and transmittal. Effective date 2026-08-12 (Chapter 208, no-safety-clause default) re-verified with no referendum petition on file; status stays enacted_future until the date arrives.
• Virginia: SB 854: the 4th Cir. tentatively calendared NetChoice v. Jones for the Oct 27-30, 2026 argument session (clerk entry of 2026-07-27, its word "tentatively" preserved). Merits briefing closed with the Commonwealth’s 2026-06-12 reply. The renewed stay motion and both expedite motions were briefed through a 2026-07-09 reply with no ruling visible on the docket; two docket entries (44, 55) were not retrievable, so the string claims no ruling is shown rather than that the motions are pending. Statute re-verified via the LIS API: approved 2025-05-02, Chapter 703, effective 2026-01-01.
• South Carolina: H.3431: replaced the stale future-tense audit-report clause with neutral phrasing. Section 39-80-70(A) sets a recurring annual deadline of July first; the statute set 2026-07-01 as the first one. Dropped the "operational requirements applied from Mar. 1, 2026" clause: the enacted text of Act 96 contains no March 2026 applicability date (the parental-consent scheme carrying it was amended out before enactment; a follow-up will fix the same error in the requires field, so lastVerified deliberately stays 2026-07-18 here). PI motion in NetChoice v. Wilson remains undecided; recent docket activity is administrative only.
• Nebraska: Design Code Act: sourceUrl repointed from the LB 504 slip-law PDF, which predates the LB 838 amendments the entry describes, to the codified Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-1301 (Laws 2025, LB504; Laws 2026, LB838), whose sections carry the merged current text. The Revisor’s operative date for the LB 838 amendments is 2026-07-18, correcting the entry’s derived 2026-07-17. Closes the dead-source finding in issue #224.

Three corrections verified against primary sources: the New York rulemaking that gated the SAFE for Kids Act is finished and the Act now has a date, the Texas SCOPE Act appeal was decided, and a Missouri note asserted a statute section that does not exist. The federal watch is re-verified. Separately, every law now carries its own checked-on date, so a claim like "no suit filed" is dated per law instead of resting on one site-wide date. asOfDate deliberately stays 2026-07-18 because this pass re-verified only the entries below, not all 51 jurisdictions.

Dataset held 107 tracked laws & bills after this change.

• New York: The SAFE for Kids Act has an effective date for the first time. The Attorney General adopted the implementing rules, adding Part 700 to Title 13 NYCRR, by Notice of Adoption LAW-39-25-00001-A (Filing No. 688) published in the State Register of 2026-07-29. That closes the 2026-10-01 lapse risk this entry previously carried. Recorded as effective 2027-01-25, the date both 13 NYCRR 700.11 and the Attorney General give, with a note that the Register’s own notice says 180 days after its 2026-07-14 filing date, which computes to 2027-01-10. The 15 day gap is real and unresolved, so the entry publishes the later date and tells a compliance reader to plan for the earlier one.
• Texas: The SCOPE Act (HB 18) appeal was decided 2026-07-24. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the injunction against the monitoring-and-filtering requirement as preempted by Section 230(c)(1), and vacated the separate injunction covering targeted advertising, unlawful ads and age verification for lack of standing (the age-verification challenge is additionally foreclosed by Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton). Status stays in_force: the ruling narrows the injunction, so more of the Act is enforceable after it than before. The mandate is set for 2026-08-14, so the newly unenjoined provisions are not yet operative.
• Missouri: Corrected a false out-of-scope note. It said HB 3393’s text was enacted as Sec. 407.3475 and pointed the reader to an entry "listed above" that does not exist. The bill died in Senate General Laws: its last action was a cancelled hearing on 2026-04-27 and it never reached Truly Agreed and Finally Passed. Sec. 407.3475 is not in the Revised Statutes. Missouri correctly remains a no-in-scope-law state; only the explanation was wrong.
• Federal watch re-verified. Senate Commerce has now noticed Executive Session 24 for 2026-08-05 with KOSA (S. 1748) on the agenda, which the previous note said was unscheduled. S. 278 was miscategorized as awaiting markup; it has been on the Senate Legislative Calendar since 2025-06-30. S. 836 is held at the desk in the House, never referred to committee. The COPPA Rule compliance deadline of 2026-04-22 has passed and is now written in the past tense; the eCFR versioner shows 16 CFR Part 312 unamended since 2025-06-23.
• Every law now records its own checked-on date, shown under its primary-source link. Previously 48 laws carried hand-written "as of <date>" stamps inside their litigation prose, spread across four different dates, while roughly 25 more made undated negative claims ("None found.") that the single site-wide date silently re-asserted for laws nobody had re-checked. A negative claim is honest when it is dated and misleading when it floats. The dates moved out of the prose and into a field, so a future pass can record exactly which laws it verified rather than restamping all of them. The page now publishes the OLDEST of those dates, a claim that stays true when a pass covers only part of the map. Nothing about the underlying facts changed here, and the published date is the same 2026-07-18 it was before.

Five laws added, all read from enacted or officially transmitted instruments: Washington, Nebraska and Rhode Island enacted, one New York bill awaiting the Governor, and the tracker’s first vetoed entry in Arizona. Two existing entries corrected to age neutral. AI companion laws are context only and never color a state on the map.

Dataset held 107 tracked laws & bills after this change.

• Washington: Added the AI Companion Chatbots law (ESHB 2225, Chapter 168), signed 2026-03-24 and effective 2027-01-01. Its disclosure cadence for known minors is at least every hour of continuous interaction, the strictest of the 2026 companion statutes; Idaho, Iowa and Oregon all use three hours. Violations are per se unfair or deceptive acts under the state Consumer Protection Act.
• Nebraska: Added the Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act, sections 12 to 18 of LB 525, signed 2026-04-14 and operative 2027-07-01. The minor disclosure can be satisfied by a persistent visible disclaimer instead of the three-hour cadence, a compliance path the sibling statutes lack.
• Rhode Island: Added the Artificial Intelligence Companion Models act (Public Laws 2026 ch. 376), enacted 2026-06-22 and effective 2027-01-01. The enacted text is entirely age neutral: the emotion notice and the private right of action that commercial trackers still describe were both stripped before enactment, and the entry says so.
• New York: Added the unsafe AI companion features prohibition (S 9051-B), which passed both houses in early June and had not been delivered to the Governor as of 2026-07-25. Listed as pending until she acts. Also corrected the Artificial Intelligence Companion Models law (GBL Article 47) to age neutral: its own entry says it has no minor-specific tier, so it no longer counts in the age lens.
• Arizona: Added HB 2311, the tracker’s first vetoed entry. It passed both chambers and Governor Hobbs vetoed it 2026-06-19, writing that the bill limits damages to families, prohibits families from bringing their own lawsuits, and ties the state’s hands in bringing actions.
• Minnesota: Corrected the social media warning label law to age neutral: the statute itself has no age restriction, so it no longer counts in the age lens.
• Schema note: laws with no age line are now recorded as age neutral rather than being given an under-18 ceiling they do not contain. Age neutral laws are excluded from age lens counting, and their cards read “age neutral” instead of “not at N” when an age lens is active.

Fixes four entries that were wrong or misleading on the live page, reconciles the July 18 law count, adds the Colorado, Idaho, Iowa and Oregon conversational AI acts, and gives New York’s SAFE for Kids entry a real deadline. No status flips and no map changes: AI companion laws are shown for context and do not color a state. asOfDate stays 2026-07-18 because this pass re-verified only the entries listed below, not all 51 jurisdictions.

Dataset held 102 tracked laws & bills after this change.

• Four AI companion-chatbot laws added, in Colorado, Idaho, Iowa and Oregon. All four were read from the enacted instrument rather than a tracker table, which caught three errors: Idaho’s bill was amended on the floor, so the introduced text is not the law; Oregon’s minor break reminder is every three hours, not hourly; and Iowa’s act takes effect 2026-07-01 but does not apply until 2027-07-01, so nothing binds an operator yet. Oregon is the outlier of the group in giving individuals their own right to sue.
• Idaho: Added the Conversational AI Safety Act (S 1297, Chapter 249), effective 2027-07-01. Note the code citation is contested: Title 48 chapter 21 was already taken by the social media act in the same session, so the sections are published double-numbered as 48-2101 [48-2201].
• Iowa: Added the conversational AI service requirements (SF 2417, Iowa Acts ch. 1068). The act has no short title. It took effect 2026-07-01 but applies 2027-07-01, so it is listed as not yet effective.
• Oregon: Added the AI companions act (SB 1546, Oregon Laws 2026 ch. 85), effective 2027-01-01. It carries an express private right of action, the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation, which none of the other three do.
• Colorado: Added HB26-1263, the conversational AI operator act (Chapter 208), signed 2026-05-28. The act takes effect 2026-08-12, but only the age-estimation duty attaches then: the minor-specific duties, the AI disclosure, the suicide and self-harm protocol and the false-representation ban all start 2027-01-01, and reporting to the Attorney General starts 2027-07-01. For a kids’ product the date that matters is 2027-01-01.

No status, date, or rollup changes; both states stay enacted, not yet effective.

Dataset held 98 tracked laws & bills after this change.

• New Hampshire: HB 1460's primary source now points at the chaptered final version (Chapter 168); the RSA 507-H merged page does not yet incorporate it.
• Indiana: HEA 1408 now spells out the effective-date split: the education provisions took effect 2026-07-01, the social-media article takes effect 2027-01-01.

Tracked laws went from 110 to 98: 25 dead bills dropped after their sessions adjourned, 8 laws added here, and 5 more added the same day with the new AI companion category. asOfDate moved to 2026-07-18. This was also the tracker’s full-review baseline month, when all 51 jurisdictions were re-verified against primary sources and the dataset-invariant spec was written, so the changelog starts here and does not reconstruct earlier history.

Dataset held 98 tracked laws & bills after this change.

• Connecticut: SB 1295 minors framework flipped to in force (took effect 2026-07-01).
• Idaho: HB 542 flipped to in force; the enrolled text keeps the July 1, 2026 emergency effective date.
• Mississippi: HB 1224, the Keeping Kids Safe Online Act, flipped to in force (effective 2026-07-01).
• Nebraska: LB 383 flipped to enacted, enjoined after a split preliminary injunction (NetChoice v. Hilgers), later stayed pending the 8th Circuit appeal.
• Texas: SB 2420 effective date corrected to 2026-01-01; the field had held the Fifth Circuit stay date.
• Louisiana: HB 37 signed date corrected to 2025-06-11 per the official action history.
• 8 laws added: Minnesota's social-media warning-label law, New York's Safe by Design Act, South Carolina's SHASM Act, the minors provisions of Louisiana's and Alabama's new privacy statutes, Arkansas's Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act, plus pending bills in California (AB 1856) and Massachusetts (S.3164).
• 25 dead bills dropped across Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin after their sessions adjourned without passage.
• Every litigation string re-verified against the dockets (SCOTUS declining to vacate the Texas stay, the Ohio panel reversal that is not yet final, the consolidated 8th Circuit Arkansas appeals, and the rest).